yes, politicians have functioning brain cells, but they are distracted by the pain from sitting with one cheek elevated above the other by a wad of cash.
"I'm also expecting a push from the US to "simplify" world patents a few years after that by "consolidating" the patent databases."
We have a patent database? I sure wish someone would let the examiners in on that nugget!:)
I'm not going to disagree with what you've said but I am curious about something.
How often do medical insurers settle claims as oppose to going to court? I'm asking because I'm wondering if part of the problem might be due to insurance companies settling bogus claims (because it's cheaper than fighting them in court) and then jacking up the insurance rates for the doctor.
Aside from that, I'm skeptical of jackpot justice in general and wonder if matters would be helped by the US adopting either a "loser pays" system or some time of proceedings similar to a grand jury for civil cases.
"You can't use that term in context unless you know what it means."
this statement makes no sense on it's face..."acceptable risk" is a subjective term, naturally the acceptability of the risk is dependant on whose making the judgement, your attempt to use the term "context" as a trump card is worthless...
"Acceptable risk - a stray shot killing a civillian is not what I would call acceptable risk if it was my father / mother / sister / etc... I'd be instantly converted to a prospective suicide bomber."
ahh, so someone in the military making the call that a stray shot killing a civilian is not acceptable but becomming a suicide bomber and killing several civillians and/or actively targeting civilians is acceptable?... yeah, your real fucking righteous there pal...
As has been pointed out in other posts regarding this article, in the past Bill G has been quoted as using a they steal software, get them to steal ours, they'll get addicted, we'll collect later business practice wrt China. This may be considered a standard business practice but the get them addicted, collect later model is in fact used by drug dealers.
accept Bill G admitted using "drug dealer like tactics in selling Windows" in the past...
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
from:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html?legacy =c net
I've read that it was also quoted in Fortune Magazine in July 1998 but I haven't found an online link yet.
1) it seems to have worked somewhat...
2) At least the power visibly rests with the consumers, unlike other business models where consumers are treated like junkies
the only thing the constitution says is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (Clause 8, Section 8, Article 1).
No mention of copyrights ther for it is not explicitly laid out. Copyrights were established with the US Copyright Act.
This same Act established limitations on the exclusive rights of authors. One of those limitations is fair use (Section 107 of Title 17).
As they are both established in the same law code, there is a reasonable comparison. I'll grant you that the extension of fair use to allow individuals to make copies for personal use was an interpretation by a judge. However since it is explicitly the purpose of the judicial branch to interpret the laws as part of the system of checks and balances then judicial decisions have the same weight as laws passed by the legislature.
Copyright Law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch1.ht ml
US Constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu tion/constituti on.overview.html
agreed to the point on being more careful of the words i choose, but, the "fair use" exclusion is part and parcle of the same law that gives authors their "copyrights", that law being created from the constitutional power divulged to the legislature, from that viewpoint an author's "copyright" is not a right in the constitutional sense either but is common law...
mostly I get a little heated because the pro-copy protection crowd keeps harping about consumers being able to make perfect digital copies when they were the ones who chose to sell consumers a perfect digital copy to begin with...
yes, because regardless of any disc replacement program a company offers, the "fair use" exclusion is an established part of copyright law. no company policy can ever be an adequate replacement for constitional law, if for no other reason than a company can easily change their policies. if a product is produced that allows people to excercise their rights, then that is justification enough, even if other choose to exploit that product to break the law.
the prcedure of the study may have compared two stock products but the study is presented as comparing the languages and not the compilers, therefore I disagree with your post and find your analogy insufficient
Re:You are eliminated the whole point of profiling
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 0
The study supposedly was not designed to highlight the benefit of Java but to benchmark for comparison the two languages. To do this accurately, compilation advantages should be leveled out. For an analogy, if you wanted to accurately compare the skill of two race-car drivers, they should be tested in identical environments, same track, car, weather conditions etc.
It's comparing a language using a static compiler to a language using run-time compiler. How is comparing two different types of compilers going to provide a useful comparison of languages? Until I see a study of JAVA on a JVM compared with C/C++ on a comparable run-time compiler I think these benchmarks are pointless. I thought engineering was about design and choosing the right tools for the job, not learning a single tool and shouting "It's the Best For All Your Needs!".
As a side note, from TFA:
"The results he got were that Java is significantly faster than optimized C++ in many cases."
That says many cases, not a majority of cases and damn well not all cases. OH NO! A newer language has advantages in certain cases! "I think I'm going to have a heart attack and DIE from that surprise!"
