Patents exist solely to promote innovation. Or, more specifically, "science and the useful arts". There is plenty of evidence that traditional industrial patents do exactly that.
What is it you don't understand? There is no contradiction, seeming or otherwise.
Planning for a 90 sol mission when the rovers clearly have the potential to last far longer is bound to lead to suboptimal choices. It boggles the mind that anyone can fail to understand that.
As for the weather on Mars, it is, in fact, pure bullshit that NASA had no way to estimate its effects.
Oh, and I'm not "hating" on anyone. But I guess that's what any hint of criticism looks like to a raving fanboy. Calm down.
I don't think the rovers lasting far beyond the "planned" 90 sols is entirely flattering for NASA as an organization. It means that they've used completely unrealistic estimates, be it due to incompetence or general ass-covering. When Opportunity finally breaks down it may well be because someone knowingly put in a component with a relatively short lifespan even though a better alternative would only have been marginally heavier or more expensive.
Pay out once a month. One week before any money is actually transferred each subscriber gets an email with the previous month's clicks. Scammers can be detected and reported. You could have the subscribers confirm each click in the list after logging into the website, or just pay out the money unless the subscriber actively says otherwise.
The Norwegian oil fields were first explored and developed by multinational corporations.
The Norwegian government was and is heavily involved in the Norwegian oil industry, but it never got "all of the profits" (as parent claims).
I suspect the fact that Britain has 13 times more people and smaller offshore oil reserves might just possibly have something to do with Norway benefiting more from its oil on a per capita basis.
The government requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for even the shortest prison sentence or smallest fine. But it only requires "preponderance of evidence" (51% or more) to use its power to ruin your life with debt due to a civil suit.
Instead of making bold denials you should give me an concrete example of an industry where a perfectly run monopoly would not be more efficient than many smaller competing businesses.
Grocery stores don't require utility lines to be run to people's houses.
So what? As far as I can tell, dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv's point was that competition can lead to redundancy. Multiple competing grocery stores means "higher costs across the industry, and lowers sales for each company", as dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv put it. One big grocery store could theoretically be more efficient.
Sure, if a single line can handle any amount of traffic then having more than one might be significantly more inefficient than just building and running several parallel competing grocery stores. Which is why the second part of my post (you read that, right?) pointed out that the current owner of such a line should be very eager to avoid direct competition by giving his customers a fair deal. You don't need to actually have your own physical line to start a price war. The threat of getting one could be enough.
The same argument about "inefficiency" can be made for any industry, not just those you mentioned. Surely grocery stores (for example) are wasting society's resources by duplicating their efforts in so many areas? The logical conclusion is to have the government run everything, or at least hand out monopolies to chosen corporations. Yet this is generally seen as a Bad Idea, and for good reason.
Furthermore, it would be inefficient for a company that has one line (with effectively unlimited capacity) to charge high enough prices that a competitor wants to put in a second line. There's nothing inherently wrong with only one company providing a service if the quality and price is reasonable. The threat of direct competition can keep it from gouging the customers.
Grappling in a 1v1 controlled situation is VERY strong. If I faced the grappler the odds are I would lose, why? Because a lot of my moves are fingers to the eyes, strikes to the throat, kicks to knees, groin, palm strikes to the chins to snap the neck, etc. A normal response is well ya you are trying to have 2 guys fight not kill each other. Which is the point. Aside from eyegouging (a fineable offense, not disqualifying one IIRC), those moves were all allowed in the first UFCs. Nobody died. Nobody got seriously injured. Some moves are still allowed today, despite a list of new safety rules. Why? Because they don't work as well as you think they do. Palm strike to the chin to snap the neck? Get real.
As an ex bouncer of 5 years at a college bar (300+ people a night) if you grappled someone in real life you'd be dead. Got on top of someone and their friends WILL club you with bottles, or kick your head, stabbed, etc. I did see one guy grapple someone and see the guys friend pick up a chair and smash. Ah yes. Real life fights are always one noble hero against hordes of dishonorable scum.
You may have seen some guys grappling on the floor (it's common in real-world fights), but did you see the guy who got beaten initiate the grapple? Do you think he could have prevented it if all those guys he was really fighting had tried to take him down? Grapplers train to stay on their feet, train to control the fall when they're taken down, train to achieve a superior position on the ground and train to get back up if needed (with different emphasis depending on style). All of which help them even if they don't actually want to GnP or apply submission because of other opponents. If someone's going to kick you while you're grappling, would you rather be in control and ready to stand up or dodge or block, or pinned to the floor unable to move your head?
Grapple someone and land on the shitty floor on glass, cement, etc. you are very likely to hurt yourself also. Who's more likely to get hurt by the glass, lava, cement, etc inevitably found where people get into fights? The grappler, controlling the takedown and the fight on the ground, or the non-grappler?
