I'm sure a small, local bakery would care about IP too if he had to pay license fees for every bread he bakes, simply because his oven has a digital timer.
They might also care if, as a bakery, they decided to invest thousands of man hours in developing a new product or producing a series of books on new techniques, and then someone else who "doesn't care about IP" just ripped them off and started profiting from the other bakery's investment and creativity without having to do any of the hard work.
so it seems rather trite to sneer at their protest
Actually, I have no problem sneering at people who decide that their use of a public street is more important than my use of it. I have no problem sneering at people who think that destroying property shows how virtuous they are.
Also we don't people who say I will just take the basic and not kill my self pulling the 80+ work week.
Maybe we can employ more people to teach proofreading skills?
It's not at all clear what you're saying here. But I did get that part about how I shouldn't be able to do the extra work I want to do in order to make more money, because you think I shouldn't be allowed to do that as long as some other guy might want to learn how to do my job and do it instead of me.
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Shut down the people willing to do the extra hustle, even though they're the ones who pay most of the taxes? Yeah, that'll get those new businesses started. Not.
When you have plenty of other things you can pick from ("The IRS didn't pick on certain political groups" or "It wasn't Al Queda, it was random people on the street upset about a YouTube video!" or "You can keep your health insurance, period"), why trot out this one? Iraq did have WMDs, and used them to slaughter thousands and thousands of people. They had, and continued to make long-range missiles, and did everything possible to keep inspectors out of certain areas, even as truckloads of stuff like VX went to Syria. When you're going to grouse about the government lying, at least stick with complaints that hold up under casual scrutiny.
In Europe whe had millions of people killed at gunpoint for the content of someone's speech. This is a very tangible problem that has to be dealt with.
No, you had millions of people killed because millions of other people decided to actually kill them. If they had decided not to embrace the idea of killing them and actually do it, the words that someone else spoke would have remained just that: spoken words. What you're saying is that, what... Europeans can't be trusted not to kill people when someone says out loud that they think it should be done? Are Europeans that powerless over their own actions that they just can't stop themselves from slaughtering others when someone tells them to? How strange, to think that about yourself.
Sure, if you want to look at it that way. But you should have no power to lock people away for disagreeing with you. Do you really want criminal prosecutors to decide which "facts" are true in every online argument and debate? How would that work, exactly, in your utopia? If I content that Jenny McCarthy is a twit and wrong in her views, but that she didn't "threaten herd immunity" in a significant way... should I call the Thought Police and report you as having just stated a possibly incorrect fact? Should you be held behind bars (and thus lose your job, and possibly your home, etc) while you await the trial during which lawyers for the state and the lawyers you hire to defend you will question expert witnesses about the epidemiological implications of the subject? Or do you think I should be the one who is in jail and bankrupted by legal costs, pending a ruling on your truthiness?
Don't be ridiculous. Assange has said all sorts of things that line up with that same sentiment. He's gleefully released data compromising the families of Iranian resistance and protest activists, knowing full well what that regime does to people like that, all because he cares more about trying to make people of whom he disapproves look marginally worse to his sycophantic audience. His disdain for the fallout from what he does is all the more odious because he's so one-sided about who he throws under the bus.
I toured a datacenter once. They had "manned checkpoints." Which meant... one guy manned some of them, some of the time. They had "escorted co-lo access" - which mean that he helped you find your rack/shelf, and then walked away. They had "man trap" security, which meant... "a lobby with some bad coffee and a vending machine."
I like seeing this stuff in person. "An" armed guard is, you're right, a completely meaningless thing to say. A 4-foot steel door? Just the one? This also sounds like a total fire death trap if there aren't other fire exits. Is that the only way for workers to escape death by halon? Details, Swissdatacentercompany, details!
So, basically your theory is something out of a bad Clive Cussler story, even though that company had been doing exactly the same sort of work since the 1920's. Just like Cussler, you should do more research if you want your fiction to be the least bit plausible.
