The idea "lets predict heart attacks" is not patentable, the machine that does it is.
But my argument is that you are still patenting an idea, not the machine itself.
What is of value in the machine that is patented? The plastic, the electronics, etc existed before they were put together in that unique fashion. It was only when they are put together in a unique fashion, the sum is patentable.
So what is patented is "the unique way in which I put together some pieces of plastic". That is an idea. That is what is patented. And if you ban patenting of ideas, then logically, you should also not be able to "patent a machine".
If the definition is "you cannot patent an idea", then logically all patents should be banned. Because even if a patent involves physical things (e.g., a heart attack predicting gadget), the only thing of value in that is the idea. Everything else in there is just metal, plastic and silicon.
And banning all patents would be fine by me. Let the market work out how to protect and reward ideas.
You said that businesses without govt regulation will not provide essential services for a reasonable cost. I gave you a link that proves otherwise. You respond with a lot of hand waving.
Businesses exist to make profit, not to provide essential services at reasonable cost.
This disproves your theory. If you read the entire article, you will also see that the incumbent players *want* government regulation. This is so that they can erect barriers and keep newcomers away.
Agreed. We also need the government to regulate the internet. Look at how the unregulated private companies has screwed up the internet - spam, service outages, porn being sent to kids' emails, etc. We have a *right* to a better internet.
Clearly, we need the government to regulate the internet.
Your view is that the will of the majority should prevail without any concern for individual liberties. I disagree. But at least, you are consistent. What I find objectionable is the arbitrary (and in my view, entirely self-serving) manner in which people support one right (for e.g., gays marrying) while opposing another right (e.g., corporations buying each other) when the two rights are fundamentally the same.
That is... unless you've got a Philosopher King in mind for us?
All I'm saying is, "live and let live". You are the one supporting mob-rule.
P.S. Corporations are not people anyway. Here's the difference: people are assumed to have all rights naturally, and laws are made to restrict those rights. Corporations are assumed to have no rights naturally, and laws are made to grant those rights.
So, you'd have no objection if this had been a deal between two S-corps? How about Sub S Corp? LLCs? Proprietorships?
An intelligent person would look past all these artificial monikers and see that these are all people coming together in various ways to exchange goods and services. These are meaningless terms that are artificially made up.
In essence, you are saying that something is illegal because it is illegal.
Big damn difference.
Only for people with limited intellectual capacity.
If the money to build the new hospital was taken away from a sanitation project that could save more lives, then yes, it is a net loss.
That is a simple economic fact, but I feel it is wasted on you since you are intent on childish name calling. Maybe you should be on reddit/digg with the other kids?
Whenever some one proposes a great govt. undertaking that will "create jobs"*, ask yourself what the opportunity cost is - in other words, what use would the money have been put to had it not been taken away and invested somewhere else.
*The challenge is not to create jobs, but to create wealth. If the govt.just wants to create jobs, they can hire a million goons to destroy stuff and hire another million people to rebuild stuff - boom, 2 million jobs created.
This happened before when the CEO of some major airline called for more regulation of the airline industry and, more recently, when big agri business corps talk about 'our dependence on foreign oil'.
Nothing to see here (for economists anyway), move along.
Then they'll use that database to take out a second mortgage on your home, purchase a new car and open a few credit cards under your name.
And the banks who lent the money based on a number (that is not even supposed to private) would end up eating the loss. And the credit bureaus who base their business on this number would be run out of business by competitors with better ideas.
At least, that is how it would work in my kooky libertarian world. But I guess everyone likes this setup better.
It is not the 'dependence on middle eastern oil' that is the problem. It is 'installing dictators and propping up theocracies' that is the problem. If America is willing to let countries own their oil fields and do what they please, oil prices would be sky high (loons like Hugo would make sure that happens) and people would've invested money in alternative fuels - money that is going to 'protecting oil interests' now.
Why would Yahoo, or any other company, ask money from these 'money vultures' in the first place?
It is these 'money vultures' who provide funding that gets ideas off the ground. And it is precisely their greed that takes money away from lower performing businesses and moves it into higher performing ones.
It is a third rate intellect that takes into account what is seen, but ignores the unseen.
"It's totally unacceptable to crash airplanes into buildings and commit suicide bombings," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards innocent people and should be openly condemned by all Muslims immediately."'"
