Medecine/pharamceuticals and university based research are all bad examples of the patent system at work since none of them cross-license their discoveries, or at least, the extent to which they do is highly limited.
What this translates to is many of these types of companies not wishing to do research in a field where another company has already done since since that comapny tends to sue for royalties. For example, a big chunk of the human genome is 'owned' as IP; if a company were to do research on a part of the genome that is owned, any beneficial product coming out of that research, or product, will have to pay royalties to whoever owns that part of genome.
Now, I am generalizing a bit, but the gist is clear. The way the system works is one reason why medicinal research hasn't witnessed the kind of explosion for example computer technology has, which has extensive cross-licensing since everyone realized a long time ago that without it, we wouldn't get anything done.
Personally I believe that much as Dictatorships during the previous century often tilled the soil for the seeding of representative democracies, China's current 'state-capitalist' system (as another/.'er posted in this thread) will eventually follow suit. The key will be for us to promote it slowly by appylying pressure through trade negotiations.
Welfare and immigration impact our economy but hardly in the strict terms you draw. There's far worse - such as governmental support for problematic initiatives led by U.S. multinationals promoted through the lobby system - that hurt us far more.
Here is a good quote:
"This administration and the Republican-led Congress have permitted the dismantling of America's manufacturing base and created a dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products that is greater than our dependency on foreign oil... And remember, there's a reason President Hu met with business leaders in Seattle first. He obviously knows who's really in charge of this country." http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/19/dobbs.hu/index.ht ml
While there are compelling reasons to meddle in China's political affairs - it is after all something we seem to be very good at - we are slowly finding ourselves in a position where we can no longer dictate the terms. It's our ECONOMY that is our strongest weapon, and the failures of our economy can't simply be attributed to providing 'welfare' or lax immigration laws. We should be pursuing policies that will strengthen our ability to leverage our economy to promote those 'human rights' through trade as the U.S. traditionally has done. We most certainly need 'more' protectionism - not less as Mr. Hu would ask.
Between it's assets, capital, and pure population, pretty soon, if not already, China will be dictating the terms on which WE can trade with THEM. And I'd like to see how they respond then to requests from the U.S. that they become more 'democratic'...
"The solution for now is simply to not appease the Chineese government."
A little unrealistic. We currently have a 200 billion trade deficit with China. China recently became the 4th largest economy in the world.
Here is what worries me: when political leaders come to the U.S. (Mr. HU of China) and their first stop is at buisness leader's homes (Bill Gates) and not with heads of state (GW Bush).... that leads me to believe the power dynamic has shifted rather significantly AWAY from our heads of state and TO them.
Not appeasing them the solution? I think you should flip the power equation on it's head. We are losing the capability to require anything of them.
I preferred DS9.
The sterile atmosphere of the Enterprise with it's limited cast and crew and the expendable ensigns doesn't work as well for me. Also, the richer possibilities introduced with say the Defiant were fun, and the station used as a defensive outpost...
That said, I think both Captain Picard and Commander Sisko wereoutstanding actors.
Actually linguists would more likely argue that language is dynamic and that the written word as well as 'stnadardised english' is a contrivance.
'Standard' and 'formal' language is generally part of the hierarchical nature of society. What's standard today, and what might be standard tomorrow, for example, might be completely different.
"Add to that they have to re buy all their dvd's that they are still pissed about rebuying from vhs"
Hah! Just wait soon as they're done reselling us all our DVDs on HD-DVD they'll sell em to us AGAIN on HD-DVD Superbit!
And, of course, five years from now we'll be buying them all over on our new holographic media players... http://www.inphase-technologies.com/
Or in a new format designed for 3d? http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/ 20060210/20060210.html
Personally, I can't wait for the MPAA to start selling licenses to content... then, maybe each time it comes out in new media we'll get it for free....
I didn't make a party distinction in my posts, and the site I linked to www.cagw.org specifically lists it's disclaimer all over their website:
"The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government."
I think the knee-jerk reflex of the politically partisan serves only to obscure a legitimate and honest conversation of the real issues plaguing the country.
The country is not neatly divided between 'democrats' and 'republicans' because those two terms don't take into account varying stances individuals have across so-called party platforms. For example with regards to myself I am pro small government, a traditionally republican platform, but this particular administration (in which Repubs control all three branches of the government) has created the 'biggest' government in the nation's history.
