Ok, let's say I'm a real estate agent who spends all day driving potential customers around in my Mercedes. Then Ford wins a patent infringement suit against Mercedes for some gear cog or whatnot. Am I infringing on Ford's patent? Am I liable?
It would seem that the President of the United States posts to Slashdot. His comment above mimics those reported in Ron Suskind's NT Times Magazine article "Without A Doubt":
"In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored 'road map' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
'I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,' Bush said. 'They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.'
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: 'Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. 'No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.'
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. 'You were right,' he said, with bonhomie. 'Sweden does have an army.'"
You might want to try selling print copies yourself on www.lulu.com. They have a print-on-demand service that works pretty well. (I've used it, but I am not affiliated with them in any way.) You can make your work available electronically, or in print, or both, and you can set the amount of royalty you want to charge. Lulu adds a 20% commission, plus a base cost that's a function of page count. You can design your own cover and upload that too.
How can anyone benefit from something for 70 years after their death?
Here's how. I create a cartoon character, or a movie, or write a book. I want to get rich by selling all rights to Disney. I think I can secure a higher price from Disney if they knew the copyright would last them another, oh, 120 years or so.
Are ratings even meaningful anymore? I watch more advertisements when I tape a show than when I'm not taping a show. When I tape a show, I have to watch the commercial while fast-forwarding through them in order to know when to start playing again. When not taping, commercials are the time I go take a leak, or mute the sound so that I can talk to my wife.
This means that Sci fi fans are competing on which show they will watch, as opposed to being able to easily watch *both*
If only someone would come up with a way to watch one of the shows while it was being broadcast, but watch the other show later. Some way of "capturing", if you will, the video signal as it travels through the air or down the wire. Oh well...
1) It's possible to be compliant with both sets of laws you mention. Since the laws are not mutually exclusive (you just *think* they are), compliance with both is what is required of a US citizen. One can be compliant with both the federal law (which permits assisted suicide) and the state law (which allows it), by simply not engaging in it.
2) That existing federal law is also the result of a representative legislative process, but from a body representing a larger poulation. A majority of a smaller population is trumped by the majority of the larger population. Or do you believe. Or do you believe that a majority of the people who live on your street can decide whether or not they need to pay taxes?
Re-read my other reply in this subthread. I was making a general statement, and not suggesting that there are never exceptions. My only point from the start was that laws should, in general, be obeyed in this country, not because they codify morality, but that they are the result of a democratic process to which we all agree, implicitly, to be a party to.
I think you missed the point of my post. The grandparent was suggesting that people shouldn't smoke marijuana because it's illegal. The parent responded by saying that just because it's illegal, it isn't necessarily immoral. And my response was that the morality of the thing being legislated isn't the only reason, or even the best reason, to obey laws. Rather, a better reason for obeying laws, and in my opinion the best reason, is that they are created by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Note that I was asserting a reason *FOR* obeying laws. I never suggested that there were no legitimate reasons for DISobeying laws (e.g. Rosa Parks).
He didn't say it was. There are reasons for obeying the law that are far better than the mere assumption that they codify morality (though, in fact, they sometimes do). The most important reason, in societies like ours, is that there is a social compact that is binding on those that live in a democracy/republic. That compact requires us to submit to the will of the majority (of the people or of its representatives). Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the majority would require you to do something evil, but that isn't applicable to the case at hand.
In other words, if you don't like the rules, leave.
he wasn't really using faulty reasoning because he wasn't trying to make any firm conclusion.
Sure he was. He made a direct comparison between two ratios for which a direct comparison is meaningless. My follow-up post made it clear why such a comparison is meaningless. And from that comparison he draws the implied conclusion that Americans ought to be ashamed.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of his comments.
something that you know is obviously not his point.
He said it, not me. It's not my fault if he can't intelligenntly make the point he wants to make, and instead uses non-sequiturs (e.g. we're not helping enough because dollars-per-killed in the mid-east exceeds dollars-per-aided in Asia.)
The point is that the US gov seems to be more willing to spend money on war than saving lives.
I'm well aware of the point he *wanted* to make. My point is that he did a poor job of making it by using faulty reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
From parent sig:
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." - Ronald Reagan
Yes, it's amazing what a reputation for wisdom Reagan was able to accomplish by not caring whom he stole the credit from.
Thanks for realizing that. Perhaps some kindly mods will make the same observation and undo the blow to my karma.
And you're infringing on my patent: "Method of obtaining first 'Score:5' post in a discussion on patents by making a meta-patent joke".
See you in court.
Re:I THOUGHT TO I UP THE FUCK SHUT YOU TOLD
Remember kids, Jolt Cola and HP calculators simply DO NOT mix!! Just say no.
I doubt that anyone with an IQ low enough to think this is real would know how to turn on their PC.
You'd be surprised how easy it is, apparently, to turn on a PC.
His house was set on fire.
He was charged with and arrested for arson.
And then the charges were dismissed.
What part of this story is "happy"?
What part of the word "ending" don't you understand, O Great Four-digited One?