Completely agree with you. You should also add "It is totally unacceptable to kill muslims for oil, take their land and install dictators".
You know, just to be fair. And no, I'm not a muslim or a christian.
you mean adding 88+44 doesn't require you to understand place values?
From the way it is taught, no. The children are reqd to add 8 and 4, carry the one (why? they don't tell you why, that is just what you do)..etc and whatever number you end up with is the answer.
You seem to think that the point of this is to make is less 'tedious' and enable the child to calculate faster. My opinion is that it is less important that the child calculates quickly and more important that they understand the ideas behind the math.
When I teach math to my niece, I make it a point to solve a problem with various approaches. She may not multiply or add fast (well she does, for a 5 year old), but she sure can explain how multiplying two numbers relates to addition or how it relates to area of a rectangle.
I saw the multiplication part in the video you linked and I don't understand why she is against the second method - the one where you split up 31 x 20 into:
30 x 20 + 1 x 20
Her complaint that it takes time and does not make the students proficient and quick in calculations. But that method teaches place values and shows that the product can be found by addition.
The traditional method that she seems to advocate just teaches a rote way of getting the result without making the students understand how they ended up with the result - kind of like the 'lattice method' which she rightly criticizes.
Some economist once said that a good way to reduce vehicle fatalities is to require that every new car have a sharp steel spike mounted on the steering so that it is inches from the driver's eyes. This would make sure that everyone drives slowly and carefully.
I hope MADD doesn't hear this and think he was being serious.
reading slashdot?
on
Geekonomics
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
we live in a society that tolerates 20,000 annual alcohol-related fatalities (40% of total traffic fatalities) and cares more about Brittany Spear's antics than the national diabetes epidemic.
Not to mention reading slashdot, going to the movies, etc, etc.
Let's say a warehouse employee makes $18/hr. (They make less, I'm sure, but it makes the math easy.) $.20 goes to the cost of the tag, and $1.80 goes to the cost of putting the tag on. This means that it takes 6 minutes (1/10th of an hour) to tag a pallet? If it took 3 minutes, I'd be very surprised. That employee should be able to tag 1 pallet per minute, easily. Remember, he doesn't have to actually COUNT the product, since even the tagged ones still need to be counted. He just needs to read the manifest and enter it into the computer, and slap the RFID tag on.
Cost of employee to tag at 1 per min= $0.30
Cost of labour training=0
Cost of payroll tax, HR management=0
Cost of chip = $0.20
Cost of ordering the chips = 0
Cost of receiving the chips = 0
Cost of storage of the chips = 0
Cost of restocking the chips = 0
Cost of quality control = 0
Cost of equipment to affix the chip=0
Cost of insurance=0
Cost of billing the suppliers and paperwork involved =0
Interest on capital employed for the above=0
Yep, your math works out. You should start your own business instead of posting here on slashdot.
All the fed can do is manage the money supply, how individuals invest that money is what causes such economic problems.
The point is not how people invest the money. The point is the amount of investment. If the Fed increases money supply by a large amount, people's perception of wealth and productivity is distorted. This leads them to invest more than what is warranted. The converse is also true.
But you are partially correct. Even if the money supply is managed precisely, i.e., the amount of new money created is exactly equal to the new wealth created, there would still be mal-investment. But that mal-investment would only be because of errors in judgment. It will not be because of systemic issues which is the case now.
A sustainable inflation rate is one where inflation is less than GDP growth.....the money supply growing less than the number of new widgets made
The money supply should grow to reflect the new wealth created. Inflation, by definition, is more money than the actual wealth created.
Not necessarily. Just because dollars are the most generally accepted form of payment doesn't mean I can't exchange other methods of payments or proxy currencies.
Of course, you can refuse the Fed note as a form of payment *before* the debt is created. This is what Apple is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea "lets predict heart attacks" is not patentable, the machine that does it is.
But my argument is that you are still patenting an idea, not the machine itself.
What is of value in the machine that is patented? The plastic, the electronics, etc existed before they were put together in that unique fashion. It was only when they are put together in a unique fashion, the sum is patentable.
So what is patented is "the unique way in which I put together some pieces of plastic". That is an idea. That is what is patented. And if you ban patenting of ideas, then logically, you should also not be able to "patent a machine".