If we are to take an honest look at what's going in the country's economy, and have a serious conversation about it, jumping someone just cause you assume s/he is either dem or repub isn't going to make for much progress.
I don't disagree with you on the level you are making your point at; your first comment simply kinda gave me the impression you were arguing the longer view which blames social programs for the country's larger economic issues.
Although in principal I agree it may be in many circumstances unfair for taxpayers to be burdened with the debts of underachievers, the view I take is that dollar for dollar I am supporting large corporate interests and bad government policy far more than I am my or your relatives who are just too damn lazy to haul ass and make a better life for themselves.
There isn't much I can do about my cousin's particular situation, but there sure are things I can do when I don't agree with government subsidies of billion dollar businesses, or the fact that I may still be paying $797,000 for an outhouse in PA. (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=geti nv_Survey_Expenditures)
wealth begets wealth. i can get a much much MUCH higher ROI out of say 3-400k than i could out of 30-40k; the difference is remarkable, like 30-40% (or better) versus 10%. The difficulty in "accumulating wealth" is an issue of making numbers work. It's much harder for a 100k income family to accumulate wealth, as a result, than it is for a household with an income double that. More to the point, I'd argue that social programs for people who aren't doing too well don't hurt your pocket as a taxpayer anywhere near as much as corporate welfare, pork barrel spending, problematic governmental fiscal discipline, corporate fraud, or any other of a number of issues. Not to mention social programs have historically shown that they do also protect many middle-class families from utter destitution that can be brouht on from one day to the next simply as a result of an accident, health issues, divorce, lawsuits, etc.
So what's the point of so-called 'youth' drugs such as growth hormone injections I've heard much of?
If the aging process can simply not be retarded or stopped, then any effort in those fields is destined to fail?
I'm honestly curious since oddly I have come to believe that at least within this century we should start seeing real science in these fields, real and effective science at that.
"the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen"
There is sooooooo much tech that would benefit consumers if government wasn't overly protective of entrenched buisness interests. It doesn't just apply to DRM and he media cartels either, i see it in so many facets of life in general. A simple example would be alternative fuels. The existing energy cartels want to be the ones providing the impetus for change, and quite simply, had the government which supposedly represents the populace in genera; provided some real incentives and subsidies we'd have moved into a far more fuel efficient modus operandi a decade ago. Yet big buisness lobbies and purchases interests in government and keeps this from happening to the dteriment of the consumer.
I remember trying lots of similar situations where start-ups (not internet startups or tech companies) with better models and products were crushed by entrenched interests committed to the status quo, and only willing to move to new equipment or models slowly, all the while maintaining their stranglehold on the current status quo, it's no different with media companies, but overall it hurts the consumer.
Nimble companies able to adapt should reap the rewards of that capability instead of being shot down by existing cartels, just like it works in evolution:)
I wonder, should every defendant actually to court, and request trial by jury, and tie up expensive lawyer time, if that would perhaps encourage the RIAA to consider other alternatives.
Presumably they could then request reimbursement of legal fees and increase defendants debt, but in my experience judges seem to be mostly fair when considering economic hardship (maybe this just pertains to the real estate buisness).
Would be funny if defendants all requested a community-service like alternative to paying $$, and judges actually granted it...
I dunno, we're talking about Bill Gates, and by extension, MS. Yes AIDS, food, and vaccinations and water and energy are all important, but when it's Bill Gates who's rippin on a computer/tech project it's kinda hard to believe he is solely concerned about development issues and not about trying to market 'his' products or 'his' ideas.
If this project has even partial success we are looking at a huge population in developing 'markets' for.... linux. And considering developing markets are where market share and company 'growth' is earned the easiest, if I were B.G. I'd be none too happy about anything that didn't establish MS as the de facto standard in a potential market.
I'd say cash is unpopular in the U.S., almost none of my friends or aquaintainces ever pay with it.
Debit cards seem most popular. If you pay attention to the news, you'll notice that anyone here who pays for anything that costs more than a couple hundred in cash raises 'terrorist' or 'criminal' suspicions.
Slashdot Mirror
With so many spaceports popping up everywhere I kinda wonder how the industry will be commoditized.
I weep as I type this but I suspect you haven't been on voicechat during a world of warcraft raid....
Because they do, they do say it, they actually say LOL out loud...
Cheap not so much but Panasonic Toughbooks http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/home.a sp and, well, the Getac M220 http://www.getac.com/m220.htm look like they'd survive a warzone.
