Which government would revoke the patents? This corporate-friendly, war-profiteering, ex-CEO led government? Ha ha ha. This government would rather shut itself down, send its own citizens to Guantanamo Bay, Rendition the remaining citizens, sell the national parks to property developers [to boost the real-estate market], destroy forest cover and allow mining and oil drilling in those areas, before it revokes Monsanto patents.
Probably communism with a human face would be better. Communism that actually allows a free press to check the government, where patents are owned by individuals or the government.
Yeah, i too had the same question. In what way are they different? Especially if they use: 1) the same die cast Intel uses 2) Uses same workers to do the job, 3) Uses the same tools to get it made 4) Uses same raw material
If it barks like a dog, looks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog and chases cats like a dog, then it is a dog to me.
Just because it is an unauthorized copy doesn't mean it is inferior.
Much like your GF making a copy of the 256 kbps MP3 song you bought from Amazon.com. Is the copy in anyway inferior to the original?
Yup. I agree with you. I too own a Mac in addition to a Gamer Desktop PC running XP for CoH and Opposing Fronts games. I too found out that in a Mac you get exactly a working piece of software and hardware combo which do not fail or need driver updates, etc. Adding a RAM? No problem, because you can't by mistake remove the existing RAM so that the OS gives a BSOD. Similarly a DVD stuck inside? Reboot and hit eject when the Apple logo appears. Just yesterday i had a series of Windows Explorer errors. It just dies everytime i clicked on a file. (Not double-clicked, just select). I was confused whether it was due to kaspersky updates, or Stardock Updates or some weird WIndows Update. I rolledback kaspersky first, did not work. I rolled back stardock, unfortunately that did seem to work for a few more mins. But it too failed. Now i was utterly confused. System Restore failed to restore because i had kaspersky running. (bah!) I rebooted into safe mode, used system restore and rebooted. Things worked fine. Now am afraid to update stardock. kaspersky updated itself without permission as usual. I did create one more system restore point just to be sure.
And in all i wasted 3 hours. Why?
Because, all come from 3 different companies to which Microsoft never releases full info about its product.
On a Mac, all i ever had trouble was when i replaced by keyboard (iBook) by myself and in the process dislodged my Airport card. The icon didn't show up in Finder bar. So i had to open up the case again, this time make sure the airport card was secured and rebooted. Came right back up normally.
No BSOD, no Dr.Watson.
If only Macs were powerful enough to run modern games like Company of Heroes or had an SLI config like my desktop...
Yup.Very true. All tru its existence, EU has protected, fawned over and shielded its high cost farmers. Let EU first open its markets to produce from other non-subsidized markets and then we can talk.
Hi, We are from the DHS. We have noted your IP address and traced you down to your college and home address. Waiting for you at home pick you up for "enquiry". Thanks
Yup. Very true. And you forgot to add Jessica's pregnancy, Britney's accident, etc. I fervently wish McCain wins by a HUGE majority (>75% of vote) and nukes iran. In retaliation we get "it". Next steps would be: 1. Total abolishment of constitution (not just suspension), zero corporate income tax (to help them win the war), 2. 45% income tax for all earning below $100,000, 3% income tax for those earning above $100,000, and draft (oh the golden boys get deferments). 3. Economy tanks completely, Bread rises to $3.50 a loaf even in Walmart, OSHA shut down to enable workers to contribute harder to war effort (18 hrs a day), 4. Banks paid billions to enable them to stay afloat, mortgages closed or rates increased by 250% to enable faster foreclosures, 5. Death penalty for those who wreck their homes respossesed due to foreclosure, 5(a) 15 yrs in jail for slipping even a single mortgage or credit card payment (with onus on cardholder to prove he made payment on time), 6. FOX as only Authorized National News Channel, PBS shutdown and auctioned. 7. Discussions about Net Neutrality treated as high treason. 8. Full day coverage of Britney, Jessica (both of them), People magazine sold at fed-subsidy rates at 30 cents or free for all purchases over $10 in walmart. 9. Temple built for Bush and Reagan much like the Lincoln Memorial. 10. Over 60 cents of every dollar goes to defense,.02 cents towards education, 10 cents towards Creationist propaganda and anti-evolution protests, 10 cents for anti-abortion teachings, 9 cents for abstinence.
