If Apple didn't take out a patent on a concept like this, you can guarantee that some patent troll would, and would sue both Apple and Google
So what you're saying is, Apple will sue Google themselves. Or potentially block new products... where the patent troll would have taken money and gone away.
My wife and I had an idea for an app. I'm not going to go into details on what it would do, but we just saw a commercial for Window 7 yesterday on TV and they were demonstrating an app that did almost exactly what our app would have done, although probably much better because they have thousands of programmers to throw at it.
So, I guess Windows 7 was my idea?
Anyway, we never wrote the app or attempted to patent the idea, so I'm not actually whining that Microsoft stole my idea -- since I never talked to anyone about it:) The point is, just like the parent post says, often times a "great new idea" is only great and new to you because you haven't seen where someone already did it, possibly better than you'd imagined.
Yes, China and US are clearly the problems. Per-capita, US is much worse -- considering we have about 1/4 the people here and are responsible for about the same amount of carbon emission. Is China growing faster? Probably. Their standard of living is approaching ours, so we have to expect that. Not to mention, they make half the crap we buy here in the US. How much of their emissions are created while constructing products for us?
Ya, that would reduce Earth's population by 360,000,000 in the first year. That's more than the entire population of the USA to date. That would be insanely fast.
Your entire post seems to be based on the premise that the economy is more important than the environment. While many people share your view, there are also many (like me) who think having a safe, clean planet to live on our entire lives is more important than being out of work for a year or two.
So, not only do I agree with the GP that being "green" does not bone the economy or fuck the future of the country, both, but I think the discussion is moot anyway, because the environment trumps the economy. In fact, destroying the planet the country sits on is probably a better underlying description of how to "fuck the future of the country."
I wondered about that too. He's back off so much from what everyone who voted for him thought he stood for. Not that I'm going to go vote for his opponents (who stand for the opposite), but I'm certainly less enthused about voting.
Yes! We will follow your lead and not read or comment on Steve Jobs articles, just like you are demonstrating here!
Actually, I clicked the link thinking "Jobs" as in "Work opportunities" and not as in "Steve" I was quite disappointed when I read the rest of the summary.
Well, even if global climate change is not a result of pollution, etc., it is pretty difficult to argue that the pollution doesn't not affect the local environments. There are lots of reasons for taking care of your local environment, mostly involving your own health.
I stayed at a hotel in Detroit last weekend, and it was interesting to look out over Detroit in the morning at the thick layer of gray/brown smog over the city, then look across the river at the clean, white fog (not smog) over Windsor (Canada).
2. Fire the dead weight left and right (liberals: boooo)
I just want to point out, most liberals are not against firing dead weight, but they just want the person doing the firing to actually have a reason (prove that the firee is actually dead weight). At-will termination means you can fire someone just because you don't like the shoes they wear, for example.
You make some good points and I agree about companies maximizing profits. Off topic, but that's why I've always felt like tax breaks for the sake of "creating jobs" is utter bullshit. The company will not hire employees it doesn't need, no matter what the tax rates are. So, if you lower taxes, that money is going to go straight to their bottom line -- they are NOT going to increase their expenses if they don't have to, and if they have to do it, then they'll do it regardless of tax breaks.
So, same story with contractors -- even if the gov't raises the rate they pay the contracting company, I highly doubt it will cause any increase in wages for the actual workers. Maybe the CEO & VPs, and maybe shareholders via dividends, but that's it.
Yes but with any other loan, you can declare bankruptcy and take a hit in your credit for years, but be forgiven the debt. Why should this debt be any different from those? When you borrow from a bank to buy a house, are you not borrowing from someone successful? If you bankrupt and don't pay them, are you somehow not making a successful person pay what should be your burden? Are you then suggesting that it should be impossible to declare bankruptcy at all? Should people be slaves to their debt their entire lives? What if someone dies and still owes, which successful person should be punished for their death and failure to repay -- their family or the banker?
Oversimplifying political issues like you just did is a huge part of the problem causing the extreme division in today's political discourse.
Ya, so? It's still a filter. You're not hiring them because they have a degree. Your logic looks like this:
All dogs are red.
Spots the cat is red.
Therefore, Spots must be a dog.
