Re: Re: Destroying the idiotic concept of a software "patent"...
what google really can't afford is to fight a patent claim all the way up the court system and then lose. a supreme court loss would set a legal precedent that could take decades to overcome. they need to pick their battles carefully and takes their losses before the courts rule. at first it will look bad, but eventually the right case will come along.
i think the better approach would be to work on the legislative angle. if google was willing to spend 3 billion on patent, think what 3 billion in lobbyists would buy them.
when i read the article i thought the isp argument was pretty weak and probably unworkable. however, he also mentioned the financial institutions that seemed even more concentrated than the isp's. but either way, you have to admit that these isp and financial institutions are selected specifically because they don't ask too many questions. we have banking laws in this country regarding "know your customer" that limit who can get bank account to real people. this type of law would help in this situation and would involve no 3rd party liability.
Re: So why don't they have "free" Slurpees EVERY day?
so i guess i'm confused. are you saying that this doesn't work and all the evidence to the contrary is wrong? or are you saying that they shouldn't do it because it is immoral or wrong? or...well...exactly what are you saying?
while this is a bit off topic, i especially like that last line. baaahh, baaahh. considering the current budget/debt limit discussions, i am feeling very sheepish these days.
you describe what i glossed over as a "social solution". this is similar to the "if you see something suspicious, please report it" messages we received after 9/11.
killing people for political purposes is terrorism. to quote wikepedia:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
anything more than a cursory glance at the news (even fox) would tell you that this guy had motives that were expressly political.
this is one area where i must disagree. i certainly don't believe in convicting someone based on views expressed online, but from what i have heard (from the mass media, npr in particular) this guy expressed some serious violent tendencies online before this happened. a 1500 page manifesto filled with hate and xenophobic rhetoric was one item. these things certainly call for a second look. if i started spewing hate and threats of violence online against my government or certain social groups, i would fully expect to be investigated.
while wiretapping and such things may be beyond the pale, an investigation into this kind of behavior is the least law enforcement can do. in no way would his freedoms be curtailed, but an examination of his intentions is certainly warranted. has he purchased large quantities of fertilizer without being a farmer? does he own a large number of powerful weapons (not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly an indicator)?
there was a lengthy post here recently about the difference between basic security precautions (metal detectors at airports) and overzealous security theater (full body naked scanners and groping children). this is a classic example of the 80/20 rule. a simple measure can prevent a majority of the security risks. but to go further requires some very intrusive measures that really don't add much to security.
we know about fertilizer and bombs from timothy mcveigh. the simple step of treating large purchases of it like any other controlled product can go a long ways toward preventing large bombings. i believe the u.s. actually does this now.
unfortunately, i don't have a quick answer to mass shootings, but i believe a social solution might be available.
i recognize that any security measure is an threat to my freedoms, and i bristle at them every time i am subjected to them. however, i can recognize the difference between a security measure that has a high likelihood of success and one that is simply a knee-jerk response designed to keep a politician in his job.
“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”
Author Unknown
so what you are saying is that by stating their opinion that ireland is a riskier investment than say germany, that then is a bad thing?
without these rating agencies, how would any institution make a decision on where to invest? what the european governments will find out is that nobody will invest in their debt because they can't make a risk determination.
i really would like to feel sorry for these guys (apple, google, oracle) but they perpetuate this behavior. but why should i feel bad for them. i feel a little bad that our lunch is being eaten by lesser-ip nations. however, it seems that ip law will eventually catch up in those place to prevent progress.
actually, when you think about it maybe all these suits are a concerted plan to simply raise prices and blame the other guy. if apple sues motorola for one thing and motorola sues apple for another they settle for certain amounts and add that to the price of their products. we pay more and both sides make more money.
you focused on the one sentence of a long comment that you could refute. what about the rest of the comment regarding discovering new music? where are your wise words about that?
what? show me the unblurred lines. because when i started raising my kids they sure were blurry. let me rephrase that. everybody i talked to had clear, bright lines, but everybody's lines were different. the cumulative result was a mishmash of crappy advice that never worked for my kids.
okay, i understand about the freebies, but where is the power that is being wielded against the doctors. remember, it is the doctors that are complaining about this not the public (since the data is scrubbed). are we talking about a total lack of backbone here?
i'm just as likely as anyone to feel the effects of peer pressure. what i can't figure out is why these doctors fear the drug company representatives. other than a few lunches and freebies, what do the doctors get out of the relationship.
i am not a doctor, but i think i would have a little more concern about my patient's health, safety and pocketbook than a few freebies from big pharma.
could somebody fill in the blanks here? why do these companies have so much power over the doctors? or are the doctors just like teenagers following the whims of the popular people in school?
