uncivil comments polarizing viewers was not the primary point of the article/study.
it's point was the comments expousing the exact same basic argument had different effect based on the writer's civility,
and this was most strongly seen in viewers with weak personal views/familiarity on the subject to begin with,
i.e. the vast majority of readers/ the general populace. this is contrasted with pre-internet norms of topical debate where uncivility was simply much less of a factor due to social constraints.
sure, but for any given semi-specialized subject, the vast majority of people don't care that much about it... and in a democratic (or mob-ocratic) system/structure, this is shifting what the SLIGHT preferences of this majority or near-majority is, which can change what the over-all majority opinion is.
Good summary of the real motivations of the carriers with these 'alternate' OS's.
Those who can use unlocked phones may benefit from the growth of alternate OS's using vanilla OS builds and independent apps stores...
But what I don't get is how these alternate OS's really 'benefit' the network providers (with aspirations to be more than that):
Android can already be used outside of Google's dictate, you simply can't use Google applications or Store.
But if you use some other entirely different OS, you also are not using Google's Android apps, or it's Store... So what's the difference?
(incidentally, I would say that loss of Google Map application is the biggest deal, Stores can be replicated)
"âoeEvery time we came up with a new idea we spawned two or three companies that would try to exploit it"
I mean, doesn't this obvious violation of the holy IP rights monopoly lead to the destruction of western society and the end of all innovation? Oh whoops, it did the opposite in this case... Same as how when software patents didn't exist yet, and same as when wheels and axles couldn't be patented...
well, i think it would be enlightening if you wanted to tally up their successes achieved with this budget.
rus-m? vostochny? glonass (the last certainly CAN be a success, but not yet)
It's not just launch systems though, and it's not just development, but procurement.
Russia is also intent on developing GLONASS, as well as satcoms and visual/radar imaging, as well as funding space exploration such as to the Moon (Luna), Mars and the moons of Jupiter.
All that needs funding of launch system development and much more.
There's alot of depth to Russian expertise, they have competing entities developing different approaches. Re-usable launchers, or semi-re-usable, with folding wings on the 1st stage boosters allowing the booster to glide back and be refueled (lower cost) has been perpetually on the back-burner... Hopefully stuff like that, and more, will be funded to fruition. Longer-term, it's not just SpaceX but projects like Reaction Engines SABRE that will be defining the launch economy, and Russia needs to be there to be relevant.
Given that one of the major controversies here is the danger of contamination of the lake (both for negating the scientific value, and the lake ecosystem itself)... Isn't the pursuance of 3 independent, parallel drilling projects solely in the name of national egos, a minor outrage?
And that points out the fundamental fact that the Democratic Party is ultimately loyal to 'the 2 party system' over all other concerns, when even when they are in control they cannot avoid a result that panders to the Republican party. But hey, this is the party that just rolled over and forgot about Floridian vote fraud.
Seriously, it is within the power of Democrats in many jurisdictions to enact an equitable representation system, e.g. proportional representation, which makes Gerrymandering unable to sway the balance of power. Ignore all other benefits of P.R., making Gerrymandering pointless is a good enough benefit. Proportional Representation doesn't even need to do away with local representatives (as solely party-list systems do), the Bavarian approach still has every single representative elected on a local basis, yet achieves proportionality. Yet Democrats don't like that. Being in bed with Republicans is more attractive than real democracy.
Honestly, I'd be interested to see what this Khanna guy does from now, if he finds a way to be relevant politically or whatever. 3rd party/independent political career? Public interest lobbying group? It would be interesting to see if the Repubs end up regretting firing him.
Why do you assume that the government shut off communications? They are certainly aware that 'rebel' forces have satcoms provided by US, France, UK, and the democracy-loving Gulf Sheikdoms.
This is just straw-man bullshit meant to smear WikiLeaks. Think about it. What is WikiLeaks entire purpose:TO LEAK INFORMATION.
These people are trying to say WikiLeaks is bad because this information was released without being properly redacted (censored) of sensitive information.
