Wow. You come up with one case where he may have done something in compliance with the constitution. Rest assured if his backers wanted that bill signed he would have signed it regardless of the constitution. The man has spent most of his presidency making a mockery of the constitution.
First off, I don't support Bush. In 2000 I even voted against Bush instead of voting for who wanted to vote for, though I didn't support Gore either I thought he wasn't as bad as Bush and the polls were too close for comfort to me. I was commenting on how you said Bush wasn't defending the Constitution but then gave an example of how he did support it. Even if the reason he did so was for another reason. As for those items you list, I totally agree.
some soldiers signed up for the college money, but trust me, it's not worth it. Take those extra 8-15 hrs a day you work and get a second job.
Not the only reason but one of the reasons I went into the army was to save money to go to college. In high school I knew I wanted to go to college but I couldn't afford it, and I didn't know about financial aid. As a senior there were three options I knew I had, one was not going to college, which wasn't really an option. Another was taking a job I was offered at a research lab. One of the classes I took as a senior was Marine Biology and we went on a field trip to Mote Marine Research Laboratory, and while there a couple of us were offered summer jobs and were told that if we wanted to go to college and major in a related field they would help us get in and pay tuition. The third was going into the military to save money then majoring in Computer Engineering. Being ignorant, I didn't know then that double majors were possible, and wanting to design and work with computers I chose the third option. Regrets are a waste but I now wish I had double majored, in CE and a marine science.
In Iraq, Kurdish men women and children were gassed.
Yea, and guess who supported those in Iraq who were gassing not just Kurds but also Marsh Arabs and others in Iraq as well as Iran? Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. In 1988/9 when congress was debating sanctions against Iraq, and these weren't the sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s but instead were sanctions barring military support, Bush Sr told congress sanctions would hurt US trade.
We already have laws for that, and an Amendment to the USA Constitution, unfortunately the government asked them to break the laws. Now the president wants to give them a get out of jail card.
Instead he spent time funneling money to his cronies and vetoing bipartisan child health care bills.
I find it ironic you say Bush didn't protect and defend the Constitution of the USA and at the same tyme you say he vetoed child health care bills. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says it gives the government that authority?
Another irony is that right now on CNN Dr. Sanjay Gupta is discussing national health care. In it he says a root cause of the health care crisis goes back to WWII. Back then laws barred businesses from paying employees more, there were wage control laws, but government not only allowed businesses to offer employees benefits like health insurance but gave them tax breaks as well. Because of this there is no real free market in health care. Now if government allowed employers to pay employees more without raising taxes then employees could get their own health insurance thus creating competition which would lower prices.
Japan, South Korea, and other countries have faster speeds available than *anywhere* in the US.
Do these countries really have faster speeds than the Broadband Utopia in northeastern Utah? They offer 30Mbps now and are capable of delivering 100+ Mbps.
Did you mean the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Google only returns 3 results for "Telecom Act of 1994" but more than 34,000 for "Telecom Act of 1996".
The telcos simply have not delivered what they promised for receiving deregulation and all those tax breaks.
Agreed Big tyme!!! The telecom and cable companies have been paid a lot to deliver broadband but haven't. Other than Sprint, who's rolling out fiber, I know of no other company who's really working to provide broadband. Seems to me the others only work to prevent others from offering broadband, blocking competition. Normally as a libertarian I prefer a free market, but in the case of infrastructure such as cable and telecom I lean towards what cities and communities in Northeastern Utah are doing, creating a Broadband Utopia. The local governments are building and will own the infrastructure but then they allow anyone capable to provide any service it can deliver. The system can provide cable tv, broadband internet access, and or phone service. For net access it's currently capable of 30Mbps but will be capable of up to 100Mbps. It can also handle more than 2 high-definition TV channels.
I think ISP's should start to pay/mail concept like in the old days where you had to pay for postage stamps to send your mail.
I already pay to send email, I have to pay my ISP to connect to the net which includes email. An ISP also requiring people to pay additional for email is nothing but greedy! I bet when people are required thus they will use the net less and less if not get rid of access until the ISP is losing money. After all sending and receiving email is one of the reasons people get net access.
That's in part why I'd like to see Google, or some other upstart, win a license to use part of the 700 MHz spectrum, so they can offer wireless broadband and put greedy cable and DSL providers out of business.
BTW, Falcon- I'm sad to hear that your life sucks. You write very well- not sure how difficult it is for you but your brain and writing skills seem sharper than most people's. Thanks for your insights! You too Jafafa Hots!!
