I know it's in poor taste to comment on the moderation, to complain about it...
But parent to my post is not moderated troll or flamebait, and calls people like me retards...
So I'm not sure why my response would be considered any more troll or flamebait than his post.
Other than the fact, of course, that some moderators happen to disagree with what I said, and felt that using mod points was the right way to make their voices heard.
Whatever. I know the OP made a specious claim, and can't back it up. I just hope that people reading it realize that fact.
Before the government got involved, health care in the US was affordable to even the poor.
[citation needed]
There's a reason Medicare and Medicaid exist, and it's precisely because the poor *could NOT* afford health care.
The idiots who look at the past through rose-colored glasses really piss me off -- there were no "good old days". The government programs we have today were largely the result of a problem needing to be addressed. What, you think that the magical budget fairy appeared and said, "Hey everybody! Let's give money for health care to people who can already afford it!"
There is something supremely retarded about you kids. You see government fail miserably at almost everything it does, yet you somehow believe the solution is more government control.
And there is something fundamentally retarded about someone who believes that an unregulated system would result in a better outcome. Newsflash, retard -- when entities are allowed to act completely in their own self-interest, they do so, to the detriment of others. The insurance industry is a private tax on health care (a portion of everything lines someone's pockets). Why shouldn't the beneficiary be the general public (via a federal system) instead of a small group of extremely wealthy people?
Marketing not only shows a contempt for Democracy (Marketing for candidates), but contempt for Markets (which are supposed to work with "perfect information", the very thing marketing avoids.)
I don't think that's always the case. What if you have a good product that no one knows about? There's a lack of information in the market, which marketing can help fix.
The problem is dishonesty in marketing, not marketing itself.
So only on Slashdot does all marketing become "lying and fraud". Really? Did you just run out and buy the biggest broadest paint brush you can find? What do you do for a living? How do people know about it? Do you work with Marking people? Are they lyers and fradusters? Would you have the guts to say that to their face?\
You're being very antagonistic (fine, some of what the other poster(s) have written are BS).
But let me help explain why there is a huge anti-marketing sentiment amongst a large subset of the readers of slashdot.
1. Slashdot readers tend to be very analytical. We like to get all the facts and make a decision based on those facts. Marketing often obscures the facts by which we could make informed decisions.
2. A lot of us work in product development (typically software, but not always). We see marketing staff pulling in 2-3 times what we make (or more) while not actually producing anything of value (according to how we ascribe value). We see marketing staff get promoted while seeing them goof off most of the day. Some of it may be sour grapes, some of it may be jealousy, some of it may just be a lack of respect for people who don't seem to work hard -- but in any case, it's hard for the typical slashdotter to accord respect to someone who produces nothing.
3. Some of us have been burnt, professionally, by marketing people. Deliverables are marketed that have no hope of being implemented, etc.
4. Most slashdotters feel that their work stands for itself. Most people in marketing self-promote; this runs contrary to the values of most nerds. It's frustrating to see a marketing person take the credit (and the accolades) when a lot of hard work was done by the development teams.
Maybe you just need to accept the fact that some people hate the idea of marketing. Getting bent out of shape about it isn't going to do you any good.
However, I like many of your ideas and think that you could definitely rise in the ranks in my organization - in fact, I am still looking for someone to handle Africa or Asia. Interested?
I don't know... Africa has three borders, Asia something like 7. If I'm going to play second fiddle, I'd want something a little cushier -- perhaps Australia, which only has one border?
If you think about it, it is actually quite hard to say what makes a good comic. Humor plays some role, but it isn't so straightforward either.
It's very easy to say what makes a good comic. Basically, it's all of the positive slashdot moderation categories, except for underrated.
Funny? Check. Insightful? Check. Informative? Check (though to a lesser extent).
Plus characters that people can identify with. My dad loved Calvin & Hobbes because he identified with the Dad (and now that I have kids, I do too). I identified with Calvin. My sister identified with Suzie. My mom never read comics, but I'd bet that she'd identify with Calvin's mom... I swear there were times when she said stuff that I recall reading in a speech bubble above Calvin's Mom's head.
But, since this is turning into a tribute thread... Let me just say that Calvin's dad's explanations of science are a wonderful model for how to stimulate original thought in kids. I too, have told my kid that the sun rises in the morning because hot things rise, and sets in the evening as it cools.
(and failed to build a business model around this idea)
This is the key to your argument.
Unfortunately, it does not stand on its own; it's a tautology. The very infringement of the patent I'd be seeking to redress is the thing that makes my business model a failure.
