I believe you. People don't like reading things they disagree with. But it's not worth wading through the real flames, trolls and OVERRATED posts to discover these gems. The really well-written dissents tend to get modded up (at least I often see high-rated comments on both sides of any controversial issue -- I'm sure many are getting modded away, but some make it through and that's enough for me)
I don't know much about the 16th amendment, but couldn't this EPA stuff be handled through a fiction relating to Federal income tax? Any EPA fines are "supplementary taxes" levied on those who pollute (imposing external costs on society as a whole... partially causing the Federal government to spend more on, say Medicare).
Yes, factory owners should follow the law. And people should have a say in the law. Some of these people work in factories. Ergo, factory workers should have a say in factory processes. If you disagree, then you hate democracy.
If he were to complain about the premise of the story, at least he would be on-topic. "How is this our rights online?" comes off as a really tired attempt at first post. They misclassified the post, so what? It's their site and they can classify it as "fhqwhgads" if they want.
And petty insults are more at the level of elementary school. Either way, you have successfully sidestepped the fact that Turnitin is making money off the student's labor without any recompense. Neither the observation that term papers are non-rivalrous goods, nor a claim of necessity makes this practice either moral or lawful.
Yes, but how much did they actually make by not including the vitamin C? 7mg of ascorbic acid costs a tiny fraction of a cent. Even in high quantities of sale, I doubt they saved anywhere near what this is costing them.
Yes, I am totally smarter than nature. Nature wants me to sleep in the rain and be eaten by wild coyotes. By living in a house where the coyotes can't get me, I have effectively outsmarted nature. SMRT.
This whole thread is a little absurd, so I had to chime in somewhere. Excercise will definitely have an effect on weight loss. For example, using your numbers, say you run an hour every day. At this rate, keeping your caloric intake constant, you will lose 1.5 pounds a week. This is a pretty healthy loss rate - most doctors will tell you not to lose more than 2 pounds per week. (Aside: I don't think you are likely to actually burn 800 calories for an hours run... probably less.) Note also that exercising will increase your metabolic rate for hours afterwards. Also, there are people who have a low caloric intake but still can't seem to lose weight. For these people it would probably be dangerous to eat less -- the best option here is exercise. So it's true you don't HAVE to exercise to lose weight, but you're going to be better off if you do.
As to other comments in this thread, doctors might not really know what causes insulin resistance, but I wouldn't tempt fate by eating a bag of sugar a day. Still, I'd choose high fructose corn syrup over trans-fats.
I'm waiting for them to slap some wifi on there and let my desktop do all the map-building calculations, etc. With a nice UI, it would be a breeze to schedule cleanings, point out new furniture, and so on.
I agree with the PR comments. Americans have a certain accent bias, which was phrased not-so-delicately during a discrimination presentation I recently attended: "British = Smart, Southern = Stupid, Asian = Funny". That said, I love my Dyson. It's got flaws (after 3 years, one of the slidey things doesn't slide anymore) but it's otherwise been good to me.
You missed the end of that sentence "without permission". The service is free to try and purchase the rights to these papers if it sees economic value in having them. On another note, if I don't take money out of your wallet, how am I going to pay for my carefree lifestyle?
I doubt these students are actually the ones who would plagiarize. Nothing in copyright law prevents the service from checking their papers against others for plagiarism. But it does (or should) prevent the service from STORING copies of the papers submitted without permission. And the key here is permission. If the service wants to make money off these papers, they can BUY permission from the students. It doesn't even have to be monetary compensation: you'd be surprised how many students would let the service keep their papers for a few "points" per paper, which gets them a t-shirt with X points. The point here, is that the students are given the choice. And there is economic value in their papers, because the service is using it to sell a product. This company is not "the only possible way" to make money on papers, either. For example, the student could sell (or license) his paper to a lower classman. This may be immoral, or violate an honor code, even get the student expelled, but it is generally not illegal. And therefore it's a viable alternate source of revenue. With regard to teacher input, they are already getting paid to help the students write the papers. They have a union, and would be free to renegotiate the terms of their employment if they actually want rights to these papers. Either way, it's a separate issue.
