No, regulation is definitely required, what I'm for is cutting away at ridiculous fees the patent office charges. The fees are large enough to discourage small time inventors and yet don't inhibit the folks like Amazon, Apple, MS, MPEG LA and various others that are abusing the system.
Personally, I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that hadn't been certified by the FAA.
There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the Fortune 500 companies would be harmed more than helped by cutting regulations. It also isn't particularly germane to the topic of innovation as deregulation has always led to less competition in the US, I'm not aware of any cases where that didn't happen.
That's precisely the point. Bill Gates did have a bit of a business before that happened, but he was going to Harvard at the time and had connections from there. I would never have dared to dream that I could go to Harvard no matter what my grades were because I couldn't afford to go. Especially not drop out midway through.
I'm not sure what the current figures are, but it's even worse now than it was then. The number there is probably a pretty good indicator of what it was like before the current recession made it even more so.
Yes, at the expense of the workers. The reason why we're losing our competitive edge in innovation is primarily the extraordinary costs that it requires these days to take even a simple idea to market. Patenting is expensive enough that individuals can't afford it and yet cheap enough that Amazon can manage to patent all manner of obvious thing hoping that a few will stick.
If we really want to go back to innovating we need to cut the crap with the bullshit software and biological patents. Not to mention preventing the use of patents as gatekeepers to entire branches of research.
And, we need to ensure that workers have enough money that they don't need to work two jobs so that they have time to innovate on their own time.
And yet fully a quarter of all Americans are deficient in iodine. It's not a poster child for addition after the fact because it doesn't happen very often in the US. Just look at your foods if you don't believe me, it's rarely if ever included in processed foods, pretty much never in foods that are eaten at restaurants, and unless you specifically buy iodized salt chances are that it isn't in table salt either.
Perhaps if you weren't talking out of your ass we might make some progress on the issue. Just because it's obvious doesn't mean that it's something that's being taken seriously by the people making it.
Iodine happens to be one of the more obvious ones, I'm sure there are a few that are going to slip by because they always do. The more industrialized the food industry becomes the more these things become prevalent. Just look at that stupid gold rice thing in Asia. The only reason why they need golden rice is because they're no longer eating the greens that they traditionally ate along with the rice and now have vitamin deficiencies as a result.
Nonsense there are plenty of dietary sources of protein that don't include eating meat. You make it sound like soybeans are the only source. Ultimately the reason why most vegans and vegetarians don't get enough meat isn't that it's impossible it's that they aren't doing their homework to make sure that they're getting the range of proteins necessary to get the complete ones that the body can't synthesize.
I've personally known vegan powerlifters that showed absolutely no signs of protein deficiency.
Probably because it's creepy and is likely to come with any number of unforeseen consequences. Plus, just because it's like meat doesn't mean that it's going to have the same effect on the body. Which could be a good thing, but then again there's all sorts of nutrients that are no longer common in our diets because the food scientists designing our meals didn't think to include them. Iodine is a common one to be deficient in around here, and that's largely because it doesn't get added to our foods along with the salt.
A fake salmon like meat isn't likely to have any iodine in it at all.
The reason why the government covers things like that is that it's not sexy enough to attract attention from the private sector. Sort of like how there are unpopular but vital services that need to be provided. Most people get angry about having to pay tolls and angrier about not having a road to drive on so the government steps in and builds it with tax dollars.
The problem with Google TV was in large part price. They mandated Intel hardware be used for components and didn't allow for non-HD devices. Which means that for people who are still using an analog TV they wouldn't even be able to connect it to the TV without an expensive converter.
I'd like to have one, but they really need to consider dropping Intel for ARM and adding some provision for people that are still using older TVs. Not necessarily for all the units, but at least have some models available.
I think they'll get it figured out because I think they've got some really good ideas. I'm sure that being more expensive than both Roku and Apple TV isn't helping things.
Before I started boycotting the RIAA I was getting most of my CDs from deep discount for about $6 a piece and not buying if I couldn't find it there. I think the ends up working out to about $0.50 a track for lossless music.
It's not nimble, in most cases it takes quite a while for a product to catch on. The Colonel was selling and working on his chicken for years before it became a household name. Same goes for pretty much every major brand name item you can think of. For the most part they didn't start out being sold nationally or globally, the started out small before being sold on a large scale.
