If your girlfriend *runs on linux*, have you considered distributing the code and schematics under an open license? It would really be a boon to the rest of the slashdot community.
*By the way -- don't try to release your flesh-and-blood girlfriend under an open license without getting her permission first. Sometimes the downstream modifications are nice, but most of the time they just result in either new dependencies or a borked kernel.
All it means is that you can't knowingly allow violation of your trademark, then attempt to enforce it later. Where a case appears legally questionable, or outright stupid, there is absolutely no duty to pursue it.
That's a very narrow interpretation. If you allow your trademark to be diluted, then you weaken your ability to defend it later, even with more meritorious claims against different infringers.
Failure to defend a trademark can be used to overturn the trademark assignment if contested.
IANAL, obviously. But I've been responsible for trademarks at several employers, and had lengthy conversations with attorneys on the matter -- this is just my understanding based on those conversations. Of course, since they IP attorneys get paid to contest infringing use, they are motivated to ensure I want to vigorously defend my trademarks...
I'm sorry, when did he pass the BAR exam? And in which state was that?
Oh, and do some basic research before asking questions with easy answers. He's licensed to practice law in Illinois -- he's a member of good standing of the Illinois Bar Association. Prior to running for sheriff, he was actively practicing law.
And is he doing this in his free time or are the people being duped into paying for renegade sheriff legal action?
That's a horribly worded loaded question. You say renegade, I say challenging the law in the courts. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him on the particular issue, this is how the system is *designed* to function.
here is no such thing. Benefits are not directly quantifiable[1] in such a way that you think it gives you $1000 but it actually gives you $500..if you value something at $1000, its value and benefit to you is $1000[2]; there is no "objective" value to anything.
[1] Exactly. Not directly quantifiable, thus there are many instances of improper valuation, which actually makes some transactions very inefficient.
[2] No. If you value something at $1000, it's value to you is $1000 (tautology). But its benefit to you is not necessarily $1000. You may not know the benefit something will have for you, either because of incorrect or undetermined information, or because of changing benefit to you due to elapse of time or technological advance or other reason (like legal action that makes use of the good illegal).
So you could very easily end up paying $1000 for something that only benefits you the equivalent of $500 (say the item is rendered obsolete halfway through its useful life).
The point is that inadequate or incorrect information screws up the OPs little ratio; those costs of inadequate information are a hindrance to a free-market capitalist system that he failed to account for.
No, I meant hocking. As in, "hocking a loogie". Or as in "hamhocks", e.g. the lower shanks of pig's legs that have too much gristle for regular eating, but are good for soup base, or for adding flavor to boiled greens, just like a slashvertisement would do.
What do paraplegic astrophysicists have to do with poor article summaries and book promotion, anyway?
In an ideal free market (which those "anarcho-capitalists" seem to think can actually exist), information transfer is instantaneous. Surely the rules would be changed much quicker than 10 seconds, since otherwise we'd have inefficient allocation of resources, right?
Now, the scientific formula for deciding the positive effectiveness of this is: (customer's percieved value)/(actual retail cost)
Your formula is missing a term.
The formula should be: [(customer's actual value received) + (customer's bad information value)] / [(price paid by customer) + (other transaction costs)]
For the numerator addition: I could value something at $1000, but if it only really benefits me $500, that's important in terms of systemic effects. This is where marketing, branding, incomplete information, TCO, FUD, etc all come into play.
For the denominator, this is the one that helps your point. The other transaction costs prevent your ratio from ever being undefined, so you can go ahead and remove that clause from your analysis.
OP (I'm assuming you, since eldavojohn likes to single-post and then any responses are AC -- my apologies if you're not him) posited his academic credentials in an effort to discredit the sheriff's knowledge of the law.
Those academic credentials SUPPORT his knowledge of the law, which is directly opposed to the conclusion OP tried to make. Basically, eldavojohn talked out his ass again...
or it was a particularly clever troll, which is possible, considering how many times he posts a generally-good-enough-for-karma-whoring-post with an obvious error in it.
How the hell did this article make it off the firehose?
There is a quote in the summary from a blog referenced. The blog is not linked to -- instead the only link is to a site (Amazon, I think) selling the book.
Where's the actual discussion of what's in the book? Where's the article (or blog entry)?
If you're going to post a book review... please, include the review. Otherwise it looks like you're just hocking a book.
You guys are running around producing Immortal caterpillars and noone let me know? Bastards!
Well, I, for one, welcome...
Sorry. Just couldn't do it.
