You don't think that has anything to do with the fact that city water sucks donkey balls?
Seriously, who actually drinks that stuff anymore?
Fun experiment: dump your ice tray into your kitchen sink and let it melt overnight. Observe the powdery residue left behind and remember that you're drinking that stuff.
Actually, if they're really serious about this, they have to somehow block people from, as you say, recording and re-distributing. So, what they should be asking for is funds to research how to DRM compression waves (i.e., sound waves).
I think the parent was saying that since the parts fit by using the same interface shapes as Lego's, they'd violate the patent because they use that specific shape.
Of course, that's wrong, since Lego's patent has long since expired. That doesn't stop the company from threatening imitators though...
He was saying that most iPod users just load their iPods with free (speech) mp3's without ever getting iTunes stuff. Yes, the iTunes downloads go to iPods, but not all iPods go to iTunes.
Medicine is legally cartelized, IT isn't. Anyone can legally offer computer services. (Getting people to buy them is another matter.) Now, see what happens if you give out medical advice for free. See what happens when you try to introduce an innovation into medicine and how many legal barriers there are.
You know, you say that now, but wait till Parliament passes the Uniting the Kingdom through a Terrorism-Oriented Resistance, Interdiction, and Enforcement Strategy Act (UK TORIES Act) or the Uniting the Kingdom By Resisting Intrusion from Terrorists Of the Nation Act (UK BRITON Act).
Does the above phenomenon have anything to do with women's fascination with romance novels, all of which have approixmately this plot:
"Wealthy woman is seduced (or raped, going by legal definitions) by a muscular manual laborer and then later marries him against the wishes of her family."
Actually, I don't think it's so much "underemployment" as "No one wants to pay top dollar for my skill set anymore, but I still feel entitled to that pay". It sucks when your skill set loses value, I don't deny that at all, but that's why you should hedge against it (through appropriate savings diversification), not ban the competition like dying industries like to do.
And invariably that "other demand" will pay less and have fewer benefits, thus resulting in a net loss to the individual involved.
Marxist (not a smear -- that's his handle), do you think it would be fair to say that since 1900 in America over 100 million jobs have been "destroyed" by outsourcing and technology? Such as horse trainers, carriage makers, textile workers, etc. Would you say that the forces responsible for that caused less real compensation?
This is accomplished by keeping the person out of work until they are bankrupt and forced to take the next offer regardless of what it is.
Why didn't that person save while they were "high on the hog" and bury the money in an index of companies so as to insure against falling behind?
And it's interesting that you even bring this up. Didn't slashdot just have a thread about the rules of engagement in a job interview? Why do you think searching for employees and employers is so hard to do?
Okay, sorry, I probably shouldn't have made two of the three examples dead-end jobs.
I was just trying to make the point that the efficiency gain in shifting to Bangalore -- to the extent it exists -- simply frees up those Americans to satisfy some other demand. And, that the new jobs will come in bits and pieces that don't make the news.
Yeah, but what about the three jobs that were created in Northwest LA because a dry cleaner could now afford the IT support he needed to open more offices, or the six jobs in the interior decorating firm that got a surge in business because it could now afford to mechanize some of their operations and get more clients who can now afford them, or the construction firm that now needs more labor because they could the design for a larger building cheaper... x1000
I don't think it's that easy to come up with the fake ID, but more importantly, I'm not sure how successful this is in stealing a house. Once the original owner gets back, title reverts to them. And the buyer gets their money back. Why? Well, remember those irritating closing costs? It turns out not all of them are simply novel excuses to make the bank money. One item is title insurance, which insures the buyer against precisely this -- the title not being legitimately transfered to them.
(On a side note, I'm always irritated about how much ID verification I have to give to make transactions, only to find out con artists are successful because those standards aren't applied to them.)
But 989,118 : 466,716 is UNDER the 2:1 ratio for small values of 2. The 2 could be 1.5, it could be 1.7, whatever. And then let's look at the one. Maybe they rounded the 1 down from its true value of 1.3. I'm just saying, you're taking too rigid of a definition of 1 and 2.