"If perl was 10x as slow as C, which isn't true. More realistically, perl is.1x as slow as C,"
Any proof for this?
"in which case I'd have to execute the program 6600 times to break even."
even if I accepted the premise as true, if dev time in Perl was less and exectution time is faster (".1x as slow"), then how can there be a break even point?
"Perl is better than C, for the vast majority of cases programs are written for."
"I suspect that amoung those that recieved an education the students were generally better. I very much doubt that the median across the whole population was any higher."
Do you have any proof to back up these claims? Or is it just what you want to believe?
"Removing the public school system and replacing it with a scheme where the poor cannot afford to go to school would seriously harm both the fairness and economic success of our country. All of the proposals listed on the website would be removing the promise of an education to all Americans."
then you state:
"You can argue that the public schools are poor, but simply getting rid of them is no solution. You have to have a serious proposal about what to replace them with. The liberitarian party has no such detailed proposal. The solutions of "tax credits" (doesn't help those without income) or providing incentives for others to pay (what could this be other than a tax?) are too vague to be debated."
So which is it? Are you going to continue with notion that the Libertarians are trying to remove educational opportunities for the poor or are you going to stick with the idea that they have no serious proposals or are too vague to be debated? Appeals to Emotion and Straw Man attempts are bad enough, but you should at least be consistent.
Aside from that:
"The solutions of "tax credits" (doesn't help those without income)"
I disagree with this, for one we already have the EIC which doesn't require income and there is nothing to prevent "tax credits" for an assumed amount of sales taxes paid by the poor.
"providing incentives for others to pay (what could this be other than a tax?)"
well it could be tax breaks or credits, as in maybe in addition to the income tax breaks allowed for charity there could be a tax break for providing money or other resources to education
"The solutions...are too vague to be debated." This is crap, serious proposals don't just sprout up from the ground, they have to start somewhere, usually ideas to be debated.
Slashdot Mirror
for fuck sake, why dont you just let lemmiwinks come out to make the call..
"Don't you think they'd charge 26$US in the states if they could?"
what's stopping them?
The North American Free Trade Agreement is a policy with China?
"What's the point in making a lot of extra money when working at a job you hate forces you to spend it on therapy for stress?"
:)
What? I'll drink Scotch regardless so what's your point?
I'm going to patent making posts about patenting making jokes about patenting patenting...ah dammit! I've gone cross-eyed..
yes, politicians have functioning brain cells, but they are distracted by the pain from sitting with one cheek elevated above the other by a wad of cash. "I'm also expecting a push from the US to "simplify" world patents a few years after that by "consolidating" the patent databases." We have a patent database? I sure wish someone would let the examiners in on that nugget! :)
I'm not going to disagree with what you've said but I am curious about something.
How often do medical insurers settle claims as oppose to going to court? I'm asking because I'm wondering if part of the problem might be due to insurance companies settling bogus claims (because it's cheaper than fighting them in court) and then jacking up the insurance rates for the doctor.
Aside from that, I'm skeptical of jackpot justice in general and wonder if matters would be helped by the US adopting either a "loser pays" system or some time of proceedings similar to a grand jury for civil cases.
which probably already exists with current weapons procurement, so how does this offset the potential cost differential?
"You can't use that term in context unless you know what it means."
this statement makes no sense on it's face..."acceptable risk" is a subjective term, naturally the acceptability of the risk is dependant on whose making the judgement, your attempt to use the term "context" as a trump card is worthless...
"Acceptable risk - a stray shot killing a civillian is not what I would call acceptable risk if it was my father / mother / sister / etc... I'd be instantly converted to a prospective suicide bomber."
ahh, so someone in the military making the call that a stray shot killing a civilian is not acceptable but becomming a suicide bomber and killing several civillians and/or actively targeting civilians is acceptable?... yeah, your real fucking righteous there pal...
so you wrote your congressman asking for support of the DMCRA instead of just bitching about the DMCA here?
As has been pointed out in other posts regarding this article, in the past Bill G has been quoted as using a they steal software, get them to steal ours, they'll get addicted, we'll collect later business practice wrt China. This may be considered a standard business practice but the get them addicted, collect later model is in fact used by drug dealers.
accept Bill G admitted using "drug dealer like tactics in selling Windows" in the past...
y =c net
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
from:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html?legac
I've read that it was also quoted in Fortune Magazine in July 1998 but I haven't found an online link yet.
1) it seems to have worked somewhat... 2) At least the power visibly rests with the consumers, unlike other business models where consumers are treated like junkies
I'm sure there's a joke in there about competition between Mandrake and SuSE but I haven't found it yet...
sorry, but I have to disagree...
t ml
u tion/constituti on.overview.html
the only thing the constitution says is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (Clause 8, Section 8, Article 1).