It takes me significant effort to write now, if it weren't for a spell checker and the dictionaries I keep within reach my spelling would be atrocious. For longer posts I also have to take an inordinate amount of tyme to write, I may preview a post to edit it a few tymes. I suppose it could be worse, I used to love writing. Mostly poems and short stories, but when I had the accident that caused my injury I was writing some articles for magazines, gardening and herb magazines. The editor of "Southern Living" was waiting for an article on how I grew ginger. Other articles I was working on were about science studies showing how different herbs could affect memory, which because of my poor memory I find very ironic.
I find your 'chickenshitedness' admirable. Good luck to you.
Being afraid isn't all of it but it's still a big factor. Prior to the accident that caused my injury a belief in reincarnation was part part of my spiritual beliefs. While those beliefs were among the things I lost, irrationally I keep thinking that if it is true and I ended my life I would have to come back and go through it all over again. That very thought really scares me.
Another thing that worked to stop me, as some of the therapists and neurologists I saw said, was that I must of been stubborn.
What do you mean because of people like me? I'm not AGAINST it
What you say, "Leave well enough alone is usually the best motto when it comes to the noggin, unless your life and disability is too intolerable so you're willing to take any chance" leaves me to believe you are against it, trying to repair injured brains.
Get back to us when you hit 50. Me, I can stand 100 years with a wheelchair, though I'm not keen on being dependent on family. Took care of my grandmother gladly, but knowing the sacrifices I had to make for that, I wouldn't want someone to do it for me.
I'm kind of like that myself. I used to volunteer helping people with disabilities but now that I have one myself I hate needing help.
That's just one possible scenario. Another is that the patient may recover just enough cognitive ability to be able to recognize what a miserable state they're in. Wonderful for the family, Mom can now recognize them again. Horrible for Mom - instead of happily staring at the TV or eating pudding, she now knows that she soils herself several times a day and is stuck in a crappy place.
Oh, like my life. I don't recall it but my sister told me when I came out of the coma I was in I screamed at everyone to let me die. And I wish I had died.
Speaking as someone with crap memory as a result of a head injury, I wouldn't risk it.
As someone also with crappy memory due to a head injury, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI, I'd be willing to take part in a study to investigate whether something like this would help me.
fortunately most of the effects in my case were temporary, but I still have problems.
Unfortunately unless there's a breakthrough more than likely in my case it's permanent.
When tinkering with the brain, unintended consequences can be severe, and nobody seems to really give a crap about those unintended consequences except for the person who has to deal with them.
I look at it the oppose to you, because of people like you people like me are being prevented from seeing possible breakthroughs in neurology, oh and cancer treatment.
Leave well enough alone is usually the best motto when it comes to the noggin, unless your life and disability is too intolerable so you're willing to take any chance.
Not only is my life so intolerable I'd be willing to take a change, but I'd leap at such a chance. If I weren't so chickenshit I'd have ended my suffering years ago.
Okay, so what if I have a physical object which implements an algorithm? Is that patentable? Would an abacus be patentable?
Only specific implementations of an algorithm wherein there are other ways of implementing it should patentable. So long as it is non-obvious that is. Way back when it was invented I would have allowed the abacus the be patented, though I'm not sure how one can be implemented differently. And Babbage's Difference Engine as well as Intel's x86s. What I would not allow would be the general idea of a difference engine or CPU being patentable.
if I implemented an algorithm in clockwork it would be allowed
If you made a clock with a specific number of gears with specific gear ratios, that hasn't been used before, yes it should be patentable. For instance a clock with 4 gears, the ratio between gears 1 and 2 being 60:1, gears 2 and 3 also being 60:1, gears 3 and 4 having a ratio of 24:1 shouldn't be patented. However a clock with a different number of gears having different ratios may be patentable.
Under your logic, if I implemented an algorithm in clockwork it would be allowed, but if I instead used transistors, would it not?
See the paragraph above. Just substitute transistors, as well as capacitors and counters, for gears. Actually I don't have a clock, not one to hand on a wall, so I've been thinking about building an electronic clock with LEDs mounted on a circular board.
Why does the public benefit so much more from granting a monopoly to the inventor of a physical thing than a process or method?
Actually whereas patents may of benefited society before I don't know if they still do. I used to support patents however I no longer do. Now I'm not totally against patents but I think some good scientific studies need to be done as to whether patents do provide benefits or not now. As for software, software is already protected by copyright. If someone had patented a program to output "Hello World" no one else would be able to implement it, without a license.