I bet my one month's salary that McCain would be reelected. I would pay it to any charity of your choice.
Particularly when the exercise spokesman goes on the news and says, "Any criminal activity can be used to support terrorism." Not correct. "Any activity can be used to support terrorism." There, corrected you. For instance: http://www.ttgnet.com/daynotes/2008/2008-15.html#Sat/ would have made you love chemistry and had hours of fun in 1960s. Now if you attempt to buy the same, you would be visited by Trenchcoated guys from DHS, FBI and the CIA to "politely" enquire your interest in the same. For a government that prides itself on inducing fear in its citizens to make them compliant, this is a perfectly valid tactic to use. And as docile citizens who are more interested in watching Desperate Housewives, read about beyonce marriage and Britney's car accident, we deserve more.
In 1850s and early 1930s, there was no TV and very less radio. As a result the citizens were more interested in what the bigwigs were doing in washington and hence every bill was fought, and every policy debated a lot. People came from far to watch heated debates in Congress. Now, we don't.
Unless we fight for reciprocal rights, like cameras in police stations, municipal offices, and whereever our money is spent, we can't stop this spying. Congress should pass an amendment which will force the government to reciprocate with openness whenever it pierces our veil. For instance, if DHS can spy on me from robot airplanes, i must have access to its realtime feed plus be able to install cameras at my local DHS office to see what they do with my money.
Such reciprocal law will quickly halt all spying activities ASAP. Sadly, we would sell out our privacy and install a camera in our bedroom if the government or comcast gave us $5,500 tax rebate or lifelong free comcast maxi subscription to HD...
FCC???? ha ha ha... Good Joke. They will probably laud Virgin's stand and say that Virgin shows the net can police itself and wash their hands off the whole matter. Probably Virgin is right. The Net has passed from the time of geeks to the time of suits. Much like radio has. Much like telegraph had. After all if comcast could get away with protocol throttling, then virgin could definitely get away with this.
BUT, the new government can use the FCC and existing laws to keep them in check: 1. Withdraw Federal Subsidies from all providers which do filtering of any sort. State that laws written in 1850s impose neutrality, and if the corporate does not treat all users equally then no federal funding. Comcast and Verizon will definitely approach supreme court. But then if the law says so, even corporate-friendly SCOTUS can't do much. 2. Ask the FCC (with a new chairman) to publish a study detailing benefits of Net Neutrality. Be blatantly partisan in it. Make FCC mention that opposing net neutrality is supporting terrorism. That will make the corporates very uncomfortable. 3. File a couple of anti-trust suits against AT&T and others. Just for fun. That will distract corporates a lot.
It all depends on who comes to power. The way i see it, the next government will "sell" FCC to highest corporate bidder and invest the money to prop up bear stearns all around.
This i agree. Spreading the investment like you suggested makes a lot of sense rather than blindly investing in stocks. I split my investments in two separate parts: One periodic (SIP) that goes directly to buying gilt-edged funds only. The second goes directly to buying only growth stocks. Both are equal amounts albeit different periods of SIP. And both are done with entirely different finance institutions. Hopefully the former should pay for my retirement, and the latter for my son's college 18 years down the line....provided the economy doesn't crash before that very badly.
Yeah... Why don't you invest your money in CDOs, Securitized Products with different Traches for safety. Probably the Tranche 5(with most risk) would earn you so much money. After all it did help Bear Stearns earn so much that JP Morgan is buying it for a WHOLE 2 DOLLARS a SHARE !!! Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is.
FDR was the guy who introduced Social Security, which is going to pay you to live after you retire because none of the banks or corporate pension schemes are willing to pay you. They would rather pay their CEO and boards $126 million a year than pay you $50 K a year.
Both AT&T and Comcast know the upcoming government WILL impose Net Neutrality. So to head off this, they agree to voluntarily submit to equality. I suggest that IF a corporate says there is no need for regulation and agrees to voluntarily do something, then it MUST be regulated in law with severe penalties. After all, as corporates themselves claim, if there is way they will do something that is disliked, then what harm is there in having a law that puts penalties if the corporate violates it.
Comcast was an idiot to throttle torrents now. It should have waited until the next president was in power and then strike.
I bet $110 that next year NY will NOT collect $50m in tax from amazon as it thinks it will. It WILL be considerably less than that. Because once you tax, people start buying lesser.