OOH!!! Or how about a railroad game where you have to "manage" the transportation of "passengers" to Dachau as part of the German railroad system in the early 1940's? Or where you have to help Chairman Mao kickstart China's railroad system and thereby facilitate the murderous Great Leap Forward?
Oh wait, they already have that: it's called "Railroad Tycoon II". (I'm kidding about the first one, of course. They'd never do that -- it's offensive, after all.)
there may be cases when a patent holder will need the infringer to stop - for instance, you both actually produce a product. However, your competitor looks like he may take significant market share - you have to get the infringement stopped or you risk losing your revenue stream
Did you read my previous sentence before the part you quoted? That scenario wouldn't justify shutting it down RIGHT NOW because, like I said in that sentence, the harms are reversible -- you can always seize the infringer's revenue or assets later to make up for the loss of revenue if it turns out he indeed was infringing. That's the point -- just because there's a harm doesn't mean you need to stop it right now.
Net neutrality is fraudulent, because no one knows what the market will want tomorrow.
Let's go easy on the rhetoric; net neutrality might lack merit, and it's proponents might on occasion make fraudulent claims* but "net neutrality" is not fraudulent. And while I agree that people too often use static thinking when talking about markets, I strongly suspect people will ALWAYS want to know when their access to something is being throttled because the provider has been bribed to make your access more difficult by someone who can't compete on a level field.
*though more often it happens the other way around. Ted Stevens and Professor Woo, I'm looking in your general direction. Except about the internet not being a truck. That part you got right.
lol, it gets pretty silly at points. From Wikipedia:
In its decision on October 4, 1984, the court upheld the previous verdict. They declared that "The two properties [King Kong and Donkey Kong] have nothing in common but a gorilla, a captive woman, a male rescuer, and a building scenario." Further, the court ruled that "The 'Kong' and 'King Kong' names are widely used by the general public and are associated with apes and other objects of enormous proportions."
Slashdot Mirror
Extremism in pursuit of moderation is no vice. --Aristotle/Cicero hybrid
And while we're at it, who decided to put the waste dump so close to the recreational facility?
You don't think that has anything to do with the fact that city water sucks donkey balls?
Seriously, who actually drinks that stuff anymore?
Fun experiment: dump your ice tray into your kitchen sink and let it melt overnight. Observe the powdery residue left behind and remember that you're drinking that stuff.
I stick to distilled.
Actually, if they're really serious about this, they have to somehow block people from, as you say, recording and re-distributing. So, what they should be asking for is funds to research how to DRM compression waves (i.e., sound waves).
Well, who came up with "Breezy Badger" or "Dapper Drake"?
The NASA moon landings weren't faked.
*please mod informative, please mod informative*
I think the parent was saying that since the parts fit by using the same interface shapes as Lego's, they'd violate the patent because they use that specific shape.
Of course, that's wrong, since Lego's patent has long since expired. That doesn't stop the company from threatening imitators though...
He was saying that most iPod users just load their iPods with free (speech) mp3's without ever getting iTunes stuff. Yes, the iTunes downloads go to iPods, but not all iPods go to iTunes.
I don't know if that's true, but it sounds right.
You forgot a more imporant difference IHMO:
Medicine is legally cartelized, IT isn't. Anyone can legally offer computer services. (Getting people to buy them is another matter.) Now, see what happens if you give out medical advice for free. See what happens when you try to introduce an innovation into medicine and how many legal barriers there are.
You know, you say that now, but wait till Parliament passes the Uniting the Kingdom through a Terrorism-Oriented Resistance, Interdiction, and Enforcement Strategy Act (UK TORIES Act) or the Uniting the Kingdom By Resisting Intrusion from Terrorists Of the Nation Act (UK BRITON Act).
I know nothing about women, so I will ask:
Does the above phenomenon have anything to do with women's fascination with romance novels, all of which have approixmately this plot:
"Wealthy woman is seduced (or raped, going by legal definitions) by a muscular manual laborer and then later marries him against the wishes of her family."
?
Actually, I don't think it's so much "underemployment" as "No one wants to pay top dollar for my skill set anymore, but I still feel entitled to that pay". It sucks when your skill set loses value, I don't deny that at all, but that's why you should hedge against it (through appropriate savings diversification), not ban the competition like dying industries like to do.
