And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of their asses?
1) I don't have precise numbers, but the percentage of Germans with driver's licences should be around 100%. I know _no one_ older than 18 who does not have one.
2) Our public transport might be good; Japan's is better. In any case, most people in Germany go by car.
You are modded funny, but there is a grain of truth in there. We _need_ to be better drivers so we become better drivers all by ourselves.
This is painfully obvious every time the Netherlands have national holidays and they abuse us as their toll-free circumvention of France. Aggression rates across Germany soar.
Q: What happens to drivers in the Netherlands if they take more than three tries to get their licence? A: They are forced to drive around with yellow licence plates as a warning to others.
In my scuba class, we learned that any place in Germany will be reached in 20 minutes or less and that we should plan emergency procedures accordingly. My personal experience confirms this.
Obviously, mountain-tops, gorges etc can be different though there is a system of interwoven helicopter access patterns with appropriate bases (hospitals, mostly) all across Germany.
> Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed.
The legal speed limit in Germany is infinity. If the car can go fast enough and there is no limit, there is no limit. Though speed traps fail to work properly north of 350 km/h so the government is said to keep special tabs on those few. The curvature of our highways is designed for the common case, 130 km/h, not the extremes. If you think about it for a second, this is the only thing that makes sense, anyway.
> Even for roads like the Autobahn, when you do have a wreck, it tends to be pretty spectacular and much worse than the ones we typically get in the US.
1) We have less accidents than pretty much everybody else. Partially because we are forced to be able to drive on a higher level. Also, our mandated, regular technical check-ups are brutal by most standards.
2) When we have accidents, they tend to be at less than the maximum speed. In fact, most accidents happen in the cities, i.e. between 30 and 60 km/h, mostly 50 km/h though.
3) Our mortality rate is excellent. Cue in brutal safety standards for cars & roads.
Finally, yes, if an accident happens at 250 km/h, it will not be as pretty as if exactly the same accident had happened at 100 km/h.
But pure speed is _not_ dangerous. It's the banging against each other bit. If you go 60 mph and I come at you with 60 mph, we have a combined relative speed of 120 mph. Yet, we can pass each other safely.
> It was a shameless abuse of/b/ as his personal army, but it succeeded because it was relatively novel and interesting.
Interesting. The angle that someone trying to replicate the results would end up with _very_ different results makes sense and is somewhat unsettling, especially as that negative reaction could be abused. 4chan's equivalent of bounce spam, so to speak.
> I live in Italy and if it wasn't for people like you I'd probably speak German or Russian now, and concepts like individuality, freedom of speech, personal rights might be alien or completely twisted in my mind/society.
While I agree with what you say, it seems odd that someone from Berlousconi-land would _speculate_ about how "concepts like freedom of speech, personal rights might be alien or completely twisted in my society."
Note that I removed "individuality" and "my mind" from the above. I know several Italians who are very nice people. But a country that elects the likes of Berlousconi has deeply rooted problems.
> It make it easy for other people to do a full check by just looking up the number that's stamped on the side of the product.
That's the thing. It does nothing of the sort. I still need to do a _full_ check as there is no guarantee that this list is exhaustive. I gain _nothing_ from this list while the manufacturer gains a chilling effect. Thus, both the time limit and the extra work in removing the stale numbers is more than justified.
Yah, that is not how the law governing this issue works.
But even if it were: What advantage does it give you to print the numbers when everyone else needs to do a full check anyway? Other than a chilling effect, that is.
No one is forcing companies to print patent numbers on manufactured goods. Companies do so because they see an advantage in doing so. If this costs extra in the long run, it is their problem and theirs alone.
> In that respect, the lawsuits aren't just parasitic, they're actually anti-beneficial. The lawsuits encourage companies to delink the documentation on how to make their products from the products themselves.
That's not quite true. You have no guarantee that by oversight, maliciousness or changed circumstances, the list of patents is exhaustive. You still need to do all the checking by yourself. I see printed patent numbers as a chilling effect, nothing more, nothing less.