On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?
Re: Re: Destroying the idiotic concept of a software "patent"...
i think the better approach would be to work on the legislative angle. if google was willing to spend 3 billion on patent, think what 3 billion in lobbyists would buy them.
stop throwing things! i was joking! ...sort of.
On the post: Really Bad Idea: Make ISPs Liable For Cybercrime Efforts
financial institutions
On the post: 'When Stuff Is Free, We’re More Likely to Buy'
Re: So why don't they have "free" Slurpees EVERY day?
i'm still confused.
On the post: Finnish Police Respond To The Norwegian Tragedy By Increasing Internet Surveillance
Re: Re: disenting opinion
On the post: Finnish Police Respond To The Norwegian Tragedy By Increasing Internet Surveillance
Re: Re:
On the post: Finnish Police Respond To The Norwegian Tragedy By Increasing Internet Surveillance
Re: Re: disenting opinion
On the post: Finnish Police Respond To The Norwegian Tragedy By Increasing Internet Surveillance
Re:
killing people for political purposes is terrorism. to quote wikepedia:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
anything more than a cursory glance at the news (even fox) would tell you that this guy had motives that were expressly political.
On the post: Finnish Police Respond To The Norwegian Tragedy By Increasing Internet Surveillance
disenting opinion
while wiretapping and such things may be beyond the pale, an investigation into this kind of behavior is the least law enforcement can do. in no way would his freedoms be curtailed, but an examination of his intentions is certainly warranted. has he purchased large quantities of fertilizer without being a farmer? does he own a large number of powerful weapons (not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly an indicator)?
there was a lengthy post here recently about the difference between basic security precautions (metal detectors at airports) and overzealous security theater (full body naked scanners and groping children). this is a classic example of the 80/20 rule. a simple measure can prevent a majority of the security risks. but to go further requires some very intrusive measures that really don't add much to security.
we know about fertilizer and bombs from timothy mcveigh. the simple step of treating large purchases of it like any other controlled product can go a long ways toward preventing large bombings. i believe the u.s. actually does this now.
unfortunately, i don't have a quick answer to mass shootings, but i believe a social solution might be available.
i recognize that any security measure is an threat to my freedoms, and i bristle at them every time i am subjected to them. however, i can recognize the difference between a security measure that has a high likelihood of success and one that is simply a knee-jerk response designed to keep a politician in his job.
“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”
Author Unknown
On the post: Gatekeepers And The Economy
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Re:
without these rating agencies, how would any institution make a decision on where to invest? what the european governments will find out is that nobody will invest in their debt because they can't make a risk determination.
On the post: Patents As Theft: How Oracle & Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It
actually, when you think about it maybe all these suits are a concerted plan to simply raise prices and blame the other guy. if apple sues motorola for one thing and motorola sues apple for another they settle for certain amounts and add that to the price of their products. we pay more and both sides make more money.
On the post: The Dark Side Wins: Lucasfilm Shuts Down Star Wars Fan Movie Marathon
Re:
On the post: Marketing Music Through Non-Linear Communication: Accepting The Full Reality Of The Digital Age
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Details Emerge On Best Buy's 'Music Cloud' Service
Re:
you're anonymous. how would anyone know, why would anyone care?
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: A Modest Proposal: Go the f*ck to english class
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says Pharma Companies Can Have Access To Drug Prescription Info To Pressure Doctors Into Prescribing More Expensive Drugs
Re: are we not men (and women)?
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
if it doesn't work then stop
as soon as the airlines realize that passenger counts are down and the true cause if it, they will lobby the government to get things changed.
i guess if we are going to have a corporate run government, we need to learn how to work within it.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Pharma Companies Can Have Access To Drug Prescription Info To Pressure Doctors Into Prescribing More Expensive Drugs
are we not men (and women)?
i am not a doctor, but i think i would have a little more concern about my patient's health, safety and pocketbook than a few freebies from big pharma.
could somebody fill in the blanks here? why do these companies have so much power over the doctors? or are the doctors just like teenagers following the whims of the popular people in school?
On the post: Righthaven Loses Big Yet Again, Cementing Two Previous Issues
Re: Re: Righthaven
so getting back to the grown up part. i think i grew up when i stop saying things like "i know you are, but what am i?"
Next >>