If the definition is "you cannot patent an idea", then logically all patents should be banned. Because even if a patent involves physical things (e.g., a heart attack predicting gadget), the only thing of value in that is the idea. Everything else in there is just metal, plastic and silicon.
And banning all patents would be fine by me. Let the market work out how to protect and reward ideas.
You said that businesses without govt regulation will not provide essential services for a reasonable cost. I gave you a link that proves otherwise. You respond with a lot of hand waving.
Well, I tried.
Businesses exist to make profit, not to provide essential services at reasonable cost.
This disproves your theory. If you read the entire article, you will also see that the incumbent players *want* government regulation. This is so that they can erect barriers and keep newcomers away.
Agreed. We also need the government to regulate the internet. Look at how the unregulated private companies has screwed up the internet - spam, service outages, porn being sent to kids' emails, etc. We have a *right* to a better internet.
Clearly, we need the government to regulate the internet.
Your view is that the will of the majority should prevail without any concern for individual liberties. I disagree. But at least, you are consistent. What I find objectionable is the arbitrary (and in my view, entirely self-serving) manner in which people support one right (for e.g., gays marrying) while opposing another right (e.g., corporations buying each other) when the two rights are fundamentally the same.
That is... unless you've got a Philosopher King in mind for us?
All I'm saying is, "live and let live". You are the one supporting mob-rule.
P.S. Corporations are not people anyway. Here's the difference: people are assumed to have all rights naturally, and laws are made to restrict those rights. Corporations are assumed to have no rights naturally, and laws are made to grant those rights.
So, you'd have no objection if this had been a deal between two S-corps? How about Sub S Corp? LLCs? Proprietorships?
An intelligent person would look past all these artificial monikers and see that these are all people coming together in various ways to exchange goods and services. These are meaningless terms that are artificially made up.
In essence, you are saying that something is illegal because it is illegal.
Big damn difference.
Only for people with limited intellectual capacity.
Corporations are not people.
Who runs them? Giant lizards?
So two people voluntarily made a transaction and you don't like it because it goes against your morals and what you think is "correct"?.
So you agree with the crowd that wants to ban gay marriage?
Apparently you don't keep up with the news.
Too depressing for me.
If the money to build the new hospital was taken away from a sanitation project that could save more lives, then yes, it is a net loss.
That is a simple economic fact, but I feel it is wasted on you since you are intent on childish name calling. Maybe you should be on reddit/digg with the other kids?
Whenever some one proposes a great govt. undertaking that will "create jobs"*, ask yourself what the opportunity cost is - in other words, what use would the money have been put to had it not been taken away and invested somewhere else.
*The challenge is not to create jobs, but to create wealth. If the govt.just wants to create jobs, they can hire a million goons to destroy stuff and hire another million people to rebuild stuff - boom, 2 million jobs created.
This is just a very obvious illustration of Yandle's theory:
The Baptist and the Bootlegger
This happened before when the CEO of some major airline called for more regulation of the airline industry and, more recently, when big agri business corps talk about 'our dependence on foreign oil'.
Nothing to see here (for economists anyway), move along.
Then they'll use that database to take out a second mortgage on your home, purchase a new car and open a few credit cards under your name.
And the banks who lent the money based on a number (that is not even supposed to private) would end up eating the loss. And the credit bureaus who base their business on this number would be run out of business by competitors with better ideas.
At least, that is how it would work in my kooky libertarian world. But I guess everyone likes this setup better.
It is not the 'dependence on middle eastern oil' that is the problem. It is 'installing dictators and propping up theocracies' that is the problem.
If America is willing to let countries own their oil fields and do what they please, oil prices would be sky high (loons like Hugo would make sure that happens) and people would've invested money in alternative fuels - money that is going to 'protecting oil interests' now.
Why would Yahoo, or any other company, ask money from these 'money vultures' in the first place?
It is these 'money vultures' who provide funding that gets ideas off the ground. And it is precisely their greed that takes money away from lower performing businesses and moves it into higher performing ones.
It is a third rate intellect that takes into account what is seen, but ignores the unseen.
"It's totally unacceptable to crash airplanes into buildings and commit suicide bombings," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards innocent people and should be openly condemned by all Muslims immediately."'"