Here are the problems with immortal caterpillars... If they behead eachother, do they gain in strength? Do they ever turn into moths/butterflies, or do they maintain immortality by staying in caterpillar form?
I mean seriously, you're a caterpillar, and you're immortal. Do you forsake immortality by spinning a chrysalis just so so you can have sex, live for a few weeks, and then die?
These are the questions that keep me up at night (and coincidentally, prevent me from having sex while NOT providing any form of immortality).
Providing they pass safety muster, both techniques should be able to produce an influenza vaccine more quickly than current methods, using just the DNA of the virus.
Sorry to nitpick, but influenza is an RNA virus, not a DNA virus.
I have no clue if this makes a difference in how quickly a vaccine could be made using this technique, but I just needed to get the "Friday Pedantry" out of the way.
He's got a J.D. from Loyola University and a Bachelor's Degree in History and General Social Studies from Providence College. What is he doing trying to practice law?
You do know what kind of degree a J.D. is, right?
Right?
It's a frickin' doctorate of law (Juris Doctor).
That said, he has perhaps overstepped his role as Sheriff... but this worked out well in the end. The courts denied his actions, and he brought attention to something he felt was a concern.
I was aware of escalating tension over territory that has been disputed for decades. I guess I misunderstood the OP, since I thought he meant that there were additional claims China was making on previously-undisputed Indian territory.
Also google for China, India and Brahmputra. China has been quietly getting ready to build a dam on one of India's and Bangladesh's major source of waters. China has denied it all along and even now, when they are moving nearly 1/2 million ppl that are on the banks of the Brahmputra, they are STILL claiming that they will not dam it. The real issue is that this river provides water to the eastern side of India, and then move much, if not all of the water to the yellow river.
I hadn't heard this. I'm in for some interesting googling tonight, I think.
Roughly, China is in a game of chess with western friendly nations. They can do more of this simply because Western resources are tied up with AQ. The only good news on this is that China WAS quietly helping AQ has now managed to piss off AQ and OBL has now sworn to attack China's western regions.
I think it's far deeper than that. AQ is a blip on the radar in comparison to the economic factors, which are the battleship in the harbor. The real good news is that China is still dependent on western markets for their manufactured goods (which is why they still prop up the dollar).
The Euro is valued over 40% higher than the dollar. The reason you keep the number price the same (unit-less) is because then you make more money on the sales in countries with more valuable currency, because (and this is the key aspect) people are willing to pay that price. That is it.
This is why everything in Kuwait is so expensive and Italy had really low prices before they joined the euro.
Currency exchange rates are only one small factor in the price differences, in USD, between Italy (pre EU), Kuwait, and anywhere else. It's a complex valuation between currencies which includes factors like money supply in each of the countries, GDP, local wage rates, and a host of other factors.
Within the next decade, possibly 5 years, China is about to get VERY aggressive.
I think that timeline is a bit aggressive. There's been detente over Taiwan for almost a decade already.
China will bide its time as long as its economy keeps moving along.
What scares me is when China needs an active external enemy to keep its population compliant with government. I don't know how long that will be, but I think we're looking at a generation or two, not less than a decade. There is significant upward mobility still possible in China, without them having to resort to war.
They have started to grab water resources and are laying claim to areas of India that rich in natural resources.
The water resources are important, and that is one of the things you mentioned that could possibly trigger something early. But I'm curious about your claim that China is laying claim to Indian territory... can you point me in the direction of some further reading on this? I haven't heard anything about it, just about the standard Tibet, etc, issues.
As for the current patent regime's preventing submarine patents, I certainly have heard about dozens of them squeezing money, inhibiting progress, in the past 14 years since the current regime was installed.
A submarine patent is a very specific type of process-abuse patent. Yes, patents have been used to squeeze money and, collaterally, inhibit progress since 1995. But that is not enough for a patent to be called a submarine patent.
A submarine patent was one that was intentionally kept pending for a long time -- since the "timer" on the expiration of the patent only started once the patent was granted, this allowed companies to have a longer time with their invention covered by patent protection (say, 6-7 years pending, then the full 17 once the patent was granted). Even more perniciously, a company would ignore the use of the patent-pending invention by other companies until the patent was granted, and then: *POW* -- up comes the periscope and the torpedoes, with the invention already a core part of the competitor's business.
Especially since China is spying on US companies, while the US is (probably!) only spying on Chinese government/military networks. (Which, while arguably morally wrong, is at least accepted as a fact of life.)
Ha ha. Very funny. We're talking about defense contractors here. Effectively, they *ARE* part of the government. In the same way that some of the semi-private companies in China that the US spies on are effectively part of the Chinese government.