Given that intelligent people don't usually go into construction, that's somewhat to be expected.
I disagree, while there are drones, many intelligent people can be found working in construction. Even if not however people in construction still need to be able to measure things. Thinking about this while replying reminded me of a friend I had in college, after working as a steel worker in building skyscrapers for years he started college majoring in architecture. He said once that if anyone on a construction site ever said they couldn't construct what he drew on his plans, if he tried to do it and was able to he'd fire them.
Again, the city can require anything it wants, but it won't affect private homeowners.
The first house I mentioned was a private home, my sister's.
If you forbid "software" patents, where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at software, that's where. No, that's wrong. You draw the line where you have a physical object. If it's not a physical object or one that does not work the way described then it shouldn't be patented.
It seems like you would have to eliminate any process patent whatsoever.
I don't know what you mean by "process patent", does it have anything to do with business methods, such as Amazon's "One Click" business method that was patented? If so then as I've said before business methods should not be patentable.
A machine patent claims a machine with certain specific properties.
More than just that a patent on a machine describes how someone can build or make their own machine following the patent. However the way to manufacture the item in detail may not be the only way the make one. Take some alternators from difference cars. An alternator from one car will be made by one company who may have more than one patent on the alternator, while one from another car will be made by a different company and has different patents. Each way may deserve a limited monopoly.
Now, if you want to claim the patent is obvious or has prior art, good luck forging new ground where Symantec and McAfee couldn't.
This overlooks one thing, as the SCO case has shown defending yourself against charges of patent infringement can be very expensive. McAfee and Symantec may of decided to pay for a license than fight it in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't they use the military to provide the man-power of building up that infrastructure?
I'd think it would also considerably lower the cost.
It's really what I would have envisioned our nations army to do in the first place..
That's not how it's supposed to be in the USA. The military isn't supposed to be involved in domestic matters.
FalconWow. You come up with one case where he may have done something in compliance with the constitution. Rest assured if his backers wanted that bill signed he would have signed it regardless of the constitution. The man has spent most of his presidency making a mockery of the constitution.
First off, I don't support Bush. In 2000 I even voted against Bush instead of voting for who wanted to vote for, though I didn't support Gore either I thought he wasn't as bad as Bush and the polls were too close for comfort to me. I was commenting on how you said Bush wasn't defending the Constitution but then gave an example of how he did support it. Even if the reason he did so was for another reason. As for those items you list, I totally agree.
some soldiers signed up for the college money, but trust me, it's not worth it. Take those extra 8-15 hrs a day you work and get a second job.
Not the only reason but one of the reasons I went into the army was to save money to go to college. In high school I knew I wanted to go to college but I couldn't afford it, and I didn't know about financial aid. As a senior there were three options I knew I had, one was not going to college, which wasn't really an option. Another was taking a job I was offered at a research lab. One of the classes I took as a senior was Marine Biology and we went on a field trip to Mote Marine Research Laboratory, and while there a couple of us were offered summer jobs and were told that if we wanted to go to college and major in a related field they would help us get in and pay tuition. The third was going into the military to save money then majoring in Computer Engineering. Being ignorant, I didn't know then that double majors were possible, and wanting to design and work with computers I chose the third option. Regrets are a waste but I now wish I had double majored, in CE and a marine science.
FalconIn Iraq, Kurdish men women and children were gassed.
Yea, and guess who supported those in Iraq who were gassing not just Kurds but also Marsh Arabs and others in Iraq as well as Iran? Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. In 1988/9 when congress was debating sanctions against Iraq, and these weren't the sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s but instead were sanctions barring military support, Bush Sr told congress sanctions would hurt US trade.
FalconWe already have laws for that, and an Amendment to the USA Constitution, unfortunately the government asked them to break the laws. Now the president wants to give them a get out of jail card.
FalconInstead he spent time funneling money to his cronies and vetoing bipartisan child health care bills.
I find it ironic you say Bush didn't protect and defend the Constitution of the USA and at the same tyme you say he vetoed child health care bills. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says it gives the government that authority?
Another irony is that right now on CNN Dr. Sanjay Gupta is discussing national health care. In it he says a root cause of the health care crisis goes back to WWII. Back then laws barred businesses from paying employees more, there were wage control laws, but government not only allowed businesses to offer employees benefits like health insurance but gave them tax breaks as well. Because of this there is no real free market in health care. Now if government allowed employers to pay employees more without raising taxes then employees could get their own health insurance thus creating competition which would lower prices.