The small companies might be less scared of avoiding infringement, but would they ever be able to afford a patent of their own? With high up-front costs, they may easily miss their window to apply while seeking capital (this already happens with the comparatively low application costs of the current system). With no protection, everyone else will be able to copy their innovation at marginal cost. This will most likely drive said small business into the ground.
I fail to see how you expect to get the "cream of the crop" to work for the USPTO without paying them "as much as an expert witness". Their witness salaries are dictated by the market for experts, as would their salary as a patent examiner. If you're willing to settle for less than "cream of the crop", I am curious how low you are willing to go. What is the talent/price tradeoff you are willing to accept, and how will you measure this talent? I assume you expect the USPTO to objectively measure their talent because you seem not to accept that their current assessments are adequate.
Everybody within 150 feet of my house can have access to the internet as well, but my house and everybody who connects through it is still only 1 subscriber.
What about everyone in your house? 1 subscriber? Does that mean that we can never attain better than 39% subscription rates (assuming 2.59 average household size). Maybe you argue that the people in your house are either dependents or help pay for access. Well, almost everyone pays taxes that support their local libraries. Of course, I was joking at first, but this isn't a terrible metric. My father went for months without home internet access, but he spends so much time at work (which has access) that he didn't really mind.
You are essentially proposing that we move the back-end costs of the system up-front. Instead of hiring all the expert witnesses only when a dispute actually arises, you want to hire them as patent examiners before there even is a dispute. I wonder if there is any evidence to suggest that this cost-shifting would result in a lower overall cost, and I personally doubt that it would.
You also seem to be overlooking the fact that patent examiners aren't generally "laymen", but people with degrees in the hard sciences.
Interesting... I do the reverse. When buying new polarized glasses, I use an lcd screen to detect defects in the glass polarization. In my experience, that's the more likely point of failure. Also, shouldn't you be able to see polarization problems in the LCD unaided? It has multiple polarization elements, so if there's a misalignment of some sort, it should be visible to the naked eye.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you. People don't like reading things they disagree with. But it's not worth wading through the real flames, trolls and OVERRATED posts to discover these gems. The really well-written dissents tend to get modded up (at least I often see high-rated comments on both sides of any controversial issue -- I'm sure many are getting modded away, but some make it through and that's enough for me)
I'm not sure executing is the same as enforcing.
I don't know much about the 16th amendment, but couldn't this EPA stuff be handled through a fiction relating to Federal income tax? Any EPA fines are "supplementary taxes" levied on those who pollute (imposing external costs on society as a whole... partially causing the Federal government to spend more on, say Medicare).
Of course poison isn't the cost of progress. Poison is the product of progress. Human lives are the cost. Yes, I'm feeling very pedantic today.
Yes, factory owners should follow the law. And people should have a say in the law. Some of these people work in factories. Ergo, factory workers should have a say in factory processes. If you disagree, then you hate democracy.
If he were to complain about the premise of the story, at least he would be on-topic. "How is this our rights online?" comes off as a really tired attempt at first post. They misclassified the post, so what? It's their site and they can classify it as "fhqwhgads" if they want.
And petty insults are more at the level of elementary school. Either way, you have successfully sidestepped the fact that Turnitin is making money off the student's labor without any recompense. Neither the observation that term papers are non-rivalrous goods, nor a claim of necessity makes this practice either moral or lawful.
Yes, but how much did they actually make by not including the vitamin C? 7mg of ascorbic acid costs a tiny fraction of a cent. Even in high quantities of sale, I doubt they saved anywhere near what this is costing them.
There may be no mountains or dew in Mountain Dew
There is, however, orange juice. I remember the moment I saw this on the can as a kid. It totally ruined the drink for me.
Yes, I am totally smarter than nature. Nature wants me to sleep in the rain and be eaten by wild coyotes. By living in a house where the coyotes can't get me, I have effectively outsmarted nature. SMRT.
This whole thread is a little absurd, so I had to chime in somewhere. Excercise will definitely have an effect on weight loss. For example, using your numbers, say you run an hour every day. At this rate, keeping your caloric intake constant, you will lose 1.5 pounds a week. This is a pretty healthy loss rate - most doctors will tell you not to lose more than 2 pounds per week. (Aside: I don't think you are likely to actually burn 800 calories for an hours run... probably less.) Note also that exercising will increase your metabolic rate for hours afterwards. Also, there are people who have a low caloric intake but still can't seem to lose weight. For these people it would probably be dangerous to eat less -- the best option here is exercise. So it's true you don't HAVE to exercise to lose weight, but you're going to be better off if you do.