Unfortunatly if I'm not mistaken they are like 4grand...
Medecine/pharamceuticals and university based research are all bad examples of the patent system at work since none of them cross-license their discoveries, or at least, the extent to which they do is highly limited.
What this translates to is many of these types of companies not wishing to do research in a field where another company has already done since since that comapny tends to sue for royalties. For example, a big chunk of the human genome is 'owned' as IP; if a company were to do research on a part of the genome that is owned, any beneficial product coming out of that research, or product, will have to pay royalties to whoever owns that part of genome.
Now, I am generalizing a bit, but the gist is clear. The way the system works is one reason why medicinal research hasn't witnessed the kind of explosion for example computer technology has, which has extensive cross-licensing since everyone realized a long time ago that without it, we wouldn't get anything done.
Personally I believe that much as Dictatorships during the previous century often tilled the soil for the seeding of representative democracies, China's current 'state-capitalist' system (as another /.'er posted in this thread) will eventually follow suit. The key will be for us to promote it slowly by appylying pressure through trade negotiations.
t ml
Welfare and immigration impact our economy but hardly in the strict terms you draw. There's far worse - such as governmental support for problematic initiatives led by U.S. multinationals promoted through the lobby system - that hurt us far more.
Here is a good quote:
"This administration and the Republican-led Congress have permitted the dismantling of America's manufacturing base and created a dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products that is greater than our dependency on foreign oil...
And remember, there's a reason President Hu met with business leaders in Seattle first. He obviously knows who's really in charge of this country."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/19/dobbs.hu/index.h
While there are compelling reasons to meddle in China's political affairs - it is after all something we seem to be very good at - we are slowly finding ourselves in a position where we can no longer dictate the terms. It's our ECONOMY that is our strongest weapon, and the failures of our economy can't simply be attributed to providing 'welfare' or lax immigration laws. We should be pursuing policies that will strengthen our ability to leverage our economy to promote those 'human rights' through trade as the U.S. traditionally has done. We most certainly need 'more' protectionism - not less as Mr. Hu would ask.
Between it's assets, capital, and pure population, pretty soon, if not already, China will be dictating the terms on which WE can trade with THEM. And I'd like to see how they respond then to requests from the U.S. that they become more 'democratic'...
"The solution for now is simply to not appease the Chineese government." A little unrealistic. We currently have a 200 billion trade deficit with China. China recently became the 4th largest economy in the world. Here is what worries me: when political leaders come to the U.S. (Mr. HU of China) and their first stop is at buisness leader's homes (Bill Gates) and not with heads of state (GW Bush).... that leads me to believe the power dynamic has shifted rather significantly AWAY from our heads of state and TO them. Not appeasing them the solution? I think you should flip the power equation on it's head. We are losing the capability to require anything of them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but before the twentieth century 'artists' and 'art' were never associated with the economic clout they have today.
There's a difference between despising the medium (art) and the jackals and their cohorts who use it as a get rich quick scheme.
I preferred DS9. The sterile atmosphere of the Enterprise with it's limited cast and crew and the expendable ensigns doesn't work as well for me. Also, the richer possibilities introduced with say the Defiant were fun, and the station used as a defensive outpost... That said, I think both Captain Picard and Commander Sisko wereoutstanding actors.
Actually linguists would more likely argue that language is dynamic and that the written word as well as 'stnadardised english' is a contrivance.
'Standard' and 'formal' language is generally part of the hierarchical nature of society. What's standard today, and what might be standard tomorrow, for example, might be completely different.
"Add to that they have to re buy all their dvd's that they are still pissed about rebuying from vhs" Hah! Just wait soon as they're done reselling us all our DVDs on HD-DVD they'll sell em to us AGAIN on HD-DVD Superbit! And, of course, five years from now we'll be buying them all over on our new holographic media players... http://www.inphase-technologies.com/ Or in a new format designed for 3d? http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/ 20060210/20060210.html
Personally, I can't wait for the MPAA to start selling licenses to content... then, maybe each time it comes out in new media we'll get it for free....
I didn't make a party distinction in my posts, and the site I linked to www.cagw.org specifically lists it's disclaimer all over their website:
"The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government."
I think the knee-jerk reflex of the politically partisan serves only to obscure a legitimate and honest conversation of the real issues plaguing the country.