Ok, let's say I'm a real estate agent who spends all day driving potential customers around in my Mercedes. Then Ford wins a patent infringement suit against Mercedes for some gear cog or whatnot. Am I infringing on Ford's patent? Am I liable?
It would seem that the President of the United States posts to Slashdot. His comment above mimics those reported in Ron Suskind's NT Times Magazine article "Without A Doubt":
Thanks. I did not know that. Well, at least it allows you to leave a little something to your kids.
You might want to try selling print copies yourself on www.lulu.com. They have a print-on-demand service that works pretty well. (I've used it, but I am not affiliated with them in any way.) You can make your work available electronically, or in print, or both, and you can set the amount of royalty you want to charge. Lulu adds a 20% commission, plus a base cost that's a function of page count. You can design your own cover and upload that too.
How can anyone benefit from something for 70 years after their death?
Here's how. I create a cartoon character, or a movie, or write a book. I want to get rich by selling all rights to Disney. I think I can secure a higher price from Disney if they knew the copyright would last them another, oh, 120 years or so.
First off, IAAAP
"I am an armchair physicist"???
. ({your age}/2)+7= min age to be with someone.
Damn straight. I remember when I was six, I wouldn't even *look* at a girl under 10.
Are ratings even meaningful anymore? I watch more advertisements when I tape a show than when I'm not taping a show. When I tape a show, I have to watch the commercial while fast-forwarding through them in order to know when to start playing again. When not taping, commercials are the time I go take a leak, or mute the sound so that I can talk to my wife.
This means that Sci fi fans are competing on which show they will watch, as opposed to being able to easily watch *both*
If only someone would come up with a way to watch one of the shows while it was being broadcast, but watch the other show later. Some way of "capturing", if you will, the video signal as it travels through the air or down the wire. Oh well...
federal law (which permits assisted suicide)
Sorry, I means "prohibits", not "permits".
Bad example, for two reasons:
1) It's possible to be compliant with both sets of laws you mention. Since the laws are not mutually exclusive (you just *think* they are), compliance with both is what is required of a US citizen. One can be compliant with both the federal law (which permits assisted suicide) and the state law (which allows it), by simply not engaging in it.
2) That existing federal law is also the result of a representative legislative process, but from a body representing a larger poulation. A majority of a smaller population is trumped by the majority of the larger population. Or do you believe. Or do you believe that a majority of the people who live on your street can decide whether or not they need to pay taxes?
You forgot the demos in your discusion of democracy, if you don't like the rules, change them.
Point taken. My one line summary in the second paragraph was a little over-simplified. My main point was in the first paragraph.
Re-read my other reply in this subthread. I was making a general statement, and not suggesting that there are never exceptions. My only point from the start was that laws should, in general, be obeyed in this country, not because they codify morality, but that they are the result of a democratic process to which we all agree, implicitly, to be a party to.
I think you missed the point of my post. The grandparent was suggesting that people shouldn't smoke marijuana because it's illegal. The parent responded by saying that just because it's illegal, it isn't necessarily immoral. And my response was that the morality of the thing being legislated isn't the only reason, or even the best reason, to obey laws. Rather, a better reason for obeying laws, and in my opinion the best reason, is that they are created by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Note that I was asserting a reason *FOR* obeying laws. I never suggested that there were no legitimate reasons for DISobeying laws (e.g. Rosa Parks).
Legality is not morality.
He didn't say it was. There are reasons for obeying the law that are far better than the mere assumption that they codify morality (though, in fact, they sometimes do). The most important reason, in societies like ours, is that there is a social compact that is binding on those that live in a democracy/republic. That compact requires us to submit to the will of the majority (of the people or of its representatives). Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the majority would require you to do something evil, but that isn't applicable to the case at hand.
In other words, if you don't like the rules, leave.
You can, in fact, use any amount of power you want. That is, as long as you don't excced [blah blah blah...] that translates to roughly 10 to 20 mw.
Hey Dad, is that you?
For instance I refuse to work for the DOD or a company that is contracted by them.
But you don't seem to mind living in a country where your tax dollars support them, or where you are protected by them.
While his calculations were a bit off,
No, his calculations were accurate.
he wasn't really using faulty reasoning because he wasn't trying to make any firm conclusion.
Sure he was. He made a direct comparison between two ratios for which a direct comparison is meaningless. My follow-up post made it clear why such a comparison is meaningless. And from that comparison he draws the implied conclusion that Americans ought to be ashamed.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of his comments.
What a complete idiot you are.
(Score:-1, Ad hominem)
You obviously feel ashamed or something
Neither obvious, nor true.
something that you know is obviously not his point.
He said it, not me. It's not my fault if he can't intelligenntly make the point he wants to make, and instead uses non-sequiturs (e.g. we're not helping enough because dollars-per-killed in the mid-east exceeds dollars-per-aided in Asia.)
The point is that the US gov seems to be more willing to spend money on war than saving lives.
I'm well aware of the point he *wanted* to make. My point is that he did a poor job of making it by using faulty reasoning.