I.e, it would pass the CIAs own morality test. (ahem)
But properly protecting all the spies and informants who are serving the US government ISNT REALLY A CONCERN OF WIKILEAKS,
Wikileakss prime concern re: security should be the anonymity and security of THEIR OWN SUBMITTERS
(who are the ones revealing the secret information about informers, and who should bear the moral responsibilty for that)
This is besides the fact that at this point, the #1 likely SOURCE for this is Daniel Domsheit-Berg, who had issues with WL
over their alleged lack of security, yet he has yet to create a more secure system, and I have yet to hear of one
whistle-blower/leaker who was compromised because of lack of security on WLs end of things
(as opposed to their own problems, as with the US Army leaker who was entrapped by the Wired magazine / government intelligence associated people),
even though you can be sure the US and other government would love to violate these leakers security.
Please, WIkileaks: release more unredacted leaks, especially the top-secret ones that you are still holding onto.
The ironic thing is Apple is listening... to their actual target market. You know, regular people.
The people buying apps created in MonoTouch, Scheme, with Lua or Ruby interepreters?
I mean, if there is no demand for something, there is no reason to ban it, right?
So since the promises under which premise the 'standard' was adopted have utterly been not met,
Shouldn't the committee revoking their approval of OOXML as a "Standard"?
Of course, that puts MS back in the hotseat of no longer offering a "Open Standard" compliant product for governments, etc
which REQUIRE such "Open Standard" functionality.... Meaning MS either makes ODF standard or gives up these markets.:-)
The entire meme put out by this CEO of Indian software outsourcing company is absurd.
What is this guy's area of expertise?
Is HTC known for actual innovative work, products that sell themselves, that create new markets around new functionalities?
Of course not. They are outsourcing the lowest-end "drone work" from companies like Microsoft.
I.e. the most labor-intensive kind of work, i.e. the least lucrative per man-hour, i.e. the kind you don't want to get into if you have any sense.
But never mind that, there must be a BIG PROBLEM with Western developers who really should know they need to give up their 100k/year job working with a few guys they get along with writing iPhone software, or working in an environment that is flexible with their lifestyle, and might even provide an outlet for the intellectual curiosity that drew them to the field in the first place.
And they really need to cut out that art education in public schools...
Right, what's ridiculously stupid is not his primary opinion (that 'piracy' facilitated by the internet is 'bad', an opinion even shared by non-Mega Media Corporation Execs), though I would contest that myself, but his inference that NO POSITIVE BENEFITS EXIST in addition to this 'negative' aspect.
I mean, people die from free-way accidents, but it also facilitates longer-distance travel.
Millions have been saved by Penicillin and derivatives, but I had an allergic reaction once, so I guess there must be NO benefit, huh?
I just think these people just don't have a real life outside of counting their money...
Larger rotor diameter generators obviously are advantageous.
But this study/article seems to not acknowledge an interesting approach that was investigated in Britain:
(In areas with sufficient regular wind), houses/buildings whose roof pitch is parallel to the common wind direction (i.e. the roof line is perpendicular to the common wind direction) can exploit their aerodynamic shape to boost the efficient of smaller wind rotors. With an additional "wing" form mounted above a row of smaller wind rotors (like a little roof), combing with the increased local wind speed generated by the roof pitch, the smaller rotors can easily achieve efficiencies of >2x the same size rotors not mounted to take advantage of local aerodynamics.
This type of approach is of course generated at the site of usage, so has no transmission losses.
Design doesn't matter?
Hmm... I was going to make a comment on archeo-tech,
but then I remembered the computer I'm typing on still has a DVD drive/burner.
In any case, wouldn't the obvious solution have been using the inefficient spin-up method to check "for sure" if there is a floppy or not, and using that info and the "no spin up" code, figure out which of the 2 drive types it was, and use that going forward?
Basically the Guardian is asking to be "given" an additional revenue stream based on when Google refers viewers to it.... In other words, they would make more money from new Google-referred viewers than from loyal readers who go directly to Guardian.co.uk because they like the Guardian. OK. I guess I won't be personally recommending to any of my friends to read the Guardian, or else I might be on the hook big time...
What is the logical extension of this anyways? Would a map-making company need to pay money to each and every business or notable destination they include on their map (since if there was nothing interesting on the map, who would buy it?) Acknowledging (and REPORTING ON) the existence of facts (whether drama amongst the Royals, or that Newspaper X has published the most popular story on Subject Y) has generally held to be a free right of all - it seems highly ironic that a NEWSPAPER like the Guardian seems intent on limiting such an inherent right which it's own work is centered on.