Grappling also requires some room to mover and shot in. You don't have that in a crowded bar. You don't need room to take your fingers and jab it into someone's throat. Important lesson learned from BJJ and MMA: Effective striking requires room to strike. Effective grappling doesn't. That's why you see "grapplers" desperately snuggling up to and taking down "strikers" in MMA fights. The strikers will move around and try to avoid the takedown by staying far enough away that they have time to react when the shoot comes.
Someone who didn't know of his training tried mugging him - pulling a knife on him. By the time his attacker hit the ground he had 3 broken ribs, a fractured skull, a broken jaw, a broken leg, and an arm broken in three places (if I'm recalling correctly. I may have mixed up an arm broken in 3 places for a leg broken in 3, but the injuries are in general accurate). That was his measured response to assure that he was no longer in any sort of danger, the man could have been dead before his body dropped. Never happened. You shouldn't be so trusting.
It's very hard to judge the effectiveness of one fighting style versus another unless you're looking at two people who are really out for blood. Why? Your friend's sifu can supposedly break multiple bones all over the body of a resisting adult male in a matter of seconds. Why wouldn't that help him win a UFC fight? If the objection is that he doesn't want to hurt "innocents", then surely he could pull his punches and settle for a clean knockout?
I'm a Norwegian and I don't hate Swedes. I think that in a lot of ways they are as special and as valuable as normal human beings. The whole Norway-Sweden rivalry is a myth.
... showing young people the very process that brought them into existence,... Either you haven't watched much porn or you have a lot to learn about the human reproductive process.;)
In a perfect marketplace, the government would have little or no role at all, but come on, living just a few years after a century which saw huge monopolies and markets that simply were nonfunctional in the laissez-faire notion of a well-functioning marketplace. Do you have some examples of huge monopolies and nonfunctional markets?
Here I'm thinking of Eric Flint and the incongruous prequels to the Dune series. Huh? What did Eric Flint do? Are you accusing him of the Dune prequels?
Their show is entertaining, but it's important to realize that neither Jamie nor Adam really have a scientific or engineering background. A piece of paper does not make you a competent scientist. The science training you get from a basic degree is minimal and easily matched by a dedicated amateur. And the Mysthbusters have had plenty of practical and theoretical science training by now. Every show gets them new viewer feedback and they regularly revisit past myths when their methodology is questioned. I doubt if there's a "regular" scientist out there who has his experiments examined by as many critics.
To think that they could "bust" a "myth" with any degree of certainty is laughable. Regardless of whether the Mythbusters are the worst or the best scientists in the history of the world their experiments should still stand on their own. To think that a myth is busted or not based on who's dong the experiment is laughable.
How do you know how much people are spending? If you cut you're spending then the government will effectively be paying you for nothing. If the poor aren't paying any tax then where is the deficit made up? Yes, they know roughly how much people are spending. Consumption is a more stable source of revenue than income.
http://fairtax.org/fairtax/faqanswers.htm#9
If you cut your spending you'll most likely be saving up money and you'll be paying even more taxes when the time comes to spend your savings. In the mean time you'll be investing in the US economy and you'll be better able to handle financial emergencies. It's all good.
This system is no better than income tax, but it's more complicated and more open to abuse and failure. More complicated?! A flat sales tax is "more complicated" than the current incomprehensible collection of income tax laws and regulations? You're going to have to explain this to me.
The final downfall is that it means everyone is effectively reliant on government welfare to survive. But I suppose that's what they want... "Everyone" will die if the government doesn't return a few thousand dollars of tax money a year? You sure there won't be one or two diehard survivors? (Bill Gates could probably scrape by...)
Slashdot Mirror
The treaty in question was signed but never ratified, neither by Russia, nor by US or UK.
"This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...
It was signed. It is binding.
Fraud is illegal regardless of copyright law.
Patents exist solely to promote innovation. Or, more specifically, "science and the useful arts". There is plenty of evidence that traditional industrial patents do exactly that.
Cite?
Yes, yes, I noticed. :(
(I looked for it before posting, I swear, but clearly I didn't look hard enough or I had the wrong view settings.)
What is it you don't understand? There is no contradiction, seeming or otherwise.
Planning for a 90 sol mission when the rovers clearly have the potential to last far longer is bound to lead to suboptimal choices. It boggles the mind that anyone can fail to understand that.
As for the weather on Mars, it is, in fact, pure bullshit that NASA had no way to estimate its effects.
Oh, and I'm not "hating" on anyone. But I guess that's what any hint of criticism looks like to a raving fanboy. Calm down.
I don't think the rovers lasting far beyond the "planned" 90 sols is entirely flattering for NASA as an organization. It means that they've used completely unrealistic estimates, be it due to incompetence or general ass-covering. When Opportunity finally breaks down it may well be because someone knowingly put in a component with a relatively short lifespan even though a better alternative would only have been marginally heavier or more expensive.