If Company A takes Company B's invention (which is ancillary to the product of Company A), and rolls it out into their main product... Company B will be unable to make a business out of selling their invention. Lack of a successful business is due to the patent being infringed... that is to say, if not for the patent infringement, Company B could have a viable business.
In that situation, do you still believe than Company B should not be able to sell the patent to Company C for cash to develop other products? Or Should Company B forget all about its patent, since their focus is on developing technology, not on negotiating patent suits? Do you think the owner/directors of Company B should stop focusing on what the business does in order to enter litigation?
There is no reason that Company B should not be able to trade their patent, for cash, to another firm that handles patent litigation. This is the most efficient way to handle it.
That's not true. You can still get hit by a car while riding your bicycle or walking on the sidewalk. Not getting into a car doesn't keep you safe from cars.
Aww, you got me there. How about if you never leave your mom's basement, and you arrange your furniture on the side of the basement away from the street? Would that work?
The best way I can think of to assure yourself you will never get into a car accident is to shoot yourself in the head.
Or perhaps drive a six-inch spike through your head?
That is no good. It leaves right back where we started.
So somehow I was supposed to avoid the four (yes, four different cars, four different times) accidents I had where I was rear ended at a stop light, while the light was red?
Yes. There are ways to minimize the chance of getting rear-ended at a red light.
1. Pump your brakes when a car comes into view in your rear-view mirror. Your flashing brake lights increase the chance the other driver will recognize the situation and stop in time. 2. Stop at least a car length before the white line at a stop light. If a car looks like it is going to rear end you, you have at least one (if not two) car length space to move forward and to the side to avoid a collision. 3. Avoid driving at times when it is likely other drivers are not alert (late at night, and the post-dinner tipsy driver time). 4. Avoid driving when visibility is poor.
It boils down to: not putting yourself in bad situations; making sure you are alert and focused on sources of risk; doing your best to make sure other drivers are aware of your position, speed, and intentions; and having an escape plan if something bad happens.
Accidents, including accidents that are not your fault, can be avoided.
Using a primary plus two secondary means of birth control can help (condom + pill + rhythm method)
Seriously, though... some accidents simply cannot be avoided. Sometimes a driver is faced with a choice of accidents... get sideswiped by a moron or run off the road. Sure, there are things you can do to minimize accidents (like don't drive in someone else's blind spot), but the only way to assure yourself that you will never get in an auto accident, no matter how careful you are, is to not ever get into an auto.
That said -- I've been in two accidents in my life (both when I was 17 with less than a year's driving experience), and I could have avoided both if I was as experienced as now, by not putting myself in a situation with no escape. And if I'd been weeded out of the gene pool at age 17, then humanity would have suffered a great loss*.
*YMMV. Some may say that humanity would have escaped great suffering. It depends on how my plans for world dominat^H^H^H^H^H^H^H leadership progress.
A piece of spongy metal will not protect the pedestrian, cyclist or child when 2 tons of monster truck plow into it.
Au contraire! Some of the impact force will compress the foam, instead of compressing the child's head.
My testing has conclusive shown that a child's head, impacted at 25 mph by a block of this foam, will compress only 3 inches, compared to 5 inches when hit by a piece of solid aluminum.
Clearly this means that children will be 40% less dead when hit by a Canyonero driven by a soccer mom texting her neighbor's landscaper about getting her garden tilled*, provided that the Canyonero is equipped with this foam.
*And by getting her garden tilled, I mean having her bushes trimmed**
**And by having her bushes trimmed, I mean having bulbs planted***
****And by having bulbs planted, I mean having roots... oh screw it. I mean having a tryst.
Place this behind an existing body armor compound (one that stops the bullet) and use the foam to absorb the remaining shock. Then you could survive being shot and also continue to return fire without being thrown back or suffering bad bruising.
FWIW, I think we're a long way away from metal foams being used as personal body armor. Yes, they'll absorb some of the energy, but they'd still be bulky and heavy.
Vehicular armor is a much more likely use with the foams we have today.
Really so. I buy a phone for talking and texting, same as most of the people I know. They may have a fancier phone but this is about all they do with it. Keep the cheap phones for making phone calls and the game computers for playing games.
Why a one-size-fits-all mentality? Why not use your cell phone for calls and texting, and others can use their "phones" for games, calls, texting, surfing, whatever else they want to do with it.
I know people who basically don't use their home PC anymore. Anything they want to do (email, facebook, casual games, watching videos, streaming music), they can do from their smartphone. Not my style, but good for them. I don't think they should be held back just because I only use my phone for calls and the occasional text message.