All in all, this is just "envy". Guardian, like alot of other media companies is not finding it easy to be profitable, yet they see all these other "enabling" technology companies "just a step away" from their field of business, who are making tons of money. This was really the impetus for stuff like the AOL-Time-Warner merger in the 90s... Except that didn't turn out so well. So now the media companies just want extortion payments to get upside with no downside.
I'm not THE most knowledgeable on the minutae of these, but all the bad blood about Red Hat/ Oracle seems silly: The whole point of "Free Software"/Linux is that any company does not "own" code or software (well, they still do, but give up any claim to interfere with others' use of it).
Commercial Linux companies obviously need to make their money thru support services. So Oracle thinks they can compete against Red Hat in this area. Obviously, Red Hat as the signifigant maintainer/updater MAY have an advantage. All the end-users get to decide it themselves, and since the code-base is so close, it's relatively easy to switch back and forth.
What is the problem when "Free Software" is working exactly how it's supposed to? So what if Oracle eats Red Hat's business for lunch without contributing back? Linux will still be improved by those who want to improve it. All that such a scenario would mean is that (if it occurs) the model of maintenance/support service subsidizing development may not work for all cases. If that's true, then so what?
Monopolies *ARE* illegal (irrespective of other issues, e.g. fraud), contray to US. EU cannot be ignored by Intel. If EU forced Intel to licence x86 on an "open"/equal basis (ala MP3), that would be AMD's ideal scenario, since as it would be court ordered, it would be a reasonable licence fee to start, AND it would not be subject to "give and take" over AMD's OWN patents implicated in x86-64: They would be completely free to sue Intel for whatever they can get over the x64 patents, and would have no fear of losing their licence/countersuits re: the core x86 patents.
At one level, wouldn't it have been a smarter, lower-litigation-cost approach if AMD had spun off their NON-FOUNDRY (design) operations but kept all the x86 rights under the same house as the foundry? (if the design company wants to make x86 parts with other foundries, as they have done previously if I'm correct, they simply designate it as "design contracting" FOR the Foundry Company which holds the x86 rights (profit stream going to AMD, but that's a contract detail irrelevant to x86 licence).
At another level, what IF Intel ends AMD's x86 licence? Isn't the point of the licence in the first place that AMD also has their own signifigant patents they could sue Intel for violating? I just don't see the logic in this, especially given that Intel seems to be doing GREAT compared to AMD, and AMD's continued existence gives Intel an anti-monopoly defense as long as they continue to compete in the x86 market.
At another level, this certainly seems big enough an issue to bring up the legitimacy of patent monopolies with regards to anti-trust law. US law doesn't generally hold (business) monopolies to be illegal per se, but I believe EU law *DOES*, and if Intel would gain a mainstream CPU monopoly by kicking AMD out of the x86 business, there would be repurcussions. If there was no x86 competition (VIA of course "exists"), the chances of EU nullifying x86 patents (or establishing "open" standardized licencing ala MP3) would seem to rise dramatically, which seems counter to Intel's interests.
"Ppl won't create the *correct number of books/movies/etc. unless the government 'incentivizes' the production thereof by enforcing the creators' exclusive rights to copy/modify/etc."
*where "correct" is determined by said government...
I don't understand where you get this idea. Copyright at its most fundamental level is a legal enforcement of proper attribution. Don't claim to be somebody who you are not, and certainly don't assert that you wrote something or made something when you had absolutely nothing to do with it in the first place.
Unfortunately, you fail to address the point.
Copyright isn't needed to enforce "proper attribution", "claiming to be someone you're not" or have "done something you haven't": Those would be covered under FRAUD.
Copyright is ONLY about granting a legal MONOPOLY to distribute covered works: That monopoly patently would not exist without state intervention - which would imply "free" distribution of goods at cost of production. (A freedom that Copyright suppresses)
You can say that Copyright is "fair", and can demonstrate that the business model your current income is organized around depends on that legal framework, but that doesn't change the basic fact: WITHOUT the arbitrary government-granted monopoly, there would be NO Copyright. For example, I believe historically, no copyright or patents were ever ATTEMPTED to be enforced over: stone tools, bows & arrows, wheels, pulleys. Likewise, I believe there's something like, oh, 80,000 years of human history that produced plenty of music, art, and story-telling with absolutely ZERO Copyright law.