Keep on struggling Opportunity. We'll bring you home soon. We promise. Just a little longer.
http://xkcd.com/695/ (Spirit rover)
Which law or laws would you be breaking by placing tracking devices on FBI or police vehicles?
A simple way to avoid some scams:
Pay out once a month. One week before any money is actually transferred each subscriber gets an email with the previous month's clicks. Scammers can be detected and reported. You could have the subscribers confirm each click in the list after logging into the website, or just pay out the money unless the subscriber actively says otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TTkPE0ew40
The Norwegian oil fields were first explored and developed by multinational corporations.
The Norwegian government was and is heavily involved in the Norwegian oil industry, but it never got "all of the profits" (as parent claims).
I suspect the fact that Britain has 13 times more people and smaller offshore oil reserves might just possibly have something to do with Norway benefiting more from its oil on a per capita basis.
The government requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for even the shortest prison sentence or smallest fine. But it only requires "preponderance of evidence" (51% or more) to use its power to ruin your life with debt due to a civil suit.
No, it can't, and your analogy sucks.
Instead of making bold denials you should give me an concrete example of an industry where a perfectly run monopoly would not be more efficient than many smaller competing businesses.
Grocery stores don't require utility lines to be run to people's houses.
So what? As far as I can tell, dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv's point was that competition can lead to redundancy. Multiple competing grocery stores means "higher costs across the industry, and lowers sales for each company", as dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv put it. One big grocery store could theoretically be more efficient.
Sure, if a single line can handle any amount of traffic then having more than one might be significantly more inefficient than just building and running several parallel competing grocery stores. Which is why the second part of my post (you read that, right?) pointed out that the current owner of such a line should be very eager to avoid direct competition by giving his customers a fair deal. You don't need to actually have your own physical line to start a price war. The threat of getting one could be enough.
The same argument about "inefficiency" can be made for any industry, not just those you mentioned. Surely grocery stores (for example) are wasting society's resources by duplicating their efforts in so many areas? The logical conclusion is to have the government run everything, or at least hand out monopolies to chosen corporations. Yet this is generally seen as a Bad Idea, and for good reason.
Furthermore, it would be inefficient for a company that has one line (with effectively unlimited capacity) to charge high enough prices that a competitor wants to put in a second line. There's nothing inherently wrong with only one company providing a service if the quality and price is reasonable. The threat of direct competition can keep it from gouging the customers.
...or maybe midgets.
Most of those were allowed in the earliest UFCs. It didn't make much of a difference.
You may have seen some guys grappling on the floor (it's common in real-world fights), but did you see the guy who got beaten initiate the grapple? Do you think he could have prevented it if all those guys he was really fighting had tried to take him down? Grapplers train to stay on their feet, train to control the fall when they're taken down, train to achieve a superior position on the ground and train to get back up if needed (with different emphasis depending on style). All of which help them even if they don't actually want to GnP or apply submission because of other opponents. If someone's going to kick you while you're grappling, would you rather be in control and ready to stand up or dodge or block, or pinned to the floor unable to move your head? Grapple someone and land on the shitty floor on glass, cement, etc. you are very likely to hurt yourself also. Who's more likely to get hurt by the glass, lava, cement, etc inevitably found where people get into fights? The grappler, controlling the takedown and the fight on the ground, or the non-grappler? Grappling also requires some room to mover and shot in. You don't have that in a crowded bar. You don't need room to take your fingers and jab it into someone's throat. Important lesson learned from BJJ and MMA: Effective striking requires room to strike. Effective grappling doesn't. That's why you see "grapplers" desperately snuggling up to and taking down "strikers" in MMA fights. The strikers will move around and try to avoid the takedown by staying far enough away that they have time to react when the shoot comes.
I'm a Norwegian and I don't hate Swedes. I think that in a lot of ways they are as special and as valuable as normal human beings. The whole Norway-Sweden rivalry is a myth.
YouTube linky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5IaIxWNzI .
If you cut your spending you'll most likely be saving up money and you'll be paying even more taxes when the time comes to spend your savings. In the mean time you'll be investing in the US economy and you'll be better able to handle financial emergencies. It's all good. This system is no better than income tax, but it's more complicated and more open to abuse and failure. More complicated?! A flat sales tax is "more complicated" than the current incomprehensible collection of income tax laws and regulations? You're going to have to explain this to me.
The final downfall is that it means everyone is effectively reliant on government welfare to survive. But I suppose that's what they want... "Everyone" will die if the government doesn't return a few thousand dollars of tax money a year? You sure there won't be one or two diehard survivors? (Bill Gates could probably scrape by...)