There was no design, they simply took existing organisms and relocated them. Who tells you nature might not have achieved the same in a thousand years? Who tells you natives did not cut down all wood for boats before Darwin came along (I seem to remember some research in that area)?
And above all: What metrics are you using when you speak of "improve"? Improve for human life? Sure, but then every garden, every park and every agricultural area is proof for Intelligent Design.
So, it's not too expensive to put the number on the device, but it's too expensive to remove it? Tough luck, soldier. But that's the way the world works. Especially since it's your choice to put the patent number on there in the first place.
> Nobody cares about a company's lying if it causes no actual harm.
I do.
Also, where is your detailed analysis of the claim above, supported by extensive studies? Oh, you are arguing with your beliefs, same as we do. The difference is that we use proper arguments, not the old & trivial kill-all ruse of "you have no factual basis" without any proof to support it.
> It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
It _is_ beneficial.
They are claiming to have a government-granted monopoly which they do not have (any more). The end result is a chilling effect on potential market participants (who would inform themselves properly in a perfect world, but hey).
The fines should obviously be capped at reasonable levels, but even though these lawyers are sucking up money they did not generate, this practice is A Good Thing.
To be fair, the general circumstances on Earth seem to better than on Mars. That being said, while I do not expect anything to really happen on Mars while I live, it will be do-able at some point, somehow. Unless we mess up and destroy civilization, that is:)
Slashdot Mirror
And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of their asses?
1) I don't have precise numbers, but the percentage of Germans with driver's licences should be around 100%. I know _no one_ older than 18 who does not have one.
2) Our public transport might be good; Japan's is better. In any case, most people in Germany go by car.
You are modded funny, but there is a grain of truth in there. We _need_ to be better drivers so we become better drivers all by ourselves.
This is painfully obvious every time the Netherlands have national holidays and they abuse us as their toll-free circumvention of France. Aggression rates across Germany soar.
Q: What happens to drivers in the Netherlands if they take more than three tries to get their licence?
A: They are forced to drive around with yellow licence plates as a warning to others.
In my scuba class, we learned that any place in Germany will be reached in 20 minutes or less and that we should plan emergency procedures accordingly. My personal experience confirms this.
Obviously, mountain-tops, gorges etc can be different though there is a system of interwoven helicopter access patterns with appropriate bases (hospitals, mostly) all across Germany.
> that we might not have fast enough reflexes
I think you mean most people are not used to needing to be quick. This makes them slow.
Without pulling a Darwin on you, let me just quote this: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33483756 and this: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33487962
A German posting here.
> Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed.
The legal speed limit in Germany is infinity. If the car can go fast enough and there is no limit, there is no limit. Though speed traps fail to work properly north of 350 km/h so the government is said to keep special tabs on those few.
The curvature of our highways is designed for the common case, 130 km/h, not the extremes.
If you think about it for a second, this is the only thing that makes sense, anyway.
> Even for roads like the Autobahn, when you do have a wreck, it tends to be pretty spectacular and much worse than the ones we typically get in the US.
1) We have less accidents than pretty much everybody else. Partially because we are forced to be able to drive on a higher level. Also, our mandated, regular technical check-ups are brutal by most standards.
2) When we have accidents, they tend to be at less than the maximum speed. In fact, most accidents happen in the cities, i.e. between 30 and 60 km/h, mostly 50 km/h though.
3) Our mortality rate is excellent. Cue in brutal safety standards for cars & roads.
Finally, yes, if an accident happens at 250 km/h, it will not be as pretty as if exactly the same accident had happened at 100 km/h.
But pure speed is _not_ dangerous. It's the banging against each other bit. If you go 60 mph and I come at you with 60 mph, we have a combined relative speed of 120 mph. Yet, we can pass each other safely.
Do they have actual accounts? I have to admit that I am not all that familiar with the various chans, but I thought it was all anonymous?
Correct.
The problem here is that someone might abuse exactly this mechanism to create a backlash with a fake request.
> It was a shameless abuse of /b/ as his personal army, but it succeeded because it was relatively novel and interesting.