Nothing, but nothing warmed the cockles of his heart like the 8 billion no-bid contract given to the company he was once CEO of.
Name one other company that even offered (let alone could deliver - never mind competitively, price-wise) what Haliburton specialized in doing. Please, go ahead.
While you're hunting down that non-existent company, please also discuss on the no-bid contract awarded to the company that so gloriously just executed Healthcare.gov, despite there being all kinds of competition (to say nothing of companies with competent track records) willing and able to do the job.
I understand that they've been working on how to decide which people will get to colonize new worlds, and which people will be stuck here. They've boiled it down to determining cognitive horsepower by looking at whether or not people can grasp the difference between "your" and "you're" - so, that's a shame, huh? Oh well!
If you're really going to maintain that you can't find a bank with free checking, then you're some kind of extra special uninterested in looking. It's almost like you don't want to bother opening such an account because that would take the fun out of whining about The Man and pretending that everyone else is being paid by The Man just so The Man can keep you down. You're just embarrassing yourself.
There's only one person trying to make a point, here. You. I'm just telling you the facts. You're the one trying to pretend they don't exist, and resorting immediately to telling someone else to fuck off so you can distract from reality. What do you get out of pretending that hundreds of banks aren't out there competing for your business? Is it really that important to you that prop up your silly world view by pretending that trivially demonstrable basic facts aren't real? Do you understand how that makes you sound? Let me guess. You also think evolution isn't real, right? Get a grip.
How much do they pay you to post this shit, really?
Ah, yes. The classic ad-hominem-strawman combo! Anything to avoid substance, of course, right?
We just talked about this. Banks make money putting money to work. That's how mine make money, and it's why I chose them. BofA has all sorts of accounts without fees. Walk in, talk to a branch manager, and get one. Of course, you'd have to get off your but and put aside the shrill whining for a few minutes, and I know that's upsetting to you. Your mom can drive you.
When the monthly charge for a checking account with 500USD was only 6$ and paper checks and phone support were free, I might have believed this bullshit.
I'm sorry that you're too lazy to shop around, but not too lazy to troll here. I've got several checking accounts, spread around four different banks. None of them carry a monthly fee. None of them charge me anything to write checks (though I do have to pay to get checks printed, which I do very cheaply at Costco), and none of them have ever charged me to talk to them, because I've only ever had to talk to them about opening or closing accounts, or about something they wanted to talk about. Everything else is self-service via dial-up or online, and via mobile apps, and costs nothing.
What part of the "infrastructure" do you think they'll be claiming to provide for previously free-over-public-network-lines bitcoin transactions?
Gee, I don't know... offering to provide a service where you don't lose your BC when you lose a disk drive? Providing protection against double-spending in the latency? That sort of thing? Or you could get over your laziness and shop around - though you seem more inclined to sit on your ass and complain than to type in the URL of another bank. Grow up.
You mean, charge you to provide the service of holding it, which includes people, infrastructure, legal and regulatory costs, and more.
charge you to transfer it
You mean, charge you to provide the infrastructure, support, people, reporting, and security around transferring it.
charge you to talk to phone support rep
Right. Charge you for making a person's time available to you when they already provide no-charge mechanisms to get the same information by other means.
gamble with it on the side
Sure, interest rates are low right now. But where do you think interest comes from? How do you think loans happen?
No, but you HAVE had the expectation that someone can't point a device at your property and cause it to fry itself. Just like you had the expectation that someone wouldn't shoot your horse, pre-auto.
You're confusing the words "can't" and "wouldn't."
There was nothing stopping someone from shooting your horse, or from locking up your car's engine block by shooting it, today, right now. I'd rather replace some onboard electronics than an engine block, wouldn't you? But the distinction is academic. Because it's all about what people do, not which tool people use. EMP weapons and guns don't shoot horses and cars, people do. The expectations and limitations are cultural, not technological.