You seemed to miss the whole last line, as right there he is saying that it does have serveral built-in applications that run in the background, even naming them. Now if you had been saying that as a developer you want that capability that's one thing, but stating that it doesn't allow it at all is false.
I didn't quote that because it's irrelevant to my point.
Sure, those few items can run in the background... but if I want to run two apps of my own choice at the same time, I'm not able to. Hence, functionally it is not capable of multi-tasking to me.
You're post is pro-protectionism (for some valid reasons, I think -- free trade works best when there is a level playing field)... but I find it amusing that you counter the parent post with an example of protectionism gone bad:
Ask some Mexican farmers (ones not working at Burger King in Arizona) how well they're competing against subsidized agricultural products from the U.S.
This is an example of US protectionism harming the Mexican farmers... subsidies are a form of protectionism.
Don't abbreviate it to NPE. Spell it out, each time - non-practicing entity. By just saying three letters, it weakens the point that these companies do nothing. They exist solely to sue. They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system. Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good. They are non-practicing entities.
I know that likely I'll be modded into oblivion because I disagree with this.
While the potential of patent abuse by NPEs exists (and has been seen to occur), NPEs are an important part of the patent system. They allow for better valuation of patents.
Let's say I invent something, which some company uses in their flagship product, making millions off my invention. Let's say that I am unable to bring my product to market (because of limited capital, because of limited knowledge, because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason, or multiple ones).
My choices in seeking redress are to set up my own company to litigate the matter, or to sell the patent to someone who will litigate it. There are other choices, but these are the best ones available.
Why should I outsource the litigation to someone who is much more efficient at it? Why shouldn't I offload the risk of unsuccessful litigation, in exchange for a reduced payout? Why shouldn't a company be allowed to do assume the risk and cost of the patent litigation, in exchange for the potential reward?
Not allowing NPEs limits the ability of small inventors to overcome the cash of huge corporations. It gives those with the deepest pockets even more of an advantage.
The key is to prevent abuse of the system by NPEs. Unfortunately, any system will be abused by those seeking unfair gain. So we need to balance the rights of patent-holders against the potential for abuse. Eliminating NPEs trades one form of abuse (egregious litigation) for another (small patent-holders get screwed by the big corporations making millions off their inventions).
while knowing how to use Quickbooks is a lot more like knowing how to use Excel: you qualify for a secretarial pool at slightly over minimum wage, and at less than 30 hours per week, so no benefits.
Really? I hired a non-degreed individual with basic Quickbooks knowledge (but no relevant work experience) for $32.5k last year. Once she completes 15 credits in accounting at the local CC, I'll bump her up to $37.5k -- She's doing low-level AP work (not on Quickbooks, on MAS90), which is drudge clerical work.
Plus, secretarial pools? Seriously, does anyone even have those anymore? I haven't seen one since the 80s.
Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time.
Which means that *functionally* it is not capable of multitasking. Apple is selling a device that is hardware+firmware+software. I couldn't care less what the hardware is capable of if the firmware does not allow me to make use of it.
Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you 100%.
But I'm starting to think that we both got trolled, hardcore.
Parent to your response got us both worked up into a bit of a tizzy... I feel like any second there's gonna be a "YHBT HAND" post.
I know it's in poor taste to comment on the moderation, to complain about it...
But parent to my post is not moderated troll or flamebait, and calls people like me retards...
So I'm not sure why my response would be considered any more troll or flamebait than his post.
Other than the fact, of course, that some moderators happen to disagree with what I said, and felt that using mod points was the right way to make their voices heard.
Whatever. I know the OP made a specious claim, and can't back it up. I just hope that people reading it realize that fact.
[citation needed]
There's a reason Medicare and Medicaid exist, and it's precisely because the poor *could NOT* afford health care.
The idiots who look at the past through rose-colored glasses really piss me off -- there were no "good old days". The government programs we have today were largely the result of a problem needing to be addressed. What, you think that the magical budget fairy appeared and said, "Hey everybody! Let's give money for health care to people who can already afford it!"
And there is something fundamentally retarded about someone who believes that an unregulated system would result in a better outcome. Newsflash, retard -- when entities are allowed to act completely in their own self-interest, they do so, to the detriment of others. The insurance industry is a private tax on health care (a portion of everything lines someone's pockets). Why shouldn't the beneficiary be the general public (via a federal system) instead of a small group of extremely wealthy people?
That line had me all sorts of confused until I realized that Fender is a guitar company, not a supplier of stripper apparel.