The point is that it IS a Government created regime, not some natural "right".
If you accept that, then it should follow that limiting it's application to funnel super-profits to private entities is NOT an abrogation of any "right", but a fine-tuning of an arbitrary Government edict. To compare to another government edict: Car Insurance, a legal requirement in most locales. Without the requirement, business for insurers would certainly be less. Instead of MANUFACTURING private profits thru legal requirements, the rational (and more efficient) solution is a non-profit para-govermental Insurance Corporation, which since it would charge less since it's not for-profit, would put for-profits out of business. Interestingly, when the Ottawa government attempted to introduce this, they were BANNED thru the secret NAFTA courts, since their non-profit state car insurance would be "unfair" competition to the transnational insurance corporations.
RE: Copyright, there's no reason the stated aims of Copyright could not be achieved by a system that DID NOT introduce "ownership" of the works, but instead incentivized inventing popular works by paying back "royalties", but with diminishing returns. Ultimately, Copyright Law should not exist for Copyright HOLDERS, but for society at large: Benefits to it's holders should exist to the proportion that society at large benefits.
This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop.
Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That....
But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something.
So the only specifics he's proposing in the patent are:
Using Cookies exactly how browser cookies are supposed to be used.
I hope Oprah makes a show out of this, and connects it with the rest of the IP-ocracy.
Y'know, invite on some poor moms sued by the RIAA, farmers fucked by GMO-Corps,
doctors from 3rd world countries that can't afford the drug mafia's prices...
Why don't you find someone who was in your position, went Independent, and now has too much work to handle ("Feast")? If their business slows down alot, they might not have the work to support you anymore, but that's true of any business. I KNOW people in this position, and who basically are in the position of closing down their "overly" successful IT business because it's not worth it to them to devote the hours it demands, and would rather pursue a lower-key career, like mind/body healing. This sort of person is EXACTLY the sort who could understand your desire to work Part-Time.
Just think... If this had existed,
terrorists like Nelson Mandela could have been captured years earlier,
saving innocent White lives and the Rule of Law!
Slashdot Mirror
uncivil comments polarizing viewers was not the primary point of the article/study. it's point was the comments expousing the exact same basic argument had different effect based on the writer's civility, and this was most strongly seen in viewers with weak personal views/familiarity on the subject to begin with, i.e. the vast majority of readers/ the general populace. this is contrasted with pre-internet norms of topical debate where uncivility was simply much less of a factor due to social constraints.
sure, but for any given semi-specialized subject, the vast majority of people don't care that much about it... and in a democratic (or mob-ocratic) system/structure, this is shifting what the SLIGHT preferences of this majority or near-majority is, which can change what the over-all majority opinion is.
Good summary of the real motivations of the carriers with these 'alternate' OS's. Those who can use unlocked phones may benefit from the growth of alternate OS's using vanilla OS builds and independent apps stores... But what I don't get is how these alternate OS's really 'benefit' the network providers (with aspirations to be more than that): Android can already be used outside of Google's dictate, you simply can't use Google applications or Store. But if you use some other entirely different OS, you also are not using Google's Android apps, or it's Store... So what's the difference? (incidentally, I would say that loss of Google Map application is the biggest deal, Stores can be replicated)
"âoeEvery time we came up with a new idea we spawned two or three companies that would try to exploit it" I mean, doesn't this obvious violation of the holy IP rights monopoly lead to the destruction of western society and the end of all innovation? Oh whoops, it did the opposite in this case... Same as how when software patents didn't exist yet, and same as when wheels and axles couldn't be patented...
well, i think it would be enlightening if you wanted to tally up their successes achieved with this budget. rus-m? vostochny? glonass (the last certainly CAN be a success, but not yet)
It's not just launch systems though, and it's not just development, but procurement. Russia is also intent on developing GLONASS, as well as satcoms and visual/radar imaging, as well as funding space exploration such as to the Moon (Luna), Mars and the moons of Jupiter. All that needs funding of launch system development and much more. There's alot of depth to Russian expertise, they have competing entities developing different approaches. Re-usable launchers, or semi-re-usable, with folding wings on the 1st stage boosters allowing the booster to glide back and be refueled (lower cost) has been perpetually on the back-burner... Hopefully stuff like that, and more, will be funded to fruition. Longer-term, it's not just SpaceX but projects like Reaction Engines SABRE that will be defining the launch economy, and Russia needs to be there to be relevant.