No, I don't. I responded pointedly to an irrational comment. I echoed that person's tone to help them see how ridiculous they were being. You compounded that person's shrill nonsense by adding more. You can't be so obtuse to have missed the point, so the only alternative is that you're just trolling. And again, just now. So, you have fun with that.
if my words didn't get noticed, GP would have never corrected my usage of "alot"
No. Your use of that mis-shaped phrase (wrapped in asterisks, no less) served to draw my eye away from your intended communication, and to the typing that made me question whether you think about what you say. My first reaction isn't to read the rest of your post, but to dismiss it as having come from someone who doesn't care about his communication. I took the time to respond because I think it's one of those lazy communication tics that it would be nice to see less frequently as it dumbs down discourse and chips away at the value our culture places on thoughtful interaction.
You're missing the point. He says he deliberately mis-spells "a lot" (and then surrounds it with asterisks) so that people will notice him and take him more seriously. I'm saying that's silly, and erodes his credibility when he's talking academics.
As for sound-copying... why else do you think that people say, for example, "I could care less" - ? Obviously they mean the opposite, but those are the sounds coming out of their mouths, and it's not done ironically. What's your theory?
If private organizations can't use drones to help with natural disasters, such as those in Colorado, how do you suppose this will get approved to fly near local airports and various cities and towns won't outlaw the flying of drones?
Hence the reference to 2015. That's when the FAA says they'll have the regs sorted out.
Of course, there's always the question: How do you deliver to high-rise apartments and other high-density dwellings?
I can hardly think of a better destination than a busy office tower or large apartment building. They have mail rooms. Put a small annex room on the top floor, and use the Amazon Coal Chute for deliveries from the roof - straight to the guy in the mail room. The drone can fly to a known collection of rooftop destinations with much less fuss than they would to random residences/businesses "on the ground."
Slashdot Mirror
IP is only important if you are a patent troll ... Make of that what you will.
It matters to me, and I'm not a patent troll. So what I make of it is that you are yourself a troll.
I'm sure a small, local bakery would care about IP too if he had to pay license fees for every bread he bakes, simply because his oven has a digital timer.
They might also care if, as a bakery, they decided to invest thousands of man hours in developing a new product or producing a series of books on new techniques, and then someone else who "doesn't care about IP" just ripped them off and started profiting from the other bakery's investment and creativity without having to do any of the hard work.
so it seems rather trite to sneer at their protest
Actually, I have no problem sneering at people who decide that their use of a public street is more important than my use of it. I have no problem sneering at people who think that destroying property shows how virtuous they are.
Also we don't people who say I will just take the basic and not kill my self pulling the 80+ work week.
Maybe we can employ more people to teach proofreading skills?
It's not at all clear what you're saying here. But I did get that part about how I shouldn't be able to do the extra work I want to do in order to make more money, because you think I shouldn't be allowed to do that as long as some other guy might want to learn how to do my job and do it instead of me.
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Shut down the people willing to do the extra hustle, even though they're the ones who pay most of the taxes? Yeah, that'll get those new businesses started. Not.
And Iraq had WMDs.
When you have plenty of other things you can pick from ("The IRS didn't pick on certain political groups" or "It wasn't Al Queda, it was random people on the street upset about a YouTube video!" or "You can keep your health insurance, period"), why trot out this one? Iraq did have WMDs, and used them to slaughter thousands and thousands of people. They had, and continued to make long-range missiles, and did everything possible to keep inspectors out of certain areas, even as truckloads of stuff like VX went to Syria. When you're going to grouse about the government lying, at least stick with complaints that hold up under casual scrutiny.
In Europe whe had millions of people killed at gunpoint for the content of someone's speech. This is a very tangible problem that has to be dealt with.
No, you had millions of people killed because millions of other people decided to actually kill them. If they had decided not to embrace the idea of killing them and actually do it, the words that someone else spoke would have remained just that: spoken words. What you're saying is that, what ... Europeans can't be trusted not to kill people when someone says out loud that they think it should be done? Are Europeans that powerless over their own actions that they just can't stop themselves from slaughtering others when someone tells them to? How strange, to think that about yourself.