Speak for yourself. Money may not be able to buy love, but it sure can buy a few nights of steamy passion -- and sometimes, that's all that is wanted.
I don't think that's always the case. What if you have a good product that no one knows about? There's a lack of information in the market, which marketing can help fix.
The problem is dishonesty in marketing, not marketing itself.
You're being very antagonistic (fine, some of what the other poster(s) have written are BS).
But let me help explain why there is a huge anti-marketing sentiment amongst a large subset of the readers of slashdot.
1. Slashdot readers tend to be very analytical. We like to get all the facts and make a decision based on those facts. Marketing often obscures the facts by which we could make informed decisions.
2. A lot of us work in product development (typically software, but not always). We see marketing staff pulling in 2-3 times what we make (or more) while not actually producing anything of value (according to how we ascribe value). We see marketing staff get promoted while seeing them goof off most of the day. Some of it may be sour grapes, some of it may be jealousy, some of it may just be a lack of respect for people who don't seem to work hard -- but in any case, it's hard for the typical slashdotter to accord respect to someone who produces nothing.
3. Some of us have been burnt, professionally, by marketing people. Deliverables are marketed that have no hope of being implemented, etc.
4. Most slashdotters feel that their work stands for itself. Most people in marketing self-promote; this runs contrary to the values of most nerds. It's frustrating to see a marketing person take the credit (and the accolades) when a lot of hard work was done by the development teams.
Maybe you just need to accept the fact that some people hate the idea of marketing. Getting bent out of shape about it isn't going to do you any good.
I don't know... Africa has three borders, Asia something like 7. If I'm going to play second fiddle, I'd want something a little cushier -- perhaps Australia, which only has one border?
*My apologies if you've never played Risk.
It's very easy to say what makes a good comic. Basically, it's all of the positive slashdot moderation categories, except for underrated.
Funny? Check. Insightful? Check. Informative? Check (though to a lesser extent).
Plus characters that people can identify with. My dad loved Calvin & Hobbes because he identified with the Dad (and now that I have kids, I do too). I identified with Calvin. My sister identified with Suzie. My mom never read comics, but I'd bet that she'd identify with Calvin's mom... I swear there were times when she said stuff that I recall reading in a speech bubble above Calvin's Mom's head.
But, since this is turning into a tribute thread... Let me just say that Calvin's dad's explanations of science are a wonderful model for how to stimulate original thought in kids. I too, have told my kid that the sun rises in the morning because hot things rise, and sets in the evening as it cools.
Troll? Really?
I thought I was passing on some useful information about avoiding getting rear-ended.
Here you go. Not just pics... video!
This is the key to your argument.
Unfortunately, it does not stand on its own; it's a tautology. The very infringement of the patent I'd be seeking to redress is the thing that makes my business model a failure.
If Company A takes Company B's invention (which is ancillary to the product of Company A), and rolls it out into their main product... Company B will be unable to make a business out of selling their invention. Lack of a successful business is due to the patent being infringed... that is to say, if not for the patent infringement, Company B could have a viable business.
In that situation, do you still believe than Company B should not be able to sell the patent to Company C for cash to develop other products? Or Should Company B forget all about its patent, since their focus is on developing technology, not on negotiating patent suits? Do you think the owner/directors of Company B should stop focusing on what the business does in order to enter litigation?
There is no reason that Company B should not be able to trade their patent, for cash, to another firm that handles patent litigation. This is the most efficient way to handle it.
I think it's like a cyst, only three times as much.
I got this from etymonline.com:
late 14c., from O.Fr. tristre "appointed station in hunting," possibly from a Scand. source (cf. O.N. treysta "to trust;" see trust).
So I think maybe she has a furry rodent (perhaps a muskrat or beaver) she needs the gardener to take care of with his big gun.
Aww, you got me there. How about if you never leave your mom's basement, and you arrange your furniture on the side of the basement away from the street? Would that work?
Or perhaps drive a six-inch spike through your head?
That is no good. It leaves right back where we started.
Yes. There are ways to minimize the chance of getting rear-ended at a red light.
1. Pump your brakes when a car comes into view in your rear-view mirror. Your flashing brake lights increase the chance the other driver will recognize the situation and stop in time.
2. Stop at least a car length before the white line at a stop light. If a car looks like it is going to rear end you, you have at least one (if not two) car length space to move forward and to the side to avoid a collision.
3. Avoid driving at times when it is likely other drivers are not alert (late at night, and the post-dinner tipsy driver time).