The customer's bank issues a chargeback/credit to the customer's account from its OWN money.
It then contacts the merchant with your details and tells them to confirm the transaction. If you had signed a charge slip, the merchant will refer back to the bank as a CP (Card Present) situation and the auth code. The bank will dig out the charge slip (from its records) and contacts you with the information.
The bank CAN and WILL charge you money to retrieve the information from its records.
The merchant duty is to sustain a CP with a chargeslip within 10 days to the bank. So if your merchant fails to present the chargeslip to his banker WITHIN 10 days, the charge on your card is revoked and the merchant can't get any money.
In a CNP (Card Not present) scenario, like web, the merchant gives details to the bank processor and processes it. Banks charge a higher percentage (> 2.5%) for CNP.
If you contact your bank with a chargeback for a CNP, the merchant obviously can't produce a chargeslip. Instead the merchant will dispute it with an invoice or someother way (by contacting you too).
Your card issuing bank's main duty is to you. If you say you dispute a charge, the bank's duty is to give your money back.
The merchant bank is different. They don't know you and care a shit about you.
If you force them out of business, then what do you do to take payments? A better payment processor out of a bank? Listen, ebay's model is of individual sellers meeting individual buyers. That is all. It is not about institution buyers and stuff (although they may exist). P2P payments can be done by an escrow service extended by many banks? In olden days there was a letter of credit for businesses. (Am NOT recommending getting a LoC). What am saying is, any bank would allow you to open an account for online usage alone, you get some money transferred into it, Ship the item to buyer and that is it. Set yourself up as a BillPay receiver with a bank. Easy. No exhorbitant fees, etc. If the buyer wants protection, what protection he gets under paypal today? The buyer can transfer money via a credit card to the BillPay and that is it. If you don't ship, the buyer calls the bank and reverts the credit.
Not exactly. When a credit card holder disputes a debit, the bank contacts the merchant first and asks him to verify the debit he made. It also gives the merchant details about who disputed what, etc, plus a specific time. Within the time, if the merchant cannot produce proof, the cardholder's complaint is sustained.
At NO time has the bank the legal authority to debit or even block access to the funds in merchant's account.
This is different from paypal, which is under no obligation to contact you, can and will block your account, and withdraw funds from it without due process.
Nope. If it were a bank, the merchant would pay for the loss or the bank will bear it. As banking laws go, once the money is in your account, nobody (except by court order) can debit your account except you. Nobody. Similarly, they can't suddenly block access to your account without informing you in writing. PayPal OTOH can debit your account and drain it fully and then refuse to explain why plus put you in call waiting.
Firstly, although PayPal may have a banking license in switzerland, it is not a bank per se and the Australian Reserve Bank will not guarantee my money with paypal if any.
Secondly, As a bank i have recourse to my money when i demand it. Period. With paypal i have to jump through many of their fraud hoops which assumes, as a recepient, am guilty of money laundering unless i prove myself to be innocent. That is not how a bank operates. And if a bank will not pay a lawfully presented demand for payment, i can force the bank into liquidation single-handedly. (Long before that the Reserve bank will intervene, but that is beside the point).
Thirdly, PayPal does not follow banking laws in opening accounts with it. Not even in fact the [in]famous SNOW accounts of Citi in early 1980s in US (Negotiated Order of Withdrawal).
Fourthly, if PayPal goes under, who will repay my money with them.
I think the ARb should intervene and either force Paypal to be a "bank" (which is unprofitable for them), or close down.
In texas you are free to shoot at tresspassers. Shoot first and ask questions later. Texas state law allows owners to shoot to kill tresspassers on their property and it can be claimed as a legitimate self-defense against aggression. If the van were to drive up to a texas ranch, into a private road and start shooting with their cameras, i would not be surprised if a few well-aimed.404 slugs tore into the camera and the van, causing a hurried exit by the said van or a few guys seriously wounded and crying.
there was not abundant water in the area of the deposits ...and a republican congressman will build a Pipleline to Somewhere instead of a bridge to nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Nahhh, it would be vetoed by our educated president who would think this would place an unbearable burden on our budget.
Good point. But then even thousands of farmer suicides did not distract this government for 4 years until election year.