Given that one of the major controversies here is the danger of contamination of the lake (both for negating the scientific value, and the lake ecosystem itself)... Isn't the pursuance of 3 independent, parallel drilling projects solely in the name of national egos, a minor outrage?
And that points out the fundamental fact that the Democratic Party is ultimately loyal to 'the 2 party system' over all other concerns, when even when they are in control they cannot avoid a result that panders to the Republican party. But hey, this is the party that just rolled over and forgot about Floridian vote fraud.
Seriously, it is within the power of Democrats in many jurisdictions to enact an equitable representation system, e.g. proportional representation, which makes Gerrymandering unable to sway the balance of power. Ignore all other benefits of P.R., making Gerrymandering pointless is a good enough benefit. Proportional Representation doesn't even need to do away with local representatives (as solely party-list systems do), the Bavarian approach still has every single representative elected on a local basis, yet achieves proportionality. Yet Democrats don't like that. Being in bed with Republicans is more attractive than real democracy.
Honestly, I'd be interested to see what this Khanna guy does from now, if he finds a way to be relevant politically or whatever. 3rd party/independent political career? Public interest lobbying group? It would be interesting to see if the Repubs end up regretting firing him.
Why do you assume that the government shut off communications? They are certainly aware that 'rebel' forces have satcoms provided by US, France, UK, and the democracy-loving Gulf Sheikdoms.
This is just straw-man bullshit meant to smear WikiLeaks. Think about it. What is WikiLeaks entire purpose:TO LEAK INFORMATION. These people are trying to say WikiLeaks is bad because this information was released without being properly redacted (censored) of sensitive information. I.e, it would pass the CIAs own morality test. (ahem) But properly protecting all the spies and informants who are serving the US government ISNT REALLY A CONCERN OF WIKILEAKS, Wikileakss prime concern re: security should be the anonymity and security of THEIR OWN SUBMITTERS (who are the ones revealing the secret information about informers, and who should bear the moral responsibilty for that) This is besides the fact that at this point, the #1 likely SOURCE for this is Daniel Domsheit-Berg, who had issues with WL over their alleged lack of security, yet he has yet to create a more secure system, and I have yet to hear of one whistle-blower/leaker who was compromised because of lack of security on WLs end of things (as opposed to their own problems, as with the US Army leaker who was entrapped by the Wired magazine / government intelligence associated people), even though you can be sure the US and other government would love to violate these leakers security. Please, WIkileaks: release more unredacted leaks, especially the top-secret ones that you are still holding onto.
The people buying apps created in MonoTouch, Scheme, with Lua or Ruby interepreters? I mean, if there is no demand for something, there is no reason to ban it, right?
So since the promises under which premise the 'standard' was adopted have utterly been not met, Shouldn't the committee revoking their approval of OOXML as a "Standard"? Of course, that puts MS back in the hotseat of no longer offering a "Open Standard" compliant product for governments, etc which REQUIRE such "Open Standard" functionality.... Meaning MS either makes ODF standard or gives up these markets. :-)
The entire meme put out by this CEO of Indian software outsourcing company is absurd. What is this guy's area of expertise? Is HTC known for actual innovative work, products that sell themselves, that create new markets around new functionalities? Of course not. They are outsourcing the lowest-end "drone work" from companies like Microsoft. I.e. the most labor-intensive kind of work, i.e. the least lucrative per man-hour, i.e. the kind you don't want to get into if you have any sense. But never mind that, there must be a BIG PROBLEM with Western developers who really should know they need to give up their 100k/year job working with a few guys they get along with writing iPhone software, or working in an environment that is flexible with their lifestyle, and might even provide an outlet for the intellectual curiosity that drew them to the field in the first place. And they really need to cut out that art education in public schools...