The problem with Google is that it's conducting the skunkworks out in public where people can see and doesn't have the confidence to persevere long enough to know if it's going to catch on. They canceled wave before anybody had any clue what it was for.
Convincing smart people to part with their money as opposed to giving it to somebody else is a part of the process. I'm sure there are cases where genuinely important research gets delayed or denied because it isn't obviously important, but over all given the scarcity of money in general for science that's what's going to happen. We can't send probes to the moon every time somebody has an idea that relates in some vague way to the moon.
It's plausible, or it could be a continuation of the chronic lack of access to capital that exists elsewhere in Black America. Bill Gates would never have been able to found MS had he not had access to both connections and money to start things off.
And yet they sometimes do hand out verdicts that might as well be random. Just look at the Bush v. Gore decision where they decided that one man one vote meant that enough votes were left untallied to effectively hand the election to Bush because they were concerned that too much attention was being paid to those particular ballots.
Or Connick v. Thompson where despite Connick's own admission that the prosecutor's office failed to turn over all of the evidence to the defense that there wasn't a Brady violation. And despite Connick's own admission that he had failed to train his staff as to what would constitute a Brady violation. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/04/cruel_but_not_unusual.html
Perhaps if those other countries had bothered to invent the internet that wouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's good for the US to have so much control, but it's hardly something that just happened. Our government invested a ton of money inventing the thing and to this day a significant amount of development is done by American firms that offer up services world wide. It didn't exactly take me a long time to dig up the information that Twitter was based in San Francisco.
As bad as the US is in some areas, we don't throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of speech the way that they do in much of the rest of the world.
You would need to do that before being served with the initial papers and you probably wouldn't get away with it if you were the one asking for the divorce.
Evidence tampering isn't something that tends to be taken lightly by judges. Same goes for destruction of evidence.
And likewise if I post something to a site in Germany the information would be available to the German authorities. Or in China to the Chinese authorities. Ultimately, any time you do business with a company or organization online the data is retained or not based upon the laws in their jurisdiction.
The US is hardly the only nation to feel that way and make use of it.
I'd go so far as to say that it's nigh impossible to do that. They design Type IIIA bullet proof vests for use against a projectile moving 427m/s, so in order to give that kind of protection to a robot, you'd have to have an impossibly fast reaction time or for the projectile to be originating from a kilometer away. At which point it becomes questionable that the detection system would even be able to detect and model the motion while still having time to deflect it.
Granted with lower velocity bullets it's somewhat easier, but still, I'm not so sure that you could move a robot enough in that fraction of a second to make any meaningful use of the technology.
More or less. Ultimately any drug purchases are going to fund organized crime whether through smuggling, growing or money laundering. It's somewhat naive for people to think that legalization is going to hit them hard enough to fix the problems in Mexico.
More than likely it'll make for even worse blood shed in the near term as cartels fight over the decreased business and focus on harder drugs and other activities for revenue.
Right because organized crime died out in the US after prohibition. It might deprive them of a goodly sized chunk of their income, but considering how close Mexico is to being a narcoterrorist state, I don't think it's wise to suggest that cutting off that funding is going to make much of a difference.
In the US the reason why the mob declined rapidly after prohibition ended had more to do with virtually all of the money in organized crime drying up. Not just most of the money, the American gangs also didn't have quite the grip on the US that the cartels in Mexico currently have.
People keep suggesting legalization but it's little more than rationalization of bad behavior. Preventing guns and munitions from flowing to Mexico would have a much more significant impact.
But it's not superpricey £35 is only about £4 more than I'm paying for a 5mbps connection in the US. For an additional 4 quid you're getting 20x the connection. Granted you're not likely to need that amount of bandwidth, but it's hardly that expensive.
OTOH I'm paying the equivalent of ~31 GBP for a 5mbps connection, so any of those options seems to be extremely cheap from my point of view. But, the other consideration is how much the less expensive options are. Just because they're dirt cheap compared with my expensive connection doesn't mean that the funds are there for a connection that costs more money on a real basis.
Slashdot Mirror
No, regulation is definitely required, what I'm for is cutting away at ridiculous fees the patent office charges. The fees are large enough to discourage small time inventors and yet don't inhibit the folks like Amazon, Apple, MS, MPEG LA and various others that are abusing the system.
