If the highest level of law enforcement in the country cannot be bothered to respect the law, how can they expect the citizenry to do so?
Another shining example of "do as I say not as I do" is how the president expects citizens to be fiscally responsible when he and congress are clearly not.
The guys at the top should be shining examples of how they expect everyone to behave. But they are the exact opposite of that. And then they are surprised when others just follow their lead.
Economists do do those things. There may be economists that also just compile statistics. But people calling themselves "economists" do those things. The reporter that wrote that headline about cancer didn't start calling himself a "scientist". And these people recognized as "economists" (though you claim not) go beyond reporting to also interpret and predict. Perhaps society would be better served with a different name for those that interpret than those that compile statistics. But for now, all we have is "economist".
You mean when National Association of Realtors says "here is our Chief Economist Lawrence Yun" (or whoever it is now) that Larry isn't really an "economist"? Or that when PBS news says "here is economist X from univeristy Y" that X isn't really an "economist"? Tell them that, not me. I am not the one that paraded them out and call them an "economist". The people that are saying they are an economist if they in fact are not would be the ones causing any confusion.
I have never seen an honest economist. That is, every economist I see on the news or read online is wearing the glasses of their owner and describing the world from that distorted view. They are able to bend and ignore logic with the same ease they whore themselves out to their masters. The economy is complicated, no? With many layers of cause and effect left to interpretation.
You see a university professor on PBS News Hour, and think, "This guy teaches economics at university, so he must be impartial and really know his stuff." Then you hear him spout nonsense that seems to defy simple reality and think, "This guy is an idiot incapable of using simple logic and HE is a professor?" Go find out who is funding his research and then it will make a little more sense. It doesn't seem too surprising that those who's job it is to think about the influence of money are so easily influenced by it.
So you need to hire lawyers to set up your company structure in an obfuscated way so that other lawyers will have a hard time attacking it? Ok. But it sounds like a symptom of the problem to me. I just want to create technology. Why do lawyers (whether they belong to me or not) have to stick their noses all up in my business for me to get anything done?
The broken patent system has put a huge drag on both economic and technology advancement. Consider, if we as a society were to totally disallow the ownership of technology. There are basically 2 cases I can see. (This is just a brain dump as I consider my own position on this subject.)
case 1. Two almost equally sized companies working on the same product(s). Seems fine. Let them compete on execution. The one to think of it first has a head start already, they don't need to be granted exclusive rights.
case 2. Smaller company tech is reverse engineered by large company and then out competed in the marketplace by the larger company with more resources. This case is the only one patents help with and should cover.
It seems like we do need to allow some sort of limited ownership of tech to prevent case 2 from stifling startups. So for patents to work as a benefit to society, they need to operate as follows.
1. Startup company files a patent to give them exclusive right to develop a new product they thought up first. Patent includes deliverables and development timelines. Company pays a yearly fee along with updates to the timelines. If timelines are missed by more than 1 year on each update, patent is invalidated. (This to make sure progress to market is actually being made.) Company is given 1-5 years exclusive market rights after the product is delivered (depending on the product) to recoup costs and establish a market.
2. An established company (one with at least one product on the market and revenue) can file a patent only to keep (1) from preventing them from developing a product. That is, since (1) allows startups to block an established company from entering a market for a period, if the established company thinks of an idea first they need a way to keep that from happening. Patents from an established company do not require a development timeline since they cannot be used to prevent anyone from developing the patented technology.
As far as I can tell, this scheme would fix the patents system to be beneficial to everyone that actually does something. (ie. not lawyers or politicians). There is room for the non-practicing inventor to file a patent (without development timeline) and then sell it within one year, either to a big company, or to a startup (that then needs to add a timeline to it and refile.) See any holes in it? Why wouldn't this work?
or that people could not use the internet to plan attacks on critical infrastructure
People could sit in a coffee shop and plan attacks on critical infrastructure. Oh noes, we need a coffee shop security act! Camera's and mics focused on every table is a requirement.
How do I make my vote known to a politician? I have tried writing letters. Every time I get back a form letter that does not address any of my points. Are they listening? They need to know I will vote them out for making the bad decision before they make the bad decision. After I can still vote against them but the damage is done. Also, I am fighting against a majority of fellow voters that seem more concerned about what a politician worships or what a politician fucks than how a politician votes on important issues. My vote is lost in the noise.
a global-financial-crisis level of disaster before there's anything resembling meaningful reform
If by meaningful reform you mean bailout the failing companies, big bonuses to the executives that caused the mess, and business as usual afterwards, then I agree.
Actually all we have from them yet is talk, not action. I'll believe it when I see it.
But you are right about never getting an apology. Nobody from a company will ever admit they were wrong for fear of becoming the scapegoat when blame is placed.
Re: Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech
Actually, nice job! This sums up nicely everything that is wrong with politics. It is all superficial flash and no substance. Nothing is being done, but damn, it looks good and people feel good about it.