Right, what's ridiculously stupid is not his primary opinion (that 'piracy' facilitated by the internet is 'bad', an opinion even shared by non-Mega Media Corporation Execs), though I would contest that myself, but his inference that NO POSITIVE BENEFITS EXIST in addition to this 'negative' aspect. I mean, people die from free-way accidents, but it also facilitates longer-distance travel. Millions have been saved by Penicillin and derivatives, but I had an allergic reaction once, so I guess there must be NO benefit, huh? I just think these people just don't have a real life outside of counting their money...
Larger rotor diameter generators obviously are advantageous. But this study/article seems to not acknowledge an interesting approach that was investigated in Britain: (In areas with sufficient regular wind), houses/buildings whose roof pitch is parallel to the common wind direction (i.e. the roof line is perpendicular to the common wind direction) can exploit their aerodynamic shape to boost the efficient of smaller wind rotors. With an additional "wing" form mounted above a row of smaller wind rotors (like a little roof), combing with the increased local wind speed generated by the roof pitch, the smaller rotors can easily achieve efficiencies of >2x the same size rotors not mounted to take advantage of local aerodynamics. This type of approach is of course generated at the site of usage, so has no transmission losses. Design doesn't matter?
Hmm... I was going to make a comment on archeo-tech, but then I remembered the computer I'm typing on still has a DVD drive/burner. In any case, wouldn't the obvious solution have been using the inefficient spin-up method to check "for sure" if there is a floppy or not, and using that info and the "no spin up" code, figure out which of the 2 drive types it was, and use that going forward?
But the case is about Google TELLING SOMEONE THE URL.
Basically the Guardian is asking to be "given" an additional revenue stream based on when Google refers viewers to it.... In other words, they would make more money from new Google-referred viewers than from loyal readers who go directly to Guardian.co.uk because they like the Guardian. OK. I guess I won't be personally recommending to any of my friends to read the Guardian, or else I might be on the hook big time... What is the logical extension of this anyways? Would a map-making company need to pay money to each and every business or notable destination they include on their map (since if there was nothing interesting on the map, who would buy it?) Acknowledging (and REPORTING ON) the existence of facts (whether drama amongst the Royals, or that Newspaper X has published the most popular story on Subject Y) has generally held to be a free right of all - it seems highly ironic that a NEWSPAPER like the Guardian seems intent on limiting such an inherent right which it's own work is centered on. All in all, this is just "envy". Guardian, like alot of other media companies is not finding it easy to be profitable, yet they see all these other "enabling" technology companies "just a step away" from their field of business, who are making tons of money. This was really the impetus for stuff like the AOL-Time-Warner merger in the 90s... Except that didn't turn out so well. So now the media companies just want extortion payments to get upside with no downside.
I'm not THE most knowledgeable on the minutae of these, but all the bad blood about Red Hat/ Oracle seems silly: The whole point of "Free Software"/Linux is that any company does not "own" code or software (well, they still do, but give up any claim to interfere with others' use of it). Commercial Linux companies obviously need to make their money thru support services. So Oracle thinks they can compete against Red Hat in this area. Obviously, Red Hat as the signifigant maintainer/updater MAY have an advantage. All the end-users get to decide it themselves, and since the code-base is so close, it's relatively easy to switch back and forth. What is the problem when "Free Software" is working exactly how it's supposed to? So what if Oracle eats Red Hat's business for lunch without contributing back? Linux will still be improved by those who want to improve it. All that such a scenario would mean is that (if it occurs) the model of maintenance/support service subsidizing development may not work for all cases. If that's true, then so what?
Monopolies *ARE* illegal (irrespective of other issues, e.g. fraud), contray to US.
EU cannot be ignored by Intel.
If EU forced Intel to licence x86 on an "open"/equal basis (ala MP3), that would be AMD's ideal scenario, since as it would be court ordered, it would be a reasonable licence fee to start, AND it would not be subject to "give and take" over AMD's OWN patents implicated in x86-64: They would be completely free to sue Intel for whatever they can get over the x64 patents, and would have no fear of losing their licence/countersuits re: the core x86 patents.
Own goal, Intel.
At one level, wouldn't it have been a smarter, lower-litigation-cost approach if AMD had spun off their NON-FOUNDRY (design) operations but kept all the x86 rights under the same house as the foundry? (if the design company wants to make x86 parts with other foundries, as they have done previously if I'm correct, they simply designate it as "design contracting" FOR the Foundry Company which holds the x86 rights (profit stream going to AMD, but that's a contract detail irrelevant to x86 licence).