Which government would revoke the patents? This corporate-friendly, war-profiteering, ex-CEO led government?
Ha ha ha.
This government would rather shut itself down, send its own citizens to Guantanamo Bay, Rendition the remaining citizens, sell the national parks to property developers [to boost the real-estate market], destroy forest cover and allow mining and oil drilling in those areas, before it revokes Monsanto patents.
Probably communism with a human face would be better.
Communism that actually allows a free press to check the government, where patents are owned by individuals or the government.
Yeah, i too had the same question.
In what way are they different?
Especially if they use:
1) the same die cast Intel uses
2) Uses same workers to do the job,
3) Uses the same tools to get it made
4) Uses same raw material
If it barks like a dog, looks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog and chases cats like a dog, then it is a dog to me.
Just because it is an unauthorized copy doesn't mean it is inferior.
Much like your GF making a copy of the 256 kbps MP3 song you bought from Amazon.com. Is the copy in anyway inferior to the original?
Yup. I agree with you.
I too own a Mac in addition to a Gamer Desktop PC running XP for CoH and Opposing Fronts games.
I too found out that in a Mac you get exactly a working piece of software and hardware combo which do not fail or need driver updates, etc.
Adding a RAM? No problem, because you can't by mistake remove the existing RAM so that the OS gives a BSOD.
Similarly a DVD stuck inside? Reboot and hit eject when the Apple logo appears.
Just yesterday i had a series of Windows Explorer errors. It just dies everytime i clicked on a file. (Not double-clicked, just select).
I was confused whether it was due to kaspersky updates, or Stardock Updates or some weird WIndows Update.
I rolledback kaspersky first, did not work.
I rolled back stardock, unfortunately that did seem to work for a few more mins. But it too failed.
Now i was utterly confused.
System Restore failed to restore because i had kaspersky running. (bah!)
I rebooted into safe mode, used system restore and rebooted.
Things worked fine.
Now am afraid to update stardock. kaspersky updated itself without permission as usual.
I did create one more system restore point just to be sure.
And in all i wasted 3 hours.
Why?
Because, all come from 3 different companies to which Microsoft never releases full info about its product.
On a Mac, all i ever had trouble was when i replaced by keyboard (iBook) by myself and in the process dislodged my Airport card.
The icon didn't show up in Finder bar.
So i had to open up the case again, this time make sure the airport card was secured and rebooted.
Came right back up normally.
No BSOD, no Dr.Watson.
If only Macs were powerful enough to run modern games like Company of Heroes or had an SLI config like my desktop...
Yup.Very true.
All tru its existence, EU has protected, fawned over and shielded its high cost farmers.
Let EU first open its markets to produce from other non-subsidized markets and then we can talk.
Hi,
We are from the DHS.
We have noted your IP address and traced you down to your college and home address. Waiting for you at home pick you up for "enquiry".
Thanks
Yup. Very true. And you forgot to add Jessica's pregnancy, Britney's accident, etc. .02 cents towards education, 10 cents towards Creationist propaganda and anti-evolution protests, 10 cents for anti-abortion teachings, 9 cents for abstinence.
I fervently wish McCain wins by a HUGE majority (>75% of vote) and nukes iran.
In retaliation we get "it".
Next steps would be:
1. Total abolishment of constitution (not just suspension), zero corporate income tax (to help them win the war),
2. 45% income tax for all earning below $100,000, 3% income tax for those earning above $100,000, and draft (oh the golden boys get deferments).
3. Economy tanks completely, Bread rises to $3.50 a loaf even in Walmart, OSHA shut down to enable workers to contribute harder to war effort (18 hrs a day),
4. Banks paid billions to enable them to stay afloat, mortgages closed or rates increased by 250% to enable faster foreclosures,
5. Death penalty for those who wreck their homes respossesed due to foreclosure,
5(a) 15 yrs in jail for slipping even a single mortgage or credit card payment (with onus on cardholder to prove he made payment on time), 6. FOX as only Authorized National News Channel, PBS shutdown and auctioned.
7. Discussions about Net Neutrality treated as high treason.
8. Full day coverage of Britney, Jessica (both of them), People magazine sold at fed-subsidy rates at 30 cents or free for all purchases over $10 in walmart.