No mention of copyrights ther for it is not explicitly laid out. Copyrights were established with the US Copyright Act.
This same Act established limitations on the exclusive rights of authors. One of those limitations is fair use (Section 107 of Title 17).
As they are both established in the same law code, there is a reasonable comparison. I'll grant you that the extension of fair use to allow individuals to make copies for personal use was an interpretation by a judge. However since it is explicitly the purpose of the judicial branch to interpret the laws as part of the system of checks and balances then judicial decisions have the same weight as laws passed by the legislature.
Copyright Law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch1.h
US Constitution:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constit
agreed to the point on being more careful of the words i choose, but, the "fair use" exclusion is part and parcle of the same law that gives authors their "copyrights", that law being created from the constitutional power divulged to the legislature, from that viewpoint an author's "copyright" is not a right in the constitutional sense either but is common law... mostly I get a little heated because the pro-copy protection crowd keeps harping about consumers being able to make perfect digital copies when they were the ones who chose to sell consumers a perfect digital copy to begin with...
yes, because regardless of any disc replacement program a company offers, the "fair use" exclusion is an established part of copyright law. no company policy can ever be an adequate replacement for constitional law, if for no other reason than a company can easily change their policies. if a product is produced that allows people to excercise their rights, then that is justification enough, even if other choose to exploit that product to break the law.
"shoots the compiler into the foot" hmmm...a foot cannon...interesting :)
the prcedure of the study may have compared two stock products but the study is presented as comparing the languages and not the compilers, therefore I disagree with your post and find your analogy insufficient
The study supposedly was not designed to highlight the benefit of Java but to benchmark for comparison the two languages. To do this accurately, compilation advantages should be leveled out. For an analogy, if you wanted to accurately compare the skill of two race-car drivers, they should be tested in identical environments, same track, car, weather conditions etc.
It's comparing a language using a static compiler
to a language using run-time compiler. How is comparing two different types of compilers going to provide a useful comparison of languages? Until I see a study of JAVA on a JVM compared with C/C++ on a comparable run-time compiler I think these benchmarks are pointless. I thought engineering was about design and choosing the right tools for the job, not learning a single tool and shouting "It's the Best For All Your Needs!".
As a side note, from TFA:
"The results he got were that Java is significantly faster than optimized C++ in many cases."
That says many cases, not a majority of cases and damn well not all cases. OH NO! A newer language has advantages in certain cases! "I think I'm going to have a heart attack and DIE from that surprise!"
"If perl was 10x as slow as C, which isn't true. More realistically, perl is .1x as slow as C,"
Any proof for this?
"in which case I'd have to execute the program 6600 times to break even."
even if I accepted the premise as true, if dev time in Perl was less and exectution time is faster (".1x as slow"), then how can there be a break even point?
"Perl is better than C, for the vast majority of cases programs are written for."
Any proof to offer? Hypotheticals are not proof.
Doh! :)
"I suspect that amoung those that recieved an education the students were generally better. I very much doubt that the median across the whole population was any higher."
Do you have any proof to back up these claims? Or is it just what you want to believe?
this is getting a bit much, first you state:
"Removing the public school system and replacing it with a scheme where the poor cannot afford to go to school would seriously harm both the fairness and economic success of our country. All of the proposals listed on the website would be removing the promise of an education to all Americans."
then you state:
"You can argue that the public schools are poor, but simply getting rid of them is no solution. You have to have a serious proposal about what to replace them with. The liberitarian party has no such detailed proposal. The solutions of "tax credits" (doesn't help those without income) or providing incentives for others to pay (what could this be other than a tax?) are too vague to be debated."
So which is it? Are you going to continue with notion that the Libertarians are trying to remove educational opportunities for the poor or are you going to stick with the idea that they have no serious proposals or are too vague to be debated? Appeals to Emotion and Straw Man attempts are bad enough, but you should at least be consistent.
Aside from that:
"The solutions of "tax credits" (doesn't help those without income)"
I disagree with this, for one we already have the EIC which doesn't require income and there is nothing to prevent "tax credits" for an assumed amount of sales taxes paid by the poor.
"providing incentives for others to pay (what could this be other than a tax?)"
well it could be tax breaks or credits, as in maybe in addition to the income tax breaks allowed for charity there could be a tax break for providing money or other resources to education
"The solutions...are too vague to be debated."
This is crap, serious proposals don't just sprout up from the ground, they have to start somewhere, usually ideas to be debated.