At another level, what IF Intel ends AMD's x86 licence?
Isn't the point of the licence in the first place that AMD also has their own signifigant patents they could sue Intel for violating? I just don't see the logic in this, especially given that Intel seems to be doing GREAT compared to AMD, and AMD's continued existence gives Intel an anti-monopoly defense as long as they continue to compete in the x86 market.
At another level, this certainly seems big enough an issue to bring up the legitimacy of patent monopolies with regards to anti-trust law. US law doesn't generally hold (business) monopolies to be illegal per se, but I believe EU law *DOES*, and if Intel would gain a mainstream CPU monopoly by kicking AMD out of the x86 business, there would be repurcussions. If there was no x86 competition (VIA of course "exists"), the chances of EU nullifying x86 patents (or establishing "open" standardized licencing ala MP3) would seem to rise dramatically, which seems counter to Intel's interests.
Copyright etc. is a form of planned economy:
"Ppl won't create the *correct number of books/movies/etc. unless the government 'incentivizes' the production thereof by enforcing the creators' exclusive rights to copy/modify/etc."
*where "correct" is determined by said government...
I don't understand where you get this idea. Copyright at its most fundamental level is a legal enforcement of proper attribution. Don't claim to be somebody who you are not, and certainly don't assert that you wrote something or made something when you had absolutely nothing to do with it in the first place.
Unfortunately, you fail to address the point. Copyright isn't needed to enforce "proper attribution", "claiming to be someone you're not" or have "done something you haven't": Those would be covered under FRAUD. Copyright is ONLY about granting a legal MONOPOLY to distribute covered works: That monopoly patently would not exist without state intervention - which would imply "free" distribution of goods at cost of production. (A freedom that Copyright suppresses)
You can say that Copyright is "fair", and can demonstrate that the business model your current income is organized around depends on that legal framework, but that doesn't change the basic fact: WITHOUT the arbitrary government-granted monopoly, there would be NO Copyright. For example, I believe historically, no copyright or patents were ever ATTEMPTED to be enforced over: stone tools, bows & arrows, wheels, pulleys. Likewise, I believe there's something like, oh, 80,000 years of human history that produced plenty of music, art, and story-telling with absolutely ZERO Copyright law.
The point is that it IS a Government created regime, not some natural "right". If you accept that, then it should follow that limiting it's application to funnel super-profits to private entities is NOT an abrogation of any "right", but a fine-tuning of an arbitrary Government edict. To compare to another government edict: Car Insurance, a legal requirement in most locales. Without the requirement, business for insurers would certainly be less. Instead of MANUFACTURING private profits thru legal requirements, the rational (and more efficient) solution is a non-profit para-govermental Insurance Corporation, which since it would charge less since it's not for-profit, would put for-profits out of business. Interestingly, when the Ottawa government attempted to introduce this, they were BANNED thru the secret NAFTA courts, since their non-profit state car insurance would be "unfair" competition to the transnational insurance corporations.
RE: Copyright, there's no reason the stated aims of Copyright could not be achieved by a system that DID NOT introduce "ownership" of the works, but instead incentivized inventing popular works by paying back "royalties", but with diminishing returns. Ultimately, Copyright Law should not exist for Copyright HOLDERS, but for society at large: Benefits to it's holders should exist to the proportion that society at large benefits.
This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop. Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That.... But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something. So the only specifics he's proposing in the patent are: Using Cookies exactly how browser cookies are supposed to be used. I hope Oprah makes a show out of this, and connects it with the rest of the IP-ocracy. Y'know, invite on some poor moms sued by the RIAA, farmers fucked by GMO-Corps, doctors from 3rd world countries that can't afford the drug mafia's prices...
Why don't you find someone who was in your position, went Independent, and now has too much work to handle ("Feast")? If their business slows down alot, they might not have the work to support you anymore, but that's true of any business. I KNOW people in this position, and who basically are in the position of closing down their "overly" successful IT business because it's not worth it to them to devote the hours it demands, and would rather pursue a lower-key career, like mind/body healing. This sort of person is EXACTLY the sort who could understand your desire to work Part-Time.
Just think... If this had existed, terrorists like Nelson Mandela could have been captured years earlier, saving innocent White lives and the Rule of Law!