Personally, I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that hadn't been certified by the FAA.
There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the Fortune 500 companies would be harmed more than helped by cutting regulations. It also isn't particularly germane to the topic of innovation as deregulation has always led to less competition in the US, I'm not aware of any cases where that didn't happen.
That's precisely the point. Bill Gates did have a bit of a business before that happened, but he was going to Harvard at the time and had connections from there. I would never have dared to dream that I could go to Harvard no matter what my grades were because I couldn't afford to go. Especially not drop out midway through.
Except that it's completely true. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/22/john-edwards/black-and-white-family-net-worth-disparity-true/
I'm not sure what the current figures are, but it's even worse now than it was then. The number there is probably a pretty good indicator of what it was like before the current recession made it even more so.
Yes, at the expense of the workers. The reason why we're losing our competitive edge in innovation is primarily the extraordinary costs that it requires these days to take even a simple idea to market. Patenting is expensive enough that individuals can't afford it and yet cheap enough that Amazon can manage to patent all manner of obvious thing hoping that a few will stick.
If we really want to go back to innovating we need to cut the crap with the bullshit software and biological patents. Not to mention preventing the use of patents as gatekeepers to entire branches of research.
And, we need to ensure that workers have enough money that they don't need to work two jobs so that they have time to innovate on their own time.
And yet fully a quarter of all Americans are deficient in iodine. It's not a poster child for addition after the fact because it doesn't happen very often in the US. Just look at your foods if you don't believe me, it's rarely if ever included in processed foods, pretty much never in foods that are eaten at restaurants, and unless you specifically buy iodized salt chances are that it isn't in table salt either.
Perhaps if you weren't talking out of your ass we might make some progress on the issue. Just because it's obvious doesn't mean that it's something that's being taken seriously by the people making it.
Iodine happens to be one of the more obvious ones, I'm sure there are a few that are going to slip by because they always do. The more industrialized the food industry becomes the more these things become prevalent. Just look at that stupid gold rice thing in Asia. The only reason why they need golden rice is because they're no longer eating the greens that they traditionally ate along with the rice and now have vitamin deficiencies as a result.
Nonsense there are plenty of dietary sources of protein that don't include eating meat. You make it sound like soybeans are the only source. Ultimately the reason why most vegans and vegetarians don't get enough meat isn't that it's impossible it's that they aren't doing their homework to make sure that they're getting the range of proteins necessary to get the complete ones that the body can't synthesize.
I've personally known vegan powerlifters that showed absolutely no signs of protein deficiency.
Probably because it's creepy and is likely to come with any number of unforeseen consequences. Plus, just because it's like meat doesn't mean that it's going to have the same effect on the body. Which could be a good thing, but then again there's all sorts of nutrients that are no longer common in our diets because the food scientists designing our meals didn't think to include them. Iodine is a common one to be deficient in around here, and that's largely because it doesn't get added to our foods along with the salt.
A fake salmon like meat isn't likely to have any iodine in it at all.
The reason why the government covers things like that is that it's not sexy enough to attract attention from the private sector. Sort of like how there are unpopular but vital services that need to be provided. Most people get angry about having to pay tolls and angrier about not having a road to drive on so the government steps in and builds it with tax dollars.
The problem with Google TV was in large part price. They mandated Intel hardware be used for components and didn't allow for non-HD devices. Which means that for people who are still using an analog TV they wouldn't even be able to connect it to the TV without an expensive converter.
I'd like to have one, but they really need to consider dropping Intel for ARM and adding some provision for people that are still using older TVs. Not necessarily for all the units, but at least have some models available.
I think they'll get it figured out because I think they've got some really good ideas. I'm sure that being more expensive than both Roku and Apple TV isn't helping things.
Before I started boycotting the RIAA I was getting most of my CDs from deep discount for about $6 a piece and not buying if I couldn't find it there. I think the ends up working out to about $0.50 a track for lossless music.
It's not nimble, in most cases it takes quite a while for a product to catch on. The Colonel was selling and working on his chicken for years before it became a household name. Same goes for pretty much every major brand name item you can think of. For the most part they didn't start out being sold nationally or globally, the started out small before being sold on a large scale.