The country is not neatly divided between 'democrats' and 'republicans' because those two terms don't take into account varying stances individuals have across so-called party platforms. For example with regards to myself I am pro small government, a traditionally republican platform, but this particular administration (in which Repubs control all three branches of the government) has created the 'biggest' government in the nation's history.
If we are to take an honest look at what's going in the country's economy, and have a serious conversation about it, jumping someone just cause you assume s/he is either dem or repub isn't going to make for much progress.
I don't disagree with you on the level you are making your point at; your first comment simply kinda gave me the impression you were arguing the longer view which blames social programs for the country's larger economic issues.
i nv_Survey_Expenditures)
Although in principal I agree it may be in many circumstances unfair for taxpayers to be burdened with the debts of underachievers, the view I take is that dollar for dollar I am supporting large corporate interests and bad government policy far more than I am my or your relatives who are just too damn lazy to haul ass and make a better life for themselves.
There isn't much I can do about my cousin's particular situation, but there sure are things I can do when I don't agree with government subsidies of billion dollar businesses, or the fact that I may still be paying $797,000 for an outhouse in PA. (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=get
wealth begets wealth. i can get a much much MUCH higher ROI out of say 3-400k than i could out of 30-40k; the difference is remarkable, like 30-40% (or better) versus 10%. The difficulty in "accumulating wealth" is an issue of making numbers work. It's much harder for a 100k income family to accumulate wealth, as a result, than it is for a household with an income double that. More to the point, I'd argue that social programs for people who aren't doing too well don't hurt your pocket as a taxpayer anywhere near as much as corporate welfare, pork barrel spending, problematic governmental fiscal discipline, corporate fraud, or any other of a number of issues. Not to mention social programs have historically shown that they do also protect many middle-class families from utter destitution that can be brouht on from one day to the next simply as a result of an accident, health issues, divorce, lawsuits, etc.
So what's the point of so-called 'youth' drugs such as growth hormone injections I've heard much of? If the aging process can simply not be retarded or stopped, then any effort in those fields is destined to fail? I'm honestly curious since oddly I have come to believe that at least within this century we should start seeing real science in these fields, real and effective science at that.
"the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen" There is sooooooo much tech that would benefit consumers if government wasn't overly protective of entrenched buisness interests. It doesn't just apply to DRM and he media cartels either, i see it in so many facets of life in general. A simple example would be alternative fuels. The existing energy cartels want to be the ones providing the impetus for change, and quite simply, had the government which supposedly represents the populace in genera; provided some real incentives and subsidies we'd have moved into a far more fuel efficient modus operandi a decade ago. Yet big buisness lobbies and purchases interests in government and keeps this from happening to the dteriment of the consumer. I remember trying lots of similar situations where start-ups (not internet startups or tech companies) with better models and products were crushed by entrenched interests committed to the status quo, and only willing to move to new equipment or models slowly, all the while maintaining their stranglehold on the current status quo, it's no different with media companies, but overall it hurts the consumer. Nimble companies able to adapt should reap the rewards of that capability instead of being shot down by existing cartels, just like it works in evolution :)
Are you seriously argueing that somehow Dubya's prose and polish is superior to Gore's?
I wonder, should every defendant actually to court, and request trial by jury, and tie up expensive lawyer time, if that would perhaps encourage the RIAA to consider other alternatives. Presumably they could then request reimbursement of legal fees and increase defendants debt, but in my experience judges seem to be mostly fair when considering economic hardship (maybe this just pertains to the real estate buisness). Would be funny if defendants all requested a community-service like alternative to paying $$, and judges actually granted it...
I dunno, we're talking about Bill Gates, and by extension, MS. Yes AIDS, food, and vaccinations and water and energy are all important, but when it's Bill Gates who's rippin on a computer/tech project it's kinda hard to believe he is solely concerned about development issues and not about trying to market 'his' products or 'his' ideas. If this project has even partial success we are looking at a huge population in developing 'markets' for.... linux. And considering developing markets are where market share and company 'growth' is earned the easiest, if I were B.G. I'd be none too happy about anything that didn't establish MS as the de facto standard in a potential market.
I'd say cash is unpopular in the U.S., almost none of my friends or aquaintainces ever pay with it. Debit cards seem most popular. If you pay attention to the news, you'll notice that anyone here who pays for anything that costs more than a couple hundred in cash raises 'terrorist' or 'criminal' suspicions.
Random comment on nerdiness of /.ers and self-depreacting note regarding the lack of the forums collective experience in seksual endeavors.