The line between government and private corporation is very blurry these days (and always has been, for 'defense contractors').
2) Calling the Amazon explanation a "confession" seems a little biased...sounds quite reasonable to me to charge more if their costs are higher.
No offense, but if you accept that explanation, you're one of the suckers their PR people spew that line for. That's not why they are charging more. Prices are set based upon maximizing profitability, not based on "cost + some acceptable profit margin".
They've made the determination that they'll make more money selling overseas at a higher price (even if they sell fewer units). Their "higher costs" explanation is just a standard explanation for "we're going to charge more in a certain market because we've determined that's how we'll make the most money".
Allow me to second this notion and also point out that the ambassador nor anyone from China will address the reports concern's item by item precisely because much of this is common knowledge. Why doesn't the ambassador deny the reports of a civilian based 'information war militia' being formed in Yongning County as the report alleges?
...
If China is claiming this report is full of lies, let them address and disprove this report instead of using vague concepts to discredit the United States. Don't hold your breath.
If Glenn Beck did NOT rape and kill a girl in 1990, let him address the claims and disprove them. /sarcasm
You talk about problems with the Cold War mentality, but what you're addressing is just problems with nuclear weapons technology (MAD necessitating the need for war via proxy). The Cold War mentality that is being talked about is something different... it is about demonization of your economic and cultural rival, and polarization of the world political stage. You think the term is used too often... maybe it's because you're unclear on what is meant by use of the term?
Who the hell would want a lap dance on a stage in front of tons of people. That would be awkward and unpleasant even if you liked lap dances from strangers (rubbing their diseases all over you, heh).
Some people actually dig that sort of thing.
In my case, it would be awkward only because I'd feel guilty about making all the men in the crowd feel inferior because of the size of the bulge in my pants.
(No one needs to tell them that I stole a paper-towel tube from the kitchenette just prior to the lapdance).
The ideal free market--the standard libertarian one, not one of the others people sometimes advocate--does not depend on having perfect information, or on the absence of non-aggressive barriers to entry
Dude, go back to college and take econ 101. An ideal free market, by definition, requires perfect information and no barriers to entry.
Ideal free markets do not exist in reality, and never will, whether there is government action in the economy or not.
The standard libertarian free market should not ever be confused with an ideal free market. Much government regulation actrually increases the "idealness" of the market by increasing information available to participants.
We just need something "close enough", and for what we're discussing "close enough" isn't really all that close at all. A lack of aggressive (regulatory) interference would be quite sufficient on its own.
That's conjecture, and it only possibly holds true if you ascribe to a certain school of economics and philosophical bent. I don't agree.
The idealized model of insurance places individuals into different "pools" depending on their individual risk, with each pool corresponding to a specific risk and equivalent premium.
No. The idealized model of insurance places individuals along a spectrum of individual risk, paying equivalent premium to their risk (for the ideal system you refer to; there are actually multiple ideal systems for insurance, since there are multiple possible goals of an insurance system, and I think you only consider one, due to your libertarian philosophy). What you are describing is the practical model, not the ideal model.
The whole point of insurance is to take that uncertainty and turn it into a stable situation from an ex ante point of view, where risk, not cost, is the determining factor.
1. That is the point of insurance from an individual's perspective. From your libertarian standpoint, that is the same as from society's perspective. We will never agree on this because I do not equate society with simply the sum of all individuals, as libertarians do.
No one willingly joins an insurance program expecting to pay in substantially more than their individual risk--not when competitors are free to offer them lower premiums--and no insurance program could survive for long without balancing risk if low-risk individuals are permitted to opt out. Ergo, no voluntary insurance program can retain ex ante subsidies over the long run.
Assuming an ideal free market, which does not exist and never will. There are significant barriers to entry in the insurance business, not all of them regulatory (capital reserves being one of them). There is a profound lack of information (especially since true risk cannot be evaluated by the individual).
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, *runs linux* or *runs on linux*?
If your girlfriend *runs on linux*, have you considered distributing the code and schematics under an open license? It would really be a boon to the rest of the slashdot community.
*By the way -- don't try to release your flesh-and-blood girlfriend under an open license without getting her permission first. Sometimes the downstream modifications are nice, but most of the time they just result in either new dependencies or a borked kernel.
That's a very narrow interpretation. If you allow your trademark to be diluted, then you weaken your ability to defend it later, even with more meritorious claims against different infringers.
Failure to defend a trademark can be used to overturn the trademark assignment if contested.