Japan, South Korea, and other countries have faster speeds available than *anywhere* in the US.
Do these countries really have faster speeds than the Broadband Utopia in northeastern Utah? They offer 30Mbps now and are capable of delivering 100+ Mbps.
Did you mean the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Google only returns 3 results for "Telecom Act of 1994" but more than 34,000 for "Telecom Act of 1996".
The telcos simply have not delivered what they promised for receiving deregulation and all those tax breaks.
Agreed Big tyme!!! The telecom and cable companies have been paid a lot to deliver broadband but haven't. Other than Sprint, who's rolling out fiber, I know of no other company who's really working to provide broadband. Seems to me the others only work to prevent others from offering broadband, blocking competition. Normally as a libertarian I prefer a free market, but in the case of infrastructure such as cable and telecom I lean towards what cities and communities in Northeastern Utah are doing, creating a Broadband Utopia. The local governments are building and will own the infrastructure but then they allow anyone capable to provide any service it can deliver. The system can provide cable tv, broadband internet access, and or phone service. For net access it's currently capable of 30Mbps but will be capable of up to 100Mbps. It can also handle more than 2 high-definition TV channels.
FalconI wonder how many here are familiar with Soupy Sales.
Falcon
So it would be better for Cox to allow any old botnetted-computer to spew spam?
No, the right thing to do is to block the spam spewing computer, not everybody's computer.
FalconI think ISP's should start to pay/mail concept like in the old days where you had to pay for postage stamps to send your mail.
I already pay to send email, I have to pay my ISP to connect to the net which includes email. An ISP also requiring people to pay additional for email is nothing but greedy! I bet when people are required thus they will use the net less and less if not get rid of access until the ISP is losing money. After all sending and receiving email is one of the reasons people get net access.
That's in part why I'd like to see Google, or some other upstart, win a license to use part of the 700 MHz spectrum, so they can offer wireless broadband and put greedy cable and DSL providers out of business.
FalconMy personal motto.
My mistake then.
FalconBTW, Falcon- I'm sad to hear that your life sucks. You write very well- not sure how difficult it is for you but your brain and writing skills seem sharper than most people's. Thanks for your insights! You too Jafafa Hots!!
It takes me significant effort to write now, if it weren't for a spell checker and the dictionaries I keep within reach my spelling would be atrocious. For longer posts I also have to take an inordinate amount of tyme to write, I may preview a post to edit it a few tymes. I suppose it could be worse, I used to love writing. Mostly poems and short stories, but when I had the accident that caused my injury I was writing some articles for magazines, gardening and herb magazines. The editor of "Southern Living" was waiting for an article on how I grew ginger. Other articles I was working on were about science studies showing how different herbs could affect memory, which because of my poor memory I find very ironic.
FalconI find your 'chickenshitedness' admirable. Good luck to you.
Being afraid isn't all of it but it's still a big factor. Prior to the accident that caused my injury a belief in reincarnation was part part of my spiritual beliefs. While those beliefs were among the things I lost, irrationally I keep thinking that if it is true and I ended my life I would have to come back and go through it all over again. That very thought really scares me.
Another thing that worked to stop me, as some of the therapists and neurologists I saw said, was that I must of been stubborn.
FalconWhat do you mean because of people like me? I'm not AGAINST it
What you say, "Leave well enough alone is usually the best motto when it comes to the noggin, unless your life and disability is too intolerable so you're willing to take any chance" leaves me to believe you are against it, trying to repair injured brains.
FalconGet back to us when you hit 50. Me, I can stand 100 years with a wheelchair, though I'm not keen on being dependent on family. Took care of my grandmother gladly, but knowing the sacrifices I had to make for that, I wouldn't want someone to do it for me.
I'm kind of like that myself. I used to volunteer helping people with disabilities but now that I have one myself I hate needing help.
FalconSign me up for one, say maybe Marvin's.
So Long, and thanks for the fish.
FalconThat's just one possible scenario. Another is that the patient may recover just enough cognitive ability to be able to recognize what a miserable state they're in. Wonderful for the family, Mom can now recognize them again. Horrible for Mom - instead of happily staring at the TV or eating pudding, she now knows that she soils herself several times a day and is stuck in a crappy place.
Oh, like my life. I don't recall it but my sister told me when I came out of the coma I was in I screamed at everyone to let me die. And I wish I had died.
FalconSpeaking as someone with crap memory as a result of a head injury, I wouldn't risk it.