Have we no obligation to take sides?
Sure, if you want to look at it that way. But you should have no power to lock people away for disagreeing with you. Do you really want criminal prosecutors to decide which "facts" are true in every online argument and debate? How would that work, exactly, in your utopia? If I content that Jenny McCarthy is a twit and wrong in her views, but that she didn't "threaten herd immunity" in a significant way ... should I call the Thought Police and report you as having just stated a possibly incorrect fact? Should you be held behind bars (and thus lose your job, and possibly your home, etc) while you await the trial during which lawyers for the state and the lawyers you hire to defend you will question expert witnesses about the epidemiological implications of the subject? Or do you think I should be the one who is in jail and bankrupted by legal costs, pending a ruling on your truthiness?
Are you even thinking about what you're saying?
Don't be ridiculous. Assange has said all sorts of things that line up with that same sentiment. He's gleefully released data compromising the families of Iranian resistance and protest activists, knowing full well what that regime does to people like that, all because he cares more about trying to make people of whom he disapproves look marginally worse to his sycophantic audience. His disdain for the fallout from what he does is all the more odious because he's so one-sided about who he throws under the bus.
Good call. Always attack the messenger, and never comment things like the verifiable Assange quote you wish didn't exist.
I toured a datacenter once. They had "manned checkpoints." Which meant ... one guy manned some of them, some of the time. They had "escorted co-lo access" - which mean that he helped you find your rack/shelf, and then walked away. They had "man trap" security, which meant ... "a lobby with some bad coffee and a vending machine."
I like seeing this stuff in person. "An" armed guard is, you're right, a completely meaningless thing to say. A 4-foot steel door? Just the one? This also sounds like a total fire death trap if there aren't other fire exits. Is that the only way for workers to escape death by halon? Details, Swissdatacentercompany, details!
So, basically your theory is something out of a bad Clive Cussler story, even though that company had been doing exactly the same sort of work since the 1920's. Just like Cussler, you should do more research if you want your fiction to be the least bit plausible.
Nothing, but nothing warmed the cockles of his heart like the 8 billion no-bid contract given to the company he was once CEO of.
Name one other company that even offered (let alone could deliver - never mind competitively, price-wise) what Haliburton specialized in doing. Please, go ahead.
While you're hunting down that non-existent company, please also discuss on the no-bid contract awarded to the company that so gloriously just executed Healthcare.gov, despite there being all kinds of competition (to say nothing of companies with competent track records) willing and able to do the job.
Open up a copy of the Double Gun Journal, and then come back to apologize.
Your kidding right ?
I understand that they've been working on how to decide which people will get to colonize new worlds, and which people will be stuck here. They've boiled it down to determining cognitive horsepower by looking at whether or not people can grasp the difference between "your" and "you're" - so, that's a shame, huh? Oh well!
Liar and shill? Hilarious.
If you're really going to maintain that you can't find a bank with free checking, then you're some kind of extra special uninterested in looking. It's almost like you don't want to bother opening such an account because that would take the fun out of whining about The Man and pretending that everyone else is being paid by The Man just so The Man can keep you down. You're just embarrassing yourself.
There's only one person trying to make a point, here. You. I'm just telling you the facts. You're the one trying to pretend they don't exist, and resorting immediately to telling someone else to fuck off so you can distract from reality. What do you get out of pretending that hundreds of banks aren't out there competing for your business? Is it really that important to you that prop up your silly world view by pretending that trivially demonstrable basic facts aren't real? Do you understand how that makes you sound? Let me guess. You also think evolution isn't real, right? Get a grip.
How much do they pay you to post this shit, really?
Ah, yes. The classic ad-hominem-strawman combo! Anything to avoid substance, of course, right?
We just talked about this. Banks make money putting money to work. That's how mine make money, and it's why I chose them. BofA has all sorts of accounts without fees. Walk in, talk to a branch manager, and get one. Of course, you'd have to get off your but and put aside the shrill whining for a few minutes, and I know that's upsetting to you. Your mom can drive you.