IANAL, obviously. But I've been responsible for trademarks at several employers, and had lengthy conversations with attorneys on the matter -- this is just my understanding based on those conversations. Of course, since they IP attorneys get paid to contest infringing use, they are motivated to ensure I want to vigorously defend my trademarks...
Oh, and do some basic research before asking questions with easy answers. He's licensed to practice law in Illinois -- he's a member of good standing of the Illinois Bar Association. Prior to running for sheriff, he was actively practicing law.
That's a horribly worded loaded question. You say renegade, I say challenging the law in the courts. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him on the particular issue, this is how the system is *designed* to function.
[1] Exactly. Not directly quantifiable, thus there are many instances of improper valuation, which actually makes some transactions very inefficient.
[2] No. If you value something at $1000, it's value to you is $1000 (tautology). But its benefit to you is not necessarily $1000. You may not know the benefit something will have for you, either because of incorrect or undetermined information, or because of changing benefit to you due to elapse of time or technological advance or other reason (like legal action that makes use of the good illegal).
So you could very easily end up paying $1000 for something that only benefits you the equivalent of $500 (say the item is rendered obsolete halfway through its useful life).
The point is that inadequate or incorrect information screws up the OPs little ratio; those costs of inadequate information are a hindrance to a free-market capitalist system that he failed to account for.
No, I meant hocking. As in, "hocking a loogie". Or as in "hamhocks", e.g. the lower shanks of pig's legs that have too much gristle for regular eating, but are good for soup base, or for adding flavor to boiled greens, just like a slashvertisement would do.
What do paraplegic astrophysicists have to do with poor article summaries and book promotion, anyway?
Ten seconds?
In an ideal free market (which those "anarcho-capitalists" seem to think can actually exist), information transfer is instantaneous. Surely the rules would be changed much quicker than 10 seconds, since otherwise we'd have inefficient allocation of resources, right?
Your formula is missing a term.
The formula should be: [(customer's actual value received) + (customer's bad information value)] / [(price paid by customer) + (other transaction costs)]
For the numerator addition: I could value something at $1000, but if it only really benefits me $500, that's important in terms of systemic effects. This is where marketing, branding, incomplete information, TCO, FUD, etc all come into play.
For the denominator, this is the one that helps your point. The other transaction costs prevent your ratio from ever being undefined, so you can go ahead and remove that clause from your analysis.
And I just want to give props to kdawson (or whoever) for correcting the oversight... link to the blog is now there.
OP (I'm assuming you, since eldavojohn likes to single-post and then any responses are AC -- my apologies if you're not him) posited his academic credentials in an effort to discredit the sheriff's knowledge of the law.
Those academic credentials SUPPORT his knowledge of the law, which is directly opposed to the conclusion OP tried to make. Basically, eldavojohn talked out his ass again...
or it was a particularly clever troll, which is possible, considering how many times he posts a generally-good-enough-for-karma-whoring-post with an obvious error in it.
How the hell did this article make it off the firehose?
There is a quote in the summary from a blog referenced. The blog is not linked to -- instead the only link is to a site (Amazon, I think) selling the book.
Where's the actual discussion of what's in the book? Where's the article (or blog entry)?
If you're going to post a book review... please, include the review. Otherwise it looks like you're just hocking a book.
Well, I, for one, welcome...
Sorry. Just couldn't do it.
Here are the problems with immortal caterpillars... If they behead eachother, do they gain in strength? Do they ever turn into moths/butterflies, or do they maintain immortality by staying in caterpillar form?
I mean seriously, you're a caterpillar, and you're immortal. Do you forsake immortality by spinning a chrysalis just so so you can have sex, live for a few weeks, and then die?
These are the questions that keep me up at night (and coincidentally, prevent me from having sex while NOT providing any form of immortality).
Sorry to nitpick, but influenza is an RNA virus, not a DNA virus.
I have no clue if this makes a difference in how quickly a vaccine could be made using this technique, but I just needed to get the "Friday Pedantry" out of the way.
You do know what kind of degree a J.D. is, right?
Right?
It's a frickin' doctorate of law (Juris Doctor).
That said, he has perhaps overstepped his role as Sheriff... but this worked out well in the end. The courts denied his actions, and he brought attention to something he felt was a concern.
I hadn't heard this. I'm in for some interesting googling tonight, I think.
I think it's far deeper than that. AQ is a blip on the radar in comparison to the economic factors, which are the battleship in the harbor. The real good news is that China is still dependent on western markets for their manufactured goods (which is why they still prop up the dollar).