The problem with Google is that it's conducting the skunkworks out in public where people can see and doesn't have the confidence to persevere long enough to know if it's going to catch on. They canceled wave before anybody had any clue what it was for.
Them screwing up is no reason for the CEOs to suffer.
Convincing smart people to part with their money as opposed to giving it to somebody else is a part of the process. I'm sure there are cases where genuinely important research gets delayed or denied because it isn't obviously important, but over all given the scarcity of money in general for science that's what's going to happen. We can't send probes to the moon every time somebody has an idea that relates in some vague way to the moon.
And yes, $40k is chump change for most things.
It's plausible, or it could be a continuation of the chronic lack of access to capital that exists elsewhere in Black America. Bill Gates would never have been able to found MS had he not had access to both connections and money to start things off.
And yet they sometimes do hand out verdicts that might as well be random. Just look at the Bush v. Gore decision where they decided that one man one vote meant that enough votes were left untallied to effectively hand the election to Bush because they were concerned that too much attention was being paid to those particular ballots.
Or Connick v. Thompson where despite Connick's own admission that the prosecutor's office failed to turn over all of the evidence to the defense that there wasn't a Brady violation. And despite Connick's own admission that he had failed to train his staff as to what would constitute a Brady violation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/04/cruel_but_not_unusual.html
Perhaps if those other countries had bothered to invent the internet that wouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's good for the US to have so much control, but it's hardly something that just happened. Our government invested a ton of money inventing the thing and to this day a significant amount of development is done by American firms that offer up services world wide. It didn't exactly take me a long time to dig up the information that Twitter was based in San Francisco.
As bad as the US is in some areas, we don't throw people in jail for exercising their freedom of speech the way that they do in much of the rest of the world.
You would need to do that before being served with the initial papers and you probably wouldn't get away with it if you were the one asking for the divorce.
Evidence tampering isn't something that tends to be taken lightly by judges. Same goes for destruction of evidence.
And likewise if I post something to a site in Germany the information would be available to the German authorities. Or in China to the Chinese authorities. Ultimately, any time you do business with a company or organization online the data is retained or not based upon the laws in their jurisdiction.
The US is hardly the only nation to feel that way and make use of it.
Twitter is based in the US and has servers here. Ultimately they will have to comply with US law whether or not that's good for anybody.
I'd go so far as to say that it's nigh impossible to do that. They design Type IIIA bullet proof vests for use against a projectile moving 427m/s, so in order to give that kind of protection to a robot, you'd have to have an impossibly fast reaction time or for the projectile to be originating from a kilometer away. At which point it becomes questionable that the detection system would even be able to detect and model the motion while still having time to deflect it.
Granted with lower velocity bullets it's somewhat easier, but still, I'm not so sure that you could move a robot enough in that fraction of a second to make any meaningful use of the technology.
More or less. Ultimately any drug purchases are going to fund organized crime whether through smuggling, growing or money laundering. It's somewhat naive for people to think that legalization is going to hit them hard enough to fix the problems in Mexico.
More than likely it'll make for even worse blood shed in the near term as cartels fight over the decreased business and focus on harder drugs and other activities for revenue.
Right because organized crime died out in the US after prohibition. It might deprive them of a goodly sized chunk of their income, but considering how close Mexico is to being a narcoterrorist state, I don't think it's wise to suggest that cutting off that funding is going to make much of a difference.
In the US the reason why the mob declined rapidly after prohibition ended had more to do with virtually all of the money in organized crime drying up. Not just most of the money, the American gangs also didn't have quite the grip on the US that the cartels in Mexico currently have.
People keep suggesting legalization but it's little more than rationalization of bad behavior. Preventing guns and munitions from flowing to Mexico would have a much more significant impact.
It's definitely not standard practice for software to label minor releases as major releases and bump the version number accordingly.
But it's not superpricey £35 is only about £4 more than I'm paying for a 5mbps connection in the US. For an additional 4 quid you're getting 20x the connection. Granted you're not likely to need that amount of bandwidth, but it's hardly that expensive.
OTOH I'm paying the equivalent of ~31 GBP for a 5mbps connection, so any of those options seems to be extremely cheap from my point of view. But, the other consideration is how much the less expensive options are. Just because they're dirt cheap compared with my expensive connection doesn't mean that the funds are there for a connection that costs more money on a real basis.