9. Temple built for Bush and Reagan much like the Lincoln Memorial.
10. Over 60 cents of every dollar goes to defense,
I bet my one month's salary that McCain would be reelected. I would pay it to any charity of your choice.
"Any activity can be used to support terrorism." There, corrected you.
For instance: http://www.ttgnet.com/daynotes/2008/2008-15.html#Sat/ would have made you love chemistry and had hours of fun in 1960s.
Now if you attempt to buy the same, you would be visited by Trenchcoated guys from DHS, FBI and the CIA to "politely" enquire your interest in the same.
For a government that prides itself on inducing fear in its citizens to make them compliant, this is a perfectly valid tactic to use.
And as docile citizens who are more interested in watching Desperate Housewives, read about beyonce marriage and Britney's car accident, we deserve more.
In 1850s and early 1930s, there was no TV and very less radio. As a result the citizens were more interested in what the bigwigs were doing in washington and hence every bill was fought, and every policy debated a lot.
People came from far to watch heated debates in Congress.
Now, we don't.
Unless we fight for reciprocal rights, like cameras in police stations, municipal offices, and whereever our money is spent, we can't stop this spying. Congress should pass an amendment which will force the government to reciprocate with openness whenever it pierces our veil. For instance, if DHS can spy on me from robot airplanes, i must have access to its realtime feed plus be able to install cameras at my local DHS office to see what they do with my money.
Such reciprocal law will quickly halt all spying activities ASAP.
Sadly, we would sell out our privacy and install a camera in our bedroom if the government or comcast gave us $5,500 tax rebate or lifelong free comcast maxi subscription to HD...
FCC???? ha ha ha...
Good Joke.
They will probably laud Virgin's stand and say that Virgin shows the net can police itself and wash their hands off the whole matter.
Probably Virgin is right.
The Net has passed from the time of geeks to the time of suits.
Much like radio has.
Much like telegraph had.
After all if comcast could get away with protocol throttling, then virgin could definitely get away with this.
BUT, the new government can use the FCC and existing laws to keep them in check:
1. Withdraw Federal Subsidies from all providers which do filtering of any sort. State that laws written in 1850s impose neutrality, and if the corporate does not treat all users equally then no federal funding. Comcast and Verizon will definitely approach supreme court. But then if the law says so, even corporate-friendly SCOTUS can't do much.
2. Ask the FCC (with a new chairman) to publish a study detailing benefits of Net Neutrality. Be blatantly partisan in it. Make FCC mention that opposing net neutrality is supporting terrorism. That will make the corporates very uncomfortable.
3. File a couple of anti-trust suits against AT&T and others. Just for fun. That will distract corporates a lot.
It all depends on who comes to power. The way i see it, the next government will "sell" FCC to highest corporate bidder and invest the money to prop up bear stearns all around.
This i agree.
Spreading the investment like you suggested makes a lot of sense rather than blindly investing in stocks.
I split my investments in two separate parts: One periodic (SIP) that goes directly to buying gilt-edged funds only.
The second goes directly to buying only growth stocks.
Both are equal amounts albeit different periods of SIP.
And both are done with entirely different finance institutions.
Hopefully the former should pay for my retirement, and the latter for my son's college 18 years down the line....provided the economy doesn't crash before that very badly.
Yeah... Why don't you invest your money in CDOs, Securitized Products with different Traches for safety. Probably the Tranche 5(with most risk) would earn you so much money.
After all it did help Bear Stearns earn so much that JP Morgan is buying it for a WHOLE 2 DOLLARS a SHARE !!!
Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is.
FDR was the guy who introduced Social Security, which is going to pay you to live after you retire because none of the banks or corporate pension schemes are willing to pay you.
They would rather pay their CEO and boards $126 million a year than pay you $50 K a year.
Go back in time 40 years and resurface in USSR.
Your dreams will be true.
Both AT&T and Comcast know the upcoming government WILL impose Net Neutrality.
So to head off this, they agree to voluntarily submit to equality.
I suggest that IF a corporate says there is no need for regulation and agrees to voluntarily do something, then it MUST be regulated in law with severe penalties.
After all, as corporates themselves claim, if there is way they will do something that is disliked, then what harm is there in having a law that puts penalties if the corporate violates it.
Comcast was an idiot to throttle torrents now.
It should have waited until the next president was in power and then strike.