As someone also with crappy memory due to a head injury, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI, I'd be willing to take part in a study to investigate whether something like this would help me.
fortunately most of the effects in my case were temporary, but I still have problems.
Unfortunately unless there's a breakthrough more than likely in my case it's permanent.
When tinkering with the brain, unintended consequences can be severe, and nobody seems to really give a crap about those unintended consequences except for the person who has to deal with them.
I look at it the oppose to you, because of people like you people like me are being prevented from seeing possible breakthroughs in neurology, oh and cancer treatment.
Leave well enough alone is usually the best motto when it comes to the noggin, unless your life and disability is too intolerable so you're willing to take any chance.
Not only is my life so intolerable I'd be willing to take a change, but I'd leap at such a chance. If I weren't so chickenshit I'd have ended my suffering years ago.
FalconOkay, so what if I have a physical object which implements an algorithm? Is that patentable? Would an abacus be patentable?
Only specific implementations of an algorithm wherein there are other ways of implementing it should patentable. So long as it is non-obvious that is. Way back when it was invented I would have allowed the abacus the be patented, though I'm not sure how one can be implemented differently. And Babbage's Difference Engine as well as Intel's x86s. What I would not allow would be the general idea of a difference engine or CPU being patentable.
if I implemented an algorithm in clockwork it would be allowed
If you made a clock with a specific number of gears with specific gear ratios, that hasn't been used before, yes it should be patentable. For instance a clock with 4 gears, the ratio between gears 1 and 2 being 60:1, gears 2 and 3 also being 60:1, gears 3 and 4 having a ratio of 24:1 shouldn't be patented. However a clock with a different number of gears having different ratios may be patentable.
Under your logic, if I implemented an algorithm in clockwork it would be allowed, but if I instead used transistors, would it not?
See the paragraph above. Just substitute transistors, as well as capacitors and counters, for gears. Actually I don't have a clock, not one to hand on a wall, so I've been thinking about building an electronic clock with LEDs mounted on a circular board.
Why does the public benefit so much more from granting a monopoly to the inventor of a physical thing than a process or method?
Actually whereas patents may of benefited society before I don't know if they still do. I used to support patents however I no longer do. Now I'm not totally against patents but I think some good scientific studies need to be done as to whether patents do provide benefits or not now. As for software, software is already protected by copyright. If someone had patented a program to output "Hello World" no one else would be able to implement it, without a license.
FalconGiven that intelligent people don't usually go into construction, that's somewhat to be expected.
I disagree, while there are drones, many intelligent people can be found working in construction. Even if not however people in construction still need to be able to measure things. Thinking about this while replying reminded me of a friend I had in college, after working as a steel worker in building skyscrapers for years he started college majoring in architecture. He said once that if anyone on a construction site ever said they couldn't construct what he drew on his plans, if he tried to do it and was able to he'd fire them.
Again, the city can require anything it wants, but it won't affect private homeowners.
The first house I mentioned was a private home, my sister's.
FalconIf you forbid "software" patents, where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at software, that's where. No, that's wrong. You draw the line where you have a physical object. If it's not a physical object or one that does not work the way described then it shouldn't be patented.
It seems like you would have to eliminate any process patent whatsoever.
I don't know what you mean by "process patent", does it have anything to do with business methods, such as Amazon's "One Click" business method that was patented? If so then as I've said before business methods should not be patentable.
A machine patent claims a machine with certain specific properties.
More than just that a patent on a machine describes how someone can build or make their own machine following the patent. However the way to manufacture the item in detail may not be the only way the make one. Take some alternators from difference cars. An alternator from one car will be made by one company who may have more than one patent on the alternator, while one from another car will be made by a different company and has different patents. Each way may deserve a limited monopoly.
FalconIn reality, we should be pissed at both Microsoft and IBM; they're both subverting a process that is soposed to be for the good of the consumers.
This Microsoft shill didn't provide any evidence, do you have any?
FalconNow, if you want to claim the patent is obvious or has prior art, good luck forging new ground where Symantec and McAfee couldn't.
This overlooks one thing, as the SCO case has shown defending yourself against charges of patent infringement can be very expensive. McAfee and Symantec may of decided to pay for a license than fight it in court.
Falcon(1) seems non-obvious
Non-obvious to a non-expert.
(3) seems cheap enough that Symantec / MacAfee pay the fees.
The SCO case has shown it's cheaper to pay a fee than it is to litigate.
FalconTrend Micro have been in the business a long time, how long?
Yea Trend Micro has been in business long enough to know putting a virus scanner on a server is an obvious move.
Falcon