As to other comments in this thread, doctors might not really know what causes insulin resistance, but I wouldn't tempt fate by eating a bag of sugar a day. Still, I'd choose high fructose corn syrup over trans-fats.
http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/devel opment/
ahh... whoosh :(
Why does everyone around here thing a good word for "answer" is "hint"
I'm waiting for them to slap some wifi on there and let my desktop do all the map-building calculations, etc. With a nice UI, it would be a breeze to schedule cleanings, point out new furniture, and so on.
I agree with the PR comments. Americans have a certain accent bias, which was phrased not-so-delicately during a discrimination presentation I recently attended: "British = Smart, Southern = Stupid, Asian = Funny". That said, I love my Dyson. It's got flaws (after 3 years, one of the slidey things doesn't slide anymore) but it's otherwise been good to me.
You missed the end of that sentence "without permission". The service is free to try and purchase the rights to these papers if it sees economic value in having them. On another note, if I don't take money out of your wallet, how am I going to pay for my carefree lifestyle?
I doubt these students are actually the ones who would plagiarize. Nothing in copyright law prevents the service from checking their papers against others for plagiarism. But it does (or should) prevent the service from STORING copies of the papers submitted without permission. And the key here is permission. If the service wants to make money off these papers, they can BUY permission from the students. It doesn't even have to be monetary compensation: you'd be surprised how many students would let the service keep their papers for a few "points" per paper, which gets them a t-shirt with X points. The point here, is that the students are given the choice. And there is economic value in their papers, because the service is using it to sell a product. This company is not "the only possible way" to make money on papers, either. For example, the student could sell (or license) his paper to a lower classman. This may be immoral, or violate an honor code, even get the student expelled, but it is generally not illegal. And therefore it's a viable alternate source of revenue. With regard to teacher input, they are already getting paid to help the students write the papers. They have a union, and would be free to renegotiate the terms of their employment if they actually want rights to these papers. Either way, it's a separate issue.
The small companies might be less scared of avoiding infringement, but would they ever be able to afford a patent of their own? With high up-front costs, they may easily miss their window to apply while seeking capital (this already happens with the comparatively low application costs of the current system). With no protection, everyone else will be able to copy their innovation at marginal cost. This will most likely drive said small business into the ground.
I fail to see how you expect to get the "cream of the crop" to work for the USPTO without paying them "as much as an expert witness". Their witness salaries are dictated by the market for experts, as would their salary as a patent examiner. If you're willing to settle for less than "cream of the crop", I am curious how low you are willing to go. What is the talent/price tradeoff you are willing to accept, and how will you measure this talent? I assume you expect the USPTO to objectively measure their talent because you seem not to accept that their current assessments are adequate.
Everybody within 150 feet of my house can have access to the internet as well, but my house and everybody who connects through it is still only 1 subscriber.
What about everyone in your house? 1 subscriber? Does that mean that we can never attain better than 39% subscription rates (assuming 2.59 average household size). Maybe you argue that the people in your house are either dependents or help pay for access. Well, almost everyone pays taxes that support their local libraries. Of course, I was joking at first, but this isn't a terrible metric. My father went for months without home internet access, but he spends so much time at work (which has access) that he didn't really mind.
You are essentially proposing that we move the back-end costs of the system up-front. Instead of hiring all the expert witnesses only when a dispute actually arises, you want to hire them as patent examiners before there even is a dispute. I wonder if there is any evidence to suggest that this cost-shifting would result in a lower overall cost, and I personally doubt that it would.
You also seem to be overlooking the fact that patent examiners aren't generally "laymen", but people with degrees in the hard sciences.
Interesting... I do the reverse. When buying new polarized glasses, I use an lcd screen to detect defects in the glass polarization. In my experience, that's the more likely point of failure. Also, shouldn't you be able to see polarization problems in the LCD unaided? It has multiple polarization elements, so if there's a misalignment of some sort, it should be visible to the naked eye.
Everyone in NYC has broadband access through the library. Penetration: 105%