You have the premise wrong. Degree does not mean you get hired, but no degree means you don't get hired. There are several other reasons I may choose not to hire you, even if you have a degree, especially if I can see that you "barely paid attention as [you] jumped through the hoops, and [don't] have a clue how to apply [your] academic experience."
...marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment.
It doesn't actually say that it is addictive itself. I know, very lawyerish, but what do you expect from lawmakers? Weed is toted as a gateway drug, which gets you to try "harsher" drugs which are often absolutely addictive. Therefore, they can make the case that weed is associated with addiction.
Our planet grew to 7x its population over the same period that we've been tracking global warming. How can we not believe that our own exploding population has not had an effect on the planet? We have to have all the infrastructure to support all those people and the number is still growing.
IMO, warming of the surface is only one of the many problems the population boom could cause.
I want to mod you insightful but I've already posted. Gov't is not a profit-making endeavor and therefore should not be treated as one. This is why I'm not all about electing an "outsider!"
It's not that we don't know HOW to evaluate teachers
Uh, yeah, it is. It is exactly that. There are so many variables and so few ways to measure. Is a student doing poorly because the teacher is bad? Is it because he is dyslexic and nobody has identified it? Is it because he's distracted by the fights going on in his home every night? Is it because he has to take care of his little brother while his single mother is at work, and he doesn't get enough sleep, or enough to eat? There are communities where these types of problems are the not the exceptions, they are the rule.
On the other side of measuring teachers, the only method we seem to have is to do standardized tests... and even if the rest of the issues I mentioned above are non factors, all these tests really do is judge a teacher's ability to get students to memorize answers. It's really hard to actually judge whether the student has learned the material from a pen-and-paper test. So you are bound to have teachers who are really engaged with their students but are not necessarily teaching the test material, and they get failing grades... and on the flip side you might get really bad, unengaged teachers who know how to get their kids to remember a few test answers to make them look good.
Off topic, but, when most of each paragraph is in parenthesis () you should probably rethink how you're presenting the data. It's really hard for people like me to keep the context prior to the parenthesis in mind if the context inside the parenthesis goes off on a 20+ word multi-sentence tangent.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is, Apple will sue Google themselves. Or potentially block new products... where the patent troll would have taken money and gone away.
My wife and I had an idea for an app. I'm not going to go into details on what it would do, but we just saw a commercial for Window 7 yesterday on TV and they were demonstrating an app that did almost exactly what our app would have done, although probably much better because they have thousands of programmers to throw at it.
:) The point is, just like the parent post says, often times a "great new idea" is only great and new to you because you haven't seen where someone already did it, possibly better than you'd imagined.
So, I guess Windows 7 was my idea?
Anyway, we never wrote the app or attempted to patent the idea, so I'm not actually whining that Microsoft stole my idea -- since I never talked to anyone about it
False Dichotomy!
Is that poll actually being used or is it just some attempt at appearing to be democratic while oppressing people?
Parent is the only non-flamebait, informative response to the GP, can someone please mod it informative?
Yes, China and US are clearly the problems. Per-capita, US is much worse -- considering we have about 1/4 the people here and are responsible for about the same amount of carbon emission. Is China growing faster? Probably. Their standard of living is approaching ours, so we have to expect that. Not to mention, they make half the crap we buy here in the US. How much of their emissions are created while constructing products for us?
You'd get a +1 funny if I hadn't already commented...
Ya, that would reduce Earth's population by 360,000,000 in the first year. That's more than the entire population of the USA to date. That would be insanely fast.
Your entire post seems to be based on the premise that the economy is more important than the environment. While many people share your view, there are also many (like me) who think having a safe, clean planet to live on our entire lives is more important than being out of work for a year or two.
So, not only do I agree with the GP that being "green" does not bone the economy or fuck the future of the country, both, but I think the discussion is moot anyway, because the environment trumps the economy. In fact, destroying the planet the country sits on is probably a better underlying description of how to "fuck the future of the country."
Wizard-style interface.
I hate that I see what you did there...
I wondered about that too. He's back off so much from what everyone who voted for him thought he stood for. Not that I'm going to go vote for his opponents (who stand for the opposite), but I'm certainly less enthused about voting.
So, Seconded.
Yes! We will follow your lead and not read or comment on Steve Jobs articles, just like you are demonstrating here!
