The Cyborg in Us All - NYTimes.com: When he interrupted the Pink Floyd song with moments of silence, the brain’s volume meter continued to tremble up and down, as if the song were still playing. This, Schalk said, showed that the brain creates a model of what it expects to hear — a shadow song that plunks out its tune in the player piano of our auditory system.
“Isn’t this crazy?” he shouted over the thunder of the bass. “We’re close to being able to reconstruct the actual music heard in the brain and play it. If we had several times more electrodes, I bet we could do it.”
Apple suing Samsung over the look and feel of the IPad.
This points to how difficult it is to make IP an issue the average person cares about. Look at how revered Apple and Steve Jobs are, even in the tech community.
You guys do realize, don't you, that evidence doesn't affect politics. If science, for example, doesn't reinforce preconceived ideas, it is ignored, or worse, debunked.
I'm just trying to get people past the bitching stage if they care enough about this. A lot of these conversations read like jock talk. People get together and talk shit at each other, but it doesn't go much further. Economic and political change are complex processes and need to involve much more than just online comments. The world economy is at a significant juncture and much could get better with the right actions, but more likely everything will get worse for many people.
If you want to change laws or eliminate them and you don't have a lot of money to hand over to politicians, then either change the way campaigns are financed or change the way politicians are elected.
IP laws are not a priority to me. But world economic conditions and sustainability are. I'm hoping some of you guys who want to eliminate IP laws will take that passion into the political and economic realms.
You can't buy your way out of the end (democrats) and you can't downsize your way out of it (republicans) and you sure as hell can't batshit-crazy your way out of it (Tea Party).)
A radical restructuring of world economics and politics may be required
In order to change the world's economic power structures so that those who currently benefit from IP laws step aside to allow for a new world order, my guess is that you'll have to see some massive changes in global political and economic blocks.
I believe the health care system in the US is broken. Or at least it is too expensive for what we get. However, I don't think the patent system and the FDA are the primary causes. I think it has more to do with how we consume and pay for health care.
Here's a look at how an unregulated system can result in some questionable products. If we are going to explore the subject, we need to look at all issues.
So we're talking about how patents slow down health care and make it more expensive.
However, a lot of drugs are no longer patented and health care delivery is still too expensive. When our system can't afford to deliver even the basics of health care because it costs too much, eliminating patents isn't likely to change that.
As I have asked before, the rich understand if they kill us off they will have no one to do anything for them right?
I have pondered this a lot. Do the masses have any leverage? Do we reach a tipping point where things get so bad for so many people that the very wealthy are moved to act?
But my conclusion is that the masses don't have that leverage. The very wealthy can get by with far fewer people. In fact, it's probably better for the planet if we continue to have a worldwide recession. Consumption goes down, which reduces degradation of the planet.
And if people die off, it's a crude form of population control.
When companies made money from people borrowing and consuming, then having lots of consumers was a good thing for those corporate owners. But if consumers stop borrowing to pay off debt and buy less as a result, they don't contribute to the wealthy and therefore, other than for humanitarian reasons, the wealthy have no incentive to save them.
If you look at politics in this country and around the world, you realize there are a lot people ready to eliminate funding on those programs that help the poor and the middle class.
The cost of health care in this country has to come down, or people can't afford it. I don't know if it will take people dying to lead to some action, but it's likely to get worse before it gets better.
As long as lobbyists and politicians convince voters that we have the best health care system in the world and that any changes will hurt citizens, not much is going to happen.
Anyone care to mount an effective campaign to get things turned around?
I've been closely involved with Internet stuff since 1993. I've watched a lot companies and online communities come and go. That's why all the articles about Facebook and why it will be such a great investment and the future of the Internet don't impress me. It will be replaced by something else. Every company is. The very ease with which new companies can come along and upend the current leaders is reason why the next generation of companies will do them same to them.
If you want to change the laws, you need to become part of the political process. The masses aren't going to rise up against patents because it is too far removed from their everyday lives.
If companies are being hampered by patents, then they are the ones who are going to have to exercise whatever leverage they have.