4. Avoid driving when visibility is poor.
It boils down to: not putting yourself in bad situations; making sure you are alert and focused on sources of risk; doing your best to make sure other drivers are aware of your position, speed, and intentions; and having an escape plan if something bad happens.
Using a primary plus two secondary means of birth control can help (condom + pill + rhythm method)
Seriously, though... some accidents simply cannot be avoided. Sometimes a driver is faced with a choice of accidents... get sideswiped by a moron or run off the road. Sure, there are things you can do to minimize accidents (like don't drive in someone else's blind spot), but the only way to assure yourself that you will never get in an auto accident, no matter how careful you are, is to not ever get into an auto.
That said -- I've been in two accidents in my life (both when I was 17 with less than a year's driving experience), and I could have avoided both if I was as experienced as now, by not putting myself in a situation with no escape. And if I'd been weeded out of the gene pool at age 17, then humanity would have suffered a great loss*.
*YMMV. Some may say that humanity would have escaped great suffering. It depends on how my plans for world dominat^H^H^H^H^H^H^H leadership progress.
Au contraire! Some of the impact force will compress the foam, instead of compressing the child's head.
My testing has conclusive shown that a child's head, impacted at 25 mph by a block of this foam, will compress only 3 inches, compared to 5 inches when hit by a piece of solid aluminum.
Clearly this means that children will be 40% less dead when hit by a Canyonero driven by a soccer mom texting her neighbor's landscaper about getting her garden tilled*, provided that the Canyonero is equipped with this foam.
*And by getting her garden tilled, I mean having her bushes trimmed**
**And by having her bushes trimmed, I mean having bulbs planted***
****And by having bulbs planted, I mean having roots... oh screw it. I mean having a tryst.
FWIW, I think we're a long way away from metal foams being used as personal body armor. Yes, they'll absorb some of the energy, but they'd still be bulky and heavy.
Vehicular armor is a much more likely use with the foams we have today.
Why a one-size-fits-all mentality? Why not use your cell phone for calls and texting, and others can use their "phones" for games, calls, texting, surfing, whatever else they want to do with it.
I know people who basically don't use their home PC anymore. Anything they want to do (email, facebook, casual games, watching videos, streaming music), they can do from their smartphone. Not my style, but good for them. I don't think they should be held back just because I only use my phone for calls and the occasional text message.
I didn't quote that because it's irrelevant to my point.
Sure, those few items can run in the background... but if I want to run two apps of my own choice at the same time, I'm not able to. Hence, functionally it is not capable of multi-tasking to me.
Look at Microsoft's abuses. i4i and others.
It doesn't need to be Joe Basement (the single inventor), many firms are "small" when compared to the deep pockets of Microsoft, IBM, et al.
This is an example of US protectionism harming the Mexican farmers... subsidies are a form of protectionism.
I know that likely I'll be modded into oblivion because I disagree with this.
While the potential of patent abuse by NPEs exists (and has been seen to occur), NPEs are an important part of the patent system. They allow for better valuation of patents.
Let's say I invent something, which some company uses in their flagship product, making millions off my invention. Let's say that I am unable to bring my product to market (because of limited capital, because of limited knowledge, because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason, or multiple ones).
My choices in seeking redress are to set up my own company to litigate the matter, or to sell the patent to someone who will litigate it. There are other choices, but these are the best ones available.
Why should I outsource the litigation to someone who is much more efficient at it? Why shouldn't I offload the risk of unsuccessful litigation, in exchange for a reduced payout? Why shouldn't a company be allowed to do assume the risk and cost of the patent litigation, in exchange for the potential reward?
Not allowing NPEs limits the ability of small inventors to overcome the cash of huge corporations. It gives those with the deepest pockets even more of an advantage.
The key is to prevent abuse of the system by NPEs. Unfortunately, any system will be abused by those seeking unfair gain. So we need to balance the rights of patent-holders against the potential for abuse. Eliminating NPEs trades one form of abuse (egregious litigation) for another (small patent-holders get screwed by the big corporations making millions off their inventions).
Really? I hired a non-degreed individual with basic Quickbooks knowledge (but no relevant work experience) for $32.5k last year. Once she completes 15 credits in accounting at the local CC, I'll bump her up to $37.5k -- She's doing low-level AP work (not on Quickbooks, on MAS90), which is drudge clerical work.
Plus, secretarial pools? Seriously, does anyone even have those anymore? I haven't seen one since the 80s.
Which means that *functionally* it is not capable of multitasking. Apple is selling a device that is hardware+firmware+software. I couldn't care less what the hardware is capable of if the firmware does not allow me to make use of it.
Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.