Actually, I clicked the link thinking "Jobs" as in "Work opportunities" and not as in "Steve" I was quite disappointed when I read the rest of the summary.
Well, even if global climate change is not a result of pollution, etc., it is pretty difficult to argue that the pollution doesn't not affect the local environments. There are lots of reasons for taking care of your local environment, mostly involving your own health.
I stayed at a hotel in Detroit last weekend, and it was interesting to look out over Detroit in the morning at the thick layer of gray/brown smog over the city, then look across the river at the clean, white fog (not smog) over Windsor (Canada).
I just want to point out, most liberals are not against firing dead weight, but they just want the person doing the firing to actually have a reason (prove that the firee is actually dead weight). At-will termination means you can fire someone just because you don't like the shoes they wear, for example.
You make some good points and I agree about companies maximizing profits. Off topic, but that's why I've always felt like tax breaks for the sake of "creating jobs" is utter bullshit. The company will not hire employees it doesn't need, no matter what the tax rates are. So, if you lower taxes, that money is going to go straight to their bottom line -- they are NOT going to increase their expenses if they don't have to, and if they have to do it, then they'll do it regardless of tax breaks.
So, same story with contractors -- even if the gov't raises the rate they pay the contracting company, I highly doubt it will cause any increase in wages for the actual workers. Maybe the CEO & VPs, and maybe shareholders via dividends, but that's it.
Yes but with any other loan, you can declare bankruptcy and take a hit in your credit for years, but be forgiven the debt. Why should this debt be any different from those? When you borrow from a bank to buy a house, are you not borrowing from someone successful? If you bankrupt and don't pay them, are you somehow not making a successful person pay what should be your burden? Are you then suggesting that it should be impossible to declare bankruptcy at all? Should people be slaves to their debt their entire lives? What if someone dies and still owes, which successful person should be punished for their death and failure to repay -- their family or the banker?
Oversimplifying political issues like you just did is a huge part of the problem causing the extreme division in today's political discourse.
Ya, so? It's still a filter. You're not hiring them because they have a degree. Your logic looks like this:
All dogs are red.
Spots the cat is red.
Therefore, Spots must be a dog.
You have the premise wrong. Degree does not mean you get hired, but no degree means you don't get hired. There are several other reasons I may choose not to hire you, even if you have a degree, especially if I can see that you "barely paid attention as [you] jumped through the hoops, and [don't] have a clue how to apply [your] academic experience."
You do the same with Capitalism and we'll talk.
It doesn't actually say that it is addictive itself. I know, very lawyerish, but what do you expect from lawmakers? Weed is toted as a gateway drug, which gets you to try "harsher" drugs which are often absolutely addictive. Therefore, they can make the case that weed is associated with addiction.
Weasel words, but not untrue.
Our planet grew to 7x its population over the same period that we've been tracking global warming. How can we not believe that our own exploding population has not had an effect on the planet? We have to have all the infrastructure to support all those people and the number is still growing.
IMO, warming of the surface is only one of the many problems the population boom could cause.
I want to mod you insightful but I've already posted. Gov't is not a profit-making endeavor and therefore should not be treated as one. This is why I'm not all about electing an "outsider!"
Not to mention, the ones that are successful are often times bought out by others...
Uh, yeah, it is. It is exactly that. There are so many variables and so few ways to measure. Is a student doing poorly because the teacher is bad? Is it because he is dyslexic and nobody has identified it? Is it because he's distracted by the fights going on in his home every night? Is it because he has to take care of his little brother while his single mother is at work, and he doesn't get enough sleep, or enough to eat? There are communities where these types of problems are the not the exceptions, they are the rule.
On the other side of measuring teachers, the only method we seem to have is to do standardized tests... and even if the rest of the issues I mentioned above are non factors, all these tests really do is judge a teacher's ability to get students to memorize answers. It's really hard to actually judge whether the student has learned the material from a pen-and-paper test. So you are bound to have teachers who are really engaged with their students but are not necessarily teaching the test material, and they get failing grades... and on the flip side you might get really bad, unengaged teachers who know how to get their kids to remember a few test answers to make them look good.
Off topic, but, when most of each paragraph is in parenthesis () you should probably rethink how you're presenting the data. It's really hard for people like me to keep the context prior to the parenthesis in mind if the context inside the parenthesis goes off on a 20+ word multi-sentence tangent.