When the monthly charge for a checking account with 500USD was only 6$ and paper checks and phone support were free, I might have believed this bullshit.
I'm sorry that you're too lazy to shop around, but not too lazy to troll here. I've got several checking accounts, spread around four different banks. None of them carry a monthly fee. None of them charge me anything to write checks (though I do have to pay to get checks printed, which I do very cheaply at Costco), and none of them have ever charged me to talk to them, because I've only ever had to talk to them about opening or closing accounts, or about something they wanted to talk about. Everything else is self-service via dial-up or online, and via mobile apps, and costs nothing.
What part of the "infrastructure" do you think they'll be claiming to provide for previously free-over-public-network-lines bitcoin transactions?
Gee, I don't know ... offering to provide a service where you don't lose your BC when you lose a disk drive? Providing protection against double-spending in the latency? That sort of thing? Or you could get over your laziness and shop around - though you seem more inclined to sit on your ass and complain than to type in the URL of another bank. Grow up.
Charge you to hold it
You mean, charge you to provide the service of holding it, which includes people, infrastructure, legal and regulatory costs, and more.
charge you to transfer it
You mean, charge you to provide the infrastructure, support, people, reporting, and security around transferring it.
charge you to talk to phone support rep
Right. Charge you for making a person's time available to you when they already provide no-charge mechanisms to get the same information by other means.
gamble with it on the side
Sure, interest rates are low right now. But where do you think interest comes from? How do you think loans happen?
No, but you HAVE had the expectation that someone can't point a device at your property and cause it to fry itself. Just like you had the expectation that someone wouldn't shoot your horse, pre-auto.
You're confusing the words "can't" and "wouldn't."
There was nothing stopping someone from shooting your horse, or from locking up your car's engine block by shooting it, today, right now. I'd rather replace some onboard electronics than an engine block, wouldn't you? But the distinction is academic. Because it's all about what people do, not which tool people use. EMP weapons and guns don't shoot horses and cars, people do. The expectations and limitations are cultural, not technological.
No, I don't. I responded pointedly to an irrational comment. I echoed that person's tone to help them see how ridiculous they were being. You compounded that person's shrill nonsense by adding more. You can't be so obtuse to have missed the point, so the only alternative is that you're just trolling. And again, just now. So, you have fun with that.
Wow, you really have trouble with communication, don't you?
It's my fucking car.
It sure as hell is! So, just drive it on your own fucking road, right?
Yeah.
if my words didn't get noticed, GP would have never corrected my usage of "alot"
No. Your use of that mis-shaped phrase (wrapped in asterisks, no less) served to draw my eye away from your intended communication, and to the typing that made me question whether you think about what you say. My first reaction isn't to read the rest of your post, but to dismiss it as having come from someone who doesn't care about his communication. I took the time to respond because I think it's one of those lazy communication tics that it would be nice to see less frequently as it dumbs down discourse and chips away at the value our culture places on thoughtful interaction.
You're missing the point. He says he deliberately mis-spells "a lot" (and then surrounds it with asterisks) so that people will notice him and take him more seriously. I'm saying that's silly, and erodes his credibility when he's talking academics. As for sound-copying... why else do you think that people say, for example, "I could care less" - ? Obviously they mean the opposite, but those are the sounds coming out of their mouths, and it's not done ironically. What's your theory?
If private organizations can't use drones to help with natural disasters, such as those in Colorado, how do you suppose this will get approved to fly near local airports and various cities and towns won't outlaw the flying of drones?
Hence the reference to 2015. That's when the FAA says they'll have the regs sorted out.
Of course, there's always the question: How do you deliver to high-rise apartments and other high-density dwellings?
I can hardly think of a better destination than a busy office tower or large apartment building. They have mail rooms. Put a small annex room on the top floor, and use the Amazon Coal Chute for deliveries from the roof - straight to the guy in the mail room. The drone can fly to a known collection of rooftop destinations with much less fuss than they would to random residences/businesses "on the ground."