I'd like to see an overhaul of the entire world economic system, so I'm curious how patent reform will play out.
Here's some reading on that subject:
Deregulated, Laissez-Faire, Trickle-Down Economics Destroyed U.S. Dominance: "We did not have a mere recession in 2007 and 2008, we experienced the beginning of the culmination of an era of ideologically-driven mismanagement occurring amidst, and partially in response to, one of the most massive changes in political economics in modern times."
Our politicians work for who pays them. If you ever actually want to change anything you need to spend more then the people who dont want it changed. Absolutely nothing else besides money will make any difference, not the press, not public opinion, just money.
Agreed. This is not a voter hot button, so you're not going to get voters demanding that this be a campaign issue.
And even if patent reform is good for the economy and job creation, politicians have shown that they will actually undermine the economy and stifle job creation if it serves their political purposes.
So the only recourse that seems to work is for donors to give them money to influence the legislative process. Politicians are governed by self-interest. They want to get re-elected. They respond to what helps them do that.
Well, the elections are coming up and job creation is on everyone's mind. What I'm hoping for is that the likes of Google and Amazon will get to some candidates and say: "Look at how many jobs WE are creating. Let me tell you what we need: Less patents. Here's a bunch of cash for your campaign, now spread the good word that patents kill jobs." If that momentum can get going, we could have people on both side of the aisle chanting "We want jobs, not patents."
I think it's going to take something like this before much is done. Money and lobbying talk. Until companies actively campaign for change, politicians don't have much of an incentive to take this on.
Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right...maybe not
It is patently unreasonable to hold someone to an an "unstated" understanding. Either state it, or put up with interlopers.
It is interesting as communities (both on and offline) evolve to see to what extent etiquette and the like are codified. Restaurants start to put up dress codes. Online groups jump on newbies and tell them what they can or can't do and sometimes put up a list of rules for participation.
Then, of course, you have a group of people intentionally disobey the rules to make a statement. And if they disobey, others then try to exclude them or punish them.
If the argument is that as long as you didn't state the rules, we can do what we want, we will end up with more rules. Maybe we can't depend on common sense to guide us.
No, people don't necessarily try to keep track of everything you do. If they establish it isn't of interest to them and not a threat to them, they won't bother. But they will likely monitor when you come and go so they can spot something unusual. That's good for safety. They might also be interested if you have a porn collection which might be of interest as an indication of your trustworthiness. They want/need to know some things and discount others. And the gossip mill will process whatever is available about whoever happens to be within the relevant community.
However, I don't like Facebook's attempt to do this online. My concern is that my information can also be used for bad purposes. Some of us don't, for example, want to publish our comings and goings because that can be useful for thieves.
Fascinating stuff. In a small town, you are more likely (or at least used to be more likely) to leave your house and your care unlocked. It worked because everyone knew everyone. So the trade-off was safety in exchange for lack of anonymity. I didn't fully appreciate it until I got older and compared my life in small towns versus living in moderate-sized cities.
I'm not big on having everyone watching everything I'm doing (think neighborhood watch), but on the other hand, that is how to maintain safety in one's living environment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
Also, written or un-written, peer pressure will only get you so far. Most societies need a method of enforcement for their rules to have a practical existence.
Yes, I am really interested in how all of this will play out. I'd like to think a group of people can get along peacefully and fairly without requiring a lot of rules and structure, but on the other hand, if you have a few people who choose to be disruptive or exploitative, the whole process can break down.
On the post: Getting Past Just 'Putting Radio On The Internet' - Killer Apps Come Next
How about this for innovation?
“Isn’t this crazy?” he shouted over the thunder of the bass. “We’re close to being able to reconstruct the actual music heard in the brain and play it. If we had several times more electrodes, I bet we could do it.”
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This points to how difficult it is to make IP an issue the average person cares about. Look at how revered Apple and Steve Jobs are, even in the tech community.
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Here's a suggestion
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Here's a suggestion
IP laws are not a priority to me. But world economic conditions and sustainability are. I'm hoping some of you guys who want to eliminate IP laws will take that passion into the political and economic realms.