I bet $110 that next year NY will NOT collect $50m in tax from amazon as it thinks it will.
It WILL be considerably less than that.
Because once you tax, people start buying lesser.
Maybe i was not clear. And i work in a bank.
The customer's bank issues a chargeback/credit to the customer's account from its OWN money.
It then contacts the merchant with your details and tells them to confirm the transaction.
If you had signed a charge slip, the merchant will refer back to the bank as a CP (Card Present) situation and the auth code.
The bank will dig out the charge slip (from its records) and contacts you with the information.
The bank CAN and WILL charge you money to retrieve the information from its records.
The merchant duty is to sustain a CP with a chargeslip within 10 days to the bank.
So if your merchant fails to present the chargeslip to his banker WITHIN 10 days, the charge on your card is revoked and the merchant can't get any money.
In a CNP (Card Not present) scenario, like web, the merchant gives details to the bank processor and processes it.
Banks charge a higher percentage (> 2.5%) for CNP.
If you contact your bank with a chargeback for a CNP, the merchant obviously can't produce a chargeslip.
Instead the merchant will dispute it with an invoice or someother way (by contacting you too).
Your card issuing bank's main duty is to you. If you say you dispute a charge, the bank's duty is to give your money back.
The merchant bank is different. They don't know you and care a shit about you.
Listen, ebay's model is of individual sellers meeting individual buyers.
That is all.
It is not about institution buyers and stuff (although they may exist).
P2P payments can be done by an escrow service extended by many banks?
In olden days there was a letter of credit for businesses.
(Am NOT recommending getting a LoC).
What am saying is, any bank would allow you to open an account for online usage alone, you get some money transferred into it, Ship the item to buyer and that is it. Set yourself up as a BillPay receiver with a bank. Easy.
No exhorbitant fees, etc.
If the buyer wants protection, what protection he gets under paypal today?
The buyer can transfer money via a credit card to the BillPay and that is it.
If you don't ship, the buyer calls the bank and reverts the credit.
Not exactly. When a credit card holder disputes a debit, the bank contacts the merchant first and asks him to verify the debit he made. It also gives the merchant details about who disputed what, etc, plus a specific time.
Within the time, if the merchant cannot produce proof, the cardholder's complaint is sustained.
At NO time has the bank the legal authority to debit or even block access to the funds in merchant's account.
This is different from paypal, which is under no obligation to contact you, can and will block your account, and withdraw funds from it without due process.
And that is why paypal is different from a bank.
yes... on second thought, what you say is true.
Typical slapdash of me to not giving any thought to what you said earlier.
Nope. If it were a bank, the merchant would pay for the loss or the bank will bear it.
As banking laws go, once the money is in your account, nobody (except by court order) can debit your account except you.
Nobody.
Similarly, they can't suddenly block access to your account without informing you in writing.
PayPal OTOH can debit your account and drain it fully and then refuse to explain why plus put you in call waiting.
Firstly, although PayPal may have a banking license in switzerland, it is not a bank per se and the Australian Reserve Bank will not guarantee my money with paypal if any.
Secondly, As a bank i have recourse to my money when i demand it. Period.
With paypal i have to jump through many of their fraud hoops which assumes, as a recepient, am guilty of money laundering unless i prove myself to be innocent. That is not how a bank operates. And if a bank will not pay a lawfully presented demand for payment, i can force the bank into liquidation single-handedly. (Long before that the Reserve bank will intervene, but that is beside the point).
Thirdly, PayPal does not follow banking laws in opening accounts with it. Not even in fact the [in]famous SNOW accounts of Citi in early 1980s in US (Negotiated Order of Withdrawal).
Fourthly, if PayPal goes under, who will repay my money with them.
I think the ARb should intervene and either force Paypal to be a "bank" (which is unprofitable for them), or close down.
Sheesh. One answer and you left out the biggest answer of all: War in Irack.
Dumbass
In texas you are free to shoot at tresspassers. .404 slugs tore into the camera and the van, causing a hurried exit by the said van or a few guys seriously wounded and crying.
Shoot first and ask questions later.
Texas state law allows owners to shoot to kill tresspassers on their property and it can be claimed as a legitimate self-defense against aggression.
If the van were to drive up to a texas ranch, into a private road and start shooting with their cameras, i would not be surprised if a few well-aimed