And invariably that "other demand" will pay less and have fewer benefits, thus resulting in a net loss to the individual involved.
Marxist (not a smear -- that's his handle), do you think it would be fair to say that since 1900 in America over 100 million jobs have been "destroyed" by outsourcing and technology? Such as horse trainers, carriage makers, textile workers, etc. Would you say that the forces responsible for that caused less real compensation?
This is accomplished by keeping the person out of work until they are bankrupt and forced to take the next offer regardless of what it is.
Why didn't that person save while they were "high on the hog" and bury the money in an index of companies so as to insure against falling behind?
And it's interesting that you even bring this up. Didn't slashdot just have a thread about the rules of engagement in a job interview? Why do you think searching for employees and employers is so hard to do?
Okay, sorry, I probably shouldn't have made two of the three examples dead-end jobs.
I was just trying to make the point that the efficiency gain in shifting to Bangalore -- to the extent it exists -- simply frees up those Americans to satisfy some other demand. And, that the new jobs will come in bits and pieces that don't make the news.
Yeah, but what about the three jobs that were created in Northwest LA because a dry cleaner could now afford the IT support he needed to open more offices, or the six jobs in the interior decorating firm that got a surge in business because it could now afford to mechanize some of their operations and get more clients who can now afford them, or the construction firm that now needs more labor because they could the design for a larger building cheaper... x1000
Those little victories don't make the news.
I don't think it's that easy to come up with the fake ID, but more importantly, I'm not sure how successful this is in stealing a house. Once the original owner gets back, title reverts to them. And the buyer gets their money back. Why? Well, remember those irritating closing costs? It turns out not all of them are simply novel excuses to make the bank money. One item is title insurance, which insures the buyer against precisely this -- the title not being legitimately transfered to them.
(On a side note, I'm always irritated about how much ID verification I have to give to make transactions, only to find out con artists are successful because those standards aren't applied to them.)
Is the 5.03% per year [that] their "money market fund" pays [what you mean by] "nice fat interest"?
Better?
Is the 5.03% per year their money market fund (Barclays International) pays "nice fat interest"?
Hey, the celebrity gossip column called. They want their criteria for using bold back.
But 989,118 : 466,716 is UNDER the 2:1 ratio for small values of 2. The 2 could be 1.5, it could be 1.7, whatever. And then let's look at the one. Maybe they rounded the 1 down from its true value of 1.3. I'm just saying, you're taking too rigid of a definition of 1 and 2.
Private detectives unearthed that the SIXAXIS only has three axes. (-1, Overdone)
OOH!!! Or how about a railroad game where you have to "manage" the transportation of "passengers" to Dachau as part of the German railroad system in the early 1940's? Or where you have to help Chairman Mao kickstart China's railroad system and thereby facilitate the murderous Great Leap Forward?
Oh wait, they already have that: it's called "Railroad Tycoon II". (I'm kidding about the first one, of course. They'd never do that -- it's offensive, after all.)
there may be cases when a patent holder will need the infringer to stop - for instance, you both actually produce a product. However, your competitor looks like he may take significant market share - you have to get the infringement stopped or you risk losing your revenue stream
Did you read my previous sentence before the part you quoted? That scenario wouldn't justify shutting it down RIGHT NOW because, like I said in that sentence, the harms are reversible -- you can always seize the infringer's revenue or assets later to make up for the loss of revenue if it turns out he indeed was infringing. That's the point -- just because there's a harm doesn't mean you need to stop it right now.
Net neutrality is fraudulent, because no one knows what the market will want tomorrow.
Let's go easy on the rhetoric; net neutrality might lack merit, and it's proponents might on occasion make fraudulent claims* but "net neutrality" is not fraudulent. And while I agree that people too often use static thinking when talking about markets, I strongly suspect people will ALWAYS want to know when their access to something is being throttled because the provider has been bribed to make your access more difficult by someone who can't compete on a level field.
*though more often it happens the other way around. Ted Stevens and Professor Woo, I'm looking in your general direction. Except about the internet not being a truck. That part you got right.
Glad we got that cleared up