Interesting. The angle that someone trying to replicate the results would end up with _very_ different results makes sense and is somewhat unsettling, especially as that negative reaction could be abused. 4chan's equivalent of bounce spam, so to speak.
> I live in Italy and if it wasn't for people like you I'd probably speak German or Russian now, and concepts like individuality, freedom of speech, personal rights might be alien or completely twisted in my mind/society.
While I agree with what you say, it seems odd that someone from Berlousconi-land would _speculate_ about how "concepts like freedom of speech, personal rights might be alien or completely twisted in my society."
Note that I removed "individuality" and "my mind" from the above. I know several Italians who are very nice people. But a country that elects the likes of Berlousconi has deeply rooted problems.
> It make it easy for other people to do a full check by just looking up the number that's stamped on the side of the product.
That's the thing. It does nothing of the sort. I still need to do a _full_ check as there is no guarantee that this list is exhaustive. I gain _nothing_ from this list while the manufacturer gains a chilling effect. Thus, both the time limit and the extra work in removing the stale numbers is more than justified.
Yah, that is not how the law governing this issue works.
But even if it were: What advantage does it give you to print the numbers when everyone else needs to do a full check anyway? Other than a chilling effect, that is.
No one is forcing companies to print patent numbers on manufactured goods. Companies do so because they see an advantage in doing so. If this costs extra in the long run, it is their problem and theirs alone.
> In that respect, the lawsuits aren't just parasitic, they're actually anti-beneficial. The lawsuits encourage companies to delink the documentation on how to make their products from the products themselves.
That's not quite true. You have no guarantee that by oversight, maliciousness or changed circumstances, the list of patents is exhaustive. You still need to do all the checking by yourself. I see printed patent numbers as a chilling effect, nothing more, nothing less.
> Also, from the summary:"it's against the law to sell a product that's marked with an expired patent number."
RTFL (l as law) would clear that up, but I am too lazy, too.
There was no design, they simply took existing organisms and relocated them. Who tells you nature might not have achieved the same in a thousand years? Who tells you natives did not cut down all wood for boats before Darwin came along (I seem to remember some research in that area)?
And above all: What metrics are you using when you speak of "improve"? Improve for human life? Sure, but then every garden, every park and every agricultural area is proof for Intelligent Design.
So, it's not too expensive to put the number on the device, but it's too expensive to remove it? Tough luck, soldier. But that's the way the world works. Especially since it's your choice to put the patent number on there in the first place.
It _can_ be terraformed to better facilitate supporting human life in sealed enclosures. It can _not_ be terraformed to be a second Earth.
> Don't why the gov't has to split the money with random third parties, though, that's just asking for abuse.
"Abuse" as in "making sure laws are followed because no one else ever cared to do so"? I do agree that there should be reasonable caps, though.
What stops you from printing the expiry information onto the device as well as the actual number?
> Nobody cares about a company's lying if it causes no actual harm.
I do.
Also, where is your detailed analysis of the claim above, supported by extensive studies? Oh, you are arguing with your beliefs, same as we do. The difference is that we use proper arguments, not the old & trivial kill-all ruse of "you have no factual basis" without any proof to support it.
So because people need to double-check anyway it's OK to make factually wrong claims that are prohibited by law?
Thanks, you spared me having to write pretty much the same thing for the third time in this thread :)
Put an expiry date on the patent. Oh wait, that would actually benefit customers, modders and the other companies trying to get a foot it.
So we end up with a net benefit for society at large.
> It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
It _is_ beneficial.
They are claiming to have a government-granted monopoly which they do not have (any more). The end result is a chilling effect on potential market participants (who would inform themselves properly in a perfect world, but hey).
The fines should obviously be capped at reasonable levels, but even though these lawyers are sucking up money they did not generate, this practice is A Good Thing.
To be fair, the general circumstances on Earth seem to better than on Mars. That being said, while I do not expect anything to really happen on Mars while I live, it will be do-able at some point, somehow. Unless we mess up and destroy civilization, that is :)