Completely agree with you. You should also add "It is totally unacceptable to kill muslims for oil, take their land and install dictators".
You know, just to be fair. And no, I'm not a muslim or a christian.
Where TF did that road come from?
Certainly not from a private company which would have built much better roads for a lot less *and* for which I wouldn't have to pay if I don't use it.
there's no way that an OEM could possibly bundle their choice of browser with a system.
Yeah. The OEM should be able to bundle a different web browser if they want to. And a different media player too.
And a different text editor. And a different memory manager. And a different window manager. And a different kernel.
you mean adding 88+44 doesn't require you to understand place values?
..etc and whatever number you end up with is the answer.
From the way it is taught, no. The children are reqd to add 8 and 4, carry the one (why? they don't tell you why, that is just what you do)
You seem to think that the point of this is to make is less 'tedious' and enable the child to calculate faster. My opinion is that it is less important that the child calculates quickly and more important that they understand the ideas behind the math.
When I teach math to my niece, I make it a point to solve a problem with various approaches. She may not multiply or add fast (well she does, for a 5 year old), but she sure can explain how multiplying two numbers relates to addition or how it relates to area of a rectangle.
I saw the multiplication part in the video you linked and I don't understand why she is against the second method - the one where you split up 31 x 20 into:
30 x 20 + 1 x 20
Her complaint that it takes time and does not make the students proficient and quick in calculations. But that method teaches place values and shows that the product can be found by addition.
The traditional method that she seems to advocate just teaches a rote way of getting the result without making the students understand how they ended up with the result - kind of like the 'lattice method' which she rightly criticizes.
Some economist once said that a good way to reduce vehicle fatalities is to require that every new car have a sharp steel spike mounted on the steering so that it is inches from the driver's eyes. This would make sure that everyone drives slowly and carefully.
I hope MADD doesn't hear this and think he was being serious.
we live in a society that tolerates 20,000 annual alcohol-related fatalities (40% of total traffic fatalities) and cares more about Brittany Spear's antics than the national diabetes epidemic.
Not to mention reading slashdot, going to the movies, etc, etc.
Just curious, why should "we" feel anything regarding this (unless you are a Walmart shareholder or a supplier)?
Let's say a warehouse employee makes $18/hr. (They make less, I'm sure, but it makes the math easy.) $.20 goes to the cost of the tag, and $1.80 goes to the cost of putting the tag on. This means that it takes 6 minutes (1/10th of an hour) to tag a pallet? If it took 3 minutes, I'd be very surprised. That employee should be able to tag 1 pallet per minute, easily. Remember, he doesn't have to actually COUNT the product, since even the tagged ones still need to be counted. He just needs to read the manifest and enter it into the computer, and slap the RFID tag on.
Cost of employee to tag at 1 per min= $0.30
Cost of labour training=0
Cost of payroll tax, HR management=0
Cost of chip = $0.20
Cost of ordering the chips = 0
Cost of receiving the chips = 0
Cost of storage of the chips = 0
Cost of restocking the chips = 0
Cost of quality control = 0
Cost of equipment to affix the chip=0
Cost of insurance=0
Cost of billing the suppliers and paperwork involved =0
Interest on capital employed for the above=0
Yep, your math works out. You should start your own business instead of posting here on slashdot.
All the fed can do is manage the money supply, how individuals invest that money is what causes such economic problems.
The point is not how people invest the money. The point is the amount of investment. If the Fed increases money supply by a large amount, people's perception of wealth and productivity is distorted. This leads them to invest more than what is warranted. The converse is also true.
But you are partially correct. Even if the money supply is managed precisely, i.e., the amount of new money created is exactly equal to the new wealth created, there would still be mal-investment. But that mal-investment would only be because of errors in judgment. It will not be because of systemic issues which is the case now.
A sustainable inflation rate is one where inflation is less than GDP growth.....the money supply growing less than the number of new widgets made
The money supply should grow to reflect the new wealth created. Inflation, by definition, is more money than the actual wealth created.
Not necessarily. Just because dollars are the most generally accepted form of payment doesn't mean I can't exchange other methods of payments or proxy currencies.
Of course, you can refuse the Fed note as a form of payment *before* the debt is created. This is what Apple is doing.