The Euro is valued over 40% higher than the dollar. The reason you keep the number price the same (unit-less) is because then you make more money on the sales in countries with more valuable currency, because (and this is the key aspect) people are willing to pay that price. That is it.
Currency exchange rates are only one small factor in the price differences, in USD, between Italy (pre EU), Kuwait, and anywhere else. It's a complex valuation between currencies which includes factors like money supply in each of the countries, GDP, local wage rates, and a host of other factors.
I think that timeline is a bit aggressive. There's been detente over Taiwan for almost a decade already.
China will bide its time as long as its economy keeps moving along.
What scares me is when China needs an active external enemy to keep its population compliant with government. I don't know how long that will be, but I think we're looking at a generation or two, not less than a decade. There is significant upward mobility still possible in China, without them having to resort to war.
The water resources are important, and that is one of the things you mentioned that could possibly trigger something early. But I'm curious about your claim that China is laying claim to Indian territory... can you point me in the direction of some further reading on this? I haven't heard anything about it, just about the standard Tibet, etc, issues.
A submarine patent is a very specific type of process-abuse patent. Yes, patents have been used to squeeze money and, collaterally, inhibit progress since 1995. But that is not enough for a patent to be called a submarine patent.
A submarine patent was one that was intentionally kept pending for a long time -- since the "timer" on the expiration of the patent only started once the patent was granted, this allowed companies to have a longer time with their invention covered by patent protection (say, 6-7 years pending, then the full 17 once the patent was granted). Even more perniciously, a company would ignore the use of the patent-pending invention by other companies until the patent was granted, and then: *POW* -- up comes the periscope and the torpedoes, with the invention already a core part of the competitor's business.
Ha ha. Very funny. We're talking about defense contractors here. Effectively, they *ARE* part of the government. In the same way that some of the semi-private companies in China that the US spies on are effectively part of the Chinese government.
The line between government and private corporation is very blurry these days (and always has been, for 'defense contractors').
No offense, but if you accept that explanation, you're one of the suckers their PR people spew that line for. That's not why they are charging more. Prices are set based upon maximizing profitability, not based on "cost + some acceptable profit margin".
They've made the determination that they'll make more money selling overseas at a higher price (even if they sell fewer units). Their "higher costs" explanation is just a standard explanation for "we're going to charge more in a certain market because we've determined that's how we'll make the most money".
The reason the Cold War was different is because of the polarization of the world political stage without direct military aggression.
...
If Glenn Beck did NOT rape and kill a girl in 1990, let him address the claims and disprove them.
/sarcasm
You talk about problems with the Cold War mentality, but what you're addressing is just problems with nuclear weapons technology (MAD necessitating the need for war via proxy). The Cold War mentality that is being talked about is something different... it is about demonization of your economic and cultural rival, and polarization of the world political stage. You think the term is used too often... maybe it's because you're unclear on what is meant by use of the term?
Some people actually dig that sort of thing.
In my case, it would be awkward only because I'd feel guilty about making all the men in the crowd feel inferior because of the size of the bulge in my pants.
(No one needs to tell them that I stole a paper-towel tube from the kitchenette just prior to the lapdance).
Dude, go back to college and take econ 101. An ideal free market, by definition, requires perfect information and no barriers to entry.
Ideal free markets do not exist in reality, and never will, whether there is government action in the economy or not.
The standard libertarian free market should not ever be confused with an ideal free market. Much government regulation actrually increases the "idealness" of the market by increasing information available to participants.
That's conjecture, and it only possibly holds true if you ascribe to a certain school of economics and philosophical bent. I don't agree.
No. The idealized model of insurance places individuals along a spectrum of individual risk, paying equivalent premium to their risk (for the ideal system you refer to; there are actually multiple ideal systems for insurance, since there are multiple possible goals of an insurance system, and I think you only consider one, due to your libertarian philosophy). What you are describing is the practical model, not the ideal model.
1. That is the point of insurance from an individual's perspective. From your libertarian standpoint, that is the same as from society's perspective. We will never agree on this because I do not equate society with simply the sum of all individuals, as libertarians do.
Assuming an ideal free market, which does not exist and never will. There are significant barriers to entry in the insurance business, not all of them regulatory (capital reserves being one of them). There is a profound lack of information (especially since true risk cannot be evaluated by the individual).
The Disney of today is not the Disney of the early 80s.
They were a valuable property then... now they are a megalithic soul-crushing entity capable of subverting governments.
sorry. I just have a thing against Disney. Probably from seeing a couple Keith Haring drawings of Masturbating Mickey when I was a kid.