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: if the US falls
Totally agree.
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
A radical restructuring of world economics and politics may be required
Here are some reference points:
Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control
Peak Oil, Peak Debt, And The Concentration Of Power
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
The other side of the argument
Here's a look at how an unregulated system can result in some questionable products. If we are going to explore the subject, we need to look at all issues.
Drugs Posing as Supplementals May Contain Dangerous Ingredients - NYTimes.com
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Patents aren't the big problem with health care
However, a lot of drugs are no longer patented and health care delivery is still too expensive. When our system can't afford to deliver even the basics of health care because it costs too much, eliminating patents isn't likely to change that.
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re:
I have pondered this a lot. Do the masses have any leverage? Do we reach a tipping point where things get so bad for so many people that the very wealthy are moved to act?
But my conclusion is that the masses don't have that leverage. The very wealthy can get by with far fewer people. In fact, it's probably better for the planet if we continue to have a worldwide recession. Consumption goes down, which reduces degradation of the planet.
And if people die off, it's a crude form of population control.
When companies made money from people borrowing and consuming, then having lots of consumers was a good thing for those corporate owners. But if consumers stop borrowing to pay off debt and buy less as a result, they don't contribute to the wealthy and therefore, other than for humanitarian reasons, the wealthy have no incentive to save them.
If you look at politics in this country and around the world, you realize there are a lot people ready to eliminate funding on those programs that help the poor and the middle class.
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Many problems with US health care
As long as lobbyists and politicians convince voters that we have the best health care system in the world and that any changes will hurt citizens, not much is going to happen.
Anyone care to mount an effective campaign to get things turned around?
On the post: Tech Titans Shift And Change: Worrying About Dominance Is A Fool's Game
Skeptical about Facebook
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
Re: Patents are immoral
If companies are being hampered by patents, then they are the ones who are going to have to exercise whatever leverage they have.
I'd like to see an overhaul of the entire world economic system, so I'm curious how patent reform will play out.
Here's some reading on that subject:
Deregulated, Laissez-Faire, Trickle-Down Economics Destroyed U.S. Dominance: "We did not have a mere recession in 2007 and 2008, we experienced the beginning of the culmination of an era of ideologically-driven mismanagement occurring amidst, and partially in response to, one of the most massive changes in political economics in modern times."
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
Re:
Agreed. This is not a voter hot button, so you're not going to get voters demanding that this be a campaign issue.
And even if patent reform is good for the economy and job creation, politicians have shown that they will actually undermine the economy and stifle job creation if it serves their political purposes.
So the only recourse that seems to work is for donors to give them money to influence the legislative process. Politicians are governed by self-interest. They want to get re-elected. They respond to what helps them do that.
On the post: Chorus Of Mainstream Press Saying The Patent System Is Broken Gets Louder
Re:
I think it's going to take something like this before much is done. Money and lobbying talk. Until companies actively campaign for change, politicians don't have much of an incentive to take this on.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right...maybe not
It is interesting as communities (both on and offline) evolve to see to what extent etiquette and the like are codified. Restaurants start to put up dress codes. Online groups jump on newbies and tell them what they can or can't do and sometimes put up a list of rules for participation.
Then, of course, you have a group of people intentionally disobey the rules to make a statement. And if they disobey, others then try to exclude them or punish them.
If the argument is that as long as you didn't state the rules, we can do what we want, we will end up with more rules. Maybe we can't depend on common sense to guide us.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: Re: The Internet and the New Urbanism
However, I don't like Facebook's attempt to do this online. My concern is that my information can also be used for bad purposes. Some of us don't, for example, want to publish our comings and goings because that can be useful for thieves.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: The Internet and the New Urbanism
I'm not big on having everyone watching everything I'm doing (think neighborhood watch), but on the other hand, that is how to maintain safety in one's living environment.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
Yes, I am really interested in how all of this will play out. I'd like to think a group of people can get along peacefully and fairly without requiring a lot of rules and structure, but on the other hand, if you have a few people who choose to be disruptive or exploitative, the whole process can break down.
Next >>