Bingo. I don't know how RSUs work, but stock options are taxed at the price they were exercised at. It is easy to get overtaxed if you exercise and then do not immediately sell... as you would if you expect the price to increase. You can exercise any time after the options vest, too, but there are strict rules about when you can sell. This is how people get into tax trouble with options.
Besides that, employees simply expect the stock not to tank. Else it breeds a bad mood within the company at the least. For this reason I think this guy (and Zuckerberg as well) were not trying to fleece anyone. They simply bought into the hype from wall street themselves. Now they have some extra things to deal with as far as keeping employees happy and engaged.
On the post: UK Continues To Criminalize Bad Taste And Stupidity In Online Postings
Re:
I find your posting stupid and tasteless.
On the post: The MPAA's Problem In A Nutshell: Views Relationship With The Public As One Way
Re: Re:
On the post: Justice Department Calls Megaupload Case A Success; Hands Out Cash To Cops To Do More Bogus Takedowns
Re:
Another shining example of "do as I say not as I do" is how the president expects citizens to be fiscally responsible when he and congress are clearly not.
The guys at the top should be shining examples of how they expect everyone to behave. But they are the exact opposite of that. And then they are surprised when others just follow their lead.
On the post: Economist Combats 'Myths Of Piracy' With More Myths
Re: Re:
On the post: Economist Combats 'Myths Of Piracy' With More Myths
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Economist Combats 'Myths Of Piracy' With More Myths
Re:
You see a university professor on PBS News Hour, and think, "This guy teaches economics at university, so he must be impartial and really know his stuff." Then you hear him spout nonsense that seems to defy simple reality and think, "This guy is an idiot incapable of using simple logic and HE is a professor?" Go find out who is funding his research and then it will make a little more sense. It doesn't seem too surprising that those who's job it is to think about the influence of money are so easily influenced by it.
On the post: Patent Trolls Causing Serious Problems For Startups
Re:
Is that a real troll, or a Sears troll?
On the post: Patent Trolls Causing Serious Problems For Startups
Re: There are ways around it.
On the post: Patent Trolls Causing Serious Problems For Startups
Re:
case 1. Two almost equally sized companies working on the same product(s). Seems fine. Let them compete on execution. The one to think of it first has a head start already, they don't need to be granted exclusive rights.
case 2. Smaller company tech is reverse engineered by large company and then out competed in the marketplace by the larger company with more resources. This case is the only one patents help with and should cover.
It seems like we do need to allow some sort of limited ownership of tech to prevent case 2 from stifling startups. So for patents to work as a benefit to society, they need to operate as follows.
1. Startup company files a patent to give them exclusive right to develop a new product they thought up first. Patent includes deliverables and development timelines. Company pays a yearly fee along with updates to the timelines. If timelines are missed by more than 1 year on each update, patent is invalidated. (This to make sure progress to market is actually being made.) Company is given 1-5 years exclusive market rights after the product is delivered (depending on the product) to recoup costs and establish a market.
2. An established company (one with at least one product on the market and revenue) can file a patent only to keep (1) from preventing them from developing a product. That is, since (1) allows startups to block an established company from entering a market for a period, if the established company thinks of an idea first they need a way to keep that from happening. Patents from an established company do not require a development timeline since they cannot be used to prevent anyone from developing the patented technology.
As far as I can tell, this scheme would fix the patents system to be beneficial to everyone that actually does something. (ie. not lawyers or politicians). There is room for the non-practicing inventor to file a patent (without development timeline) and then sell it within one year, either to a big company, or to a startup (that then needs to add a timeline to it and refile.) See any holes in it? Why wouldn't this work?
On the post: Wyden To White House: Protecting Nuclear Power Plants Is Different Than Protecting Facebook
Re:
People could sit in a coffee shop and plan attacks on critical infrastructure. Oh noes, we need a coffee shop security act! Camera's and mics focused on every table is a requirement.
On the post: Your Cynicism About Lobbyists Only Helps The Lobbyists Win
how?
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re:
If by meaningful reform you mean bailout the failing companies, big bonuses to the executives that caused the mess, and business as usual afterwards, then I agree.
On the post: Ubisoft Learns Hitting Customers Over The Head And Calling Them Thieves Is Not Good Policy
Re:
But you are right about never getting an apology. Nobody from a company will ever admit they were wrong for fear of becoming the scapegoat when blame is placed.
On the post: 2012 Democrats: Remember That Civil Liberties Thing From 2008? Um, Nevermind
Re: Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech
On the post: Copyright Killbots Strike Again: Official DNC Livestream Taken Down By Just About Every Copyright Holder
Re:
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Facebook's CFO Should Be Fired For Getting An Awesome Deal?
Re: how does this impact the employees
Besides that, employees simply expect the stock not to tank. Else it breeds a bad mood within the company at the least. For this reason I think this guy (and Zuckerberg as well) were not trying to fleece anyone. They simply bought into the hype from wall street themselves. Now they have some extra things to deal with as far as keeping employees happy and engaged.
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I thought. "Just give us more ways to mess everything up and then we will stop messing anything up." Yeah, right!
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Universal Music CEO: We're Not In This To Make Art
Re:
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>