Setting Fire To Sleeping Strawmen (now with extra Toniiiiiiiiiight, you're right, you're right, you're right)
-
What happens when half of your roofspace is obscured by other buildings?
Also, it turns out that putting panels on roofs isn't something that's necessarily trivial, if you, for example, want to maintain a proper weather barrier.
Obviously it's a solved problem, but it's another expense you have to deal with.
-
China is a place where population growth has been forced low by fiat, and its leadership has just committed to making its CO2 emissions peak in under 20 years
Their experiment in lowering birth rates will be interesting, though probably not terribly informative to the rest of us. The best description of the demographics of China that I've heard was, "the US, plus a billion peasants."
I suspect their CO2 stuff will probably peak in 20 years, but probably more due to stuff falling apart due to lots of other stuff that's happened by fiat. We'll see...
But the point there was, what if some other place becomes a little prosperous? There are a lot of people in Africa, and they don't need to come up to Western standards of energy usage to make a difference in worldwide energy consumption.
By the time world demand does peak and start to flatten, most of the world's energy dollars are going to be flowing to Chinese renewable energy manufacturers.
I think the Skunkworks fusion project is more likely to pay off than this scenario.
-
It's good for some scenarios, and it will definitely help our energy supply, but it won't replace oil and coal in the foreseeable future.
What I don't like is destroying the market because... you just don't like it.
Instead of being rational and incentivising.
-
Actually it's pretty funny.
Attempting to reduce the population is only countered by nature which decided to produce more twins and triplets to Chinese parents.
-
I'm still amazed at how clean the air is these days around LA.
People just don't realize.
Like I said the other day: 24 hours after the Great Northeast Power Failure of 2003, atmospheric particulate levels dropped by something like 90%. The meaning is obvious: as soon as start using a cleaner form of energy, the day after we start shutting coal plants down, the planet will improve.
Even with improvements, it's not guaranteed solar and wind are the solution.
-
I'm still amazed at how clean the air is these days around LA.
...which of course has nothing to do with the efforts of all those vicious interfering tree-hugger hippie clean-air (spit) (gag) regulators.
-
nd its leadership has just committed to making its CO2 emissions peak in under 20 years.
I think it's hilarious you think that's going to happen. What's actually happened is they can now ignore the problem for 15+ years.
-
China doesn't respect our patents.
Nobody respects your patents. China just doesn't fear your lawyers.
-
...which of course has nothing to do with the efforts of all those vicious interfering tree-hugger hippie clean-air (spit) (gag) regulators.
You've been hanging out with blakey's shoulder aliens again?
-
So, you go invent something.
Get a patent, sell a license, only to have the deposit in your account taken away the next day.Then tell me, "That's cool."
-
/me has been eating popcorn to this discussion all day....
-
I'd ask you why you haven't committed to the Voluntary Extinction Project, and why you're still kicking around
It's a fair question.
I didn't ask to be here. But now that I am here, I have as much of a right to stick around as anybody else.
Non-reproduction is already more of a sacrifice than most people are willing to make, so anybody who seriously suggests that the ability to see overpopulation for what it is automatically confers an additional obligation to suicide is just being a dick.
-
Get a patent, sell a license,
That is the problem with our patent laws. In lots of cases you get the patent and then sell the license. How about doing something and doing it better than anyone else? No one can take that away from you. If you do a shit job of it, then someone else does it better and they reap the rewards. Patent laws are more about patent trolls these days.
-
So, you go invent something.Get a patent, sell a license, only to have the deposit in your account taken away the next day.
Then tell me, "That's cool."
Sure, patents as an idea are easily defensible on fundamental principles.
The thing about US patents as actually implemented, though, is that most of them don't cover anything that any reasonable person would consider to be an invention. Most of them exist solely to game the patent system in one way or another, and are in any case held by corporations who made any actual inventor sign over all patenting rights as a condition of employment. Their aggregate effect is to slow down innovation and development while funneling ridiculous amounts of money toward the non-inventors in the C-suites.
If you're after pointing the finger at somebody for denying inventors their just rewards, you don't need to look anywhere near as far as China.
-
What happens when half of your roofspace is obscured by other buildings?
You negotiate with your neighbors for access to unused roofspace.
-
-
/me has been eating popcorn to this discussion all day
All I've got's this fucking albatross.
-
seriously suggests that the ability to see overpopulation for what it is automatically confers an additional obligation to suicide
Well, it's a good thing I didn't suggest that you do, isn't it? Once again, you fail at reading comprehension.
-
Sure, patents <em>as an idea</em> are easily defensible on fundamental principles.
The thing about <em>US patents as actually implemented,</em> though, is that most of them don't cover anything that any reasonable person would consider to be an invention. Most of them exist solely to game the patent system in one way or another, and are in any case held by corporations who made any actual inventor sign over all patenting rights as a condition of employment. Their aggregate effect is to slow down innovation and development while funneling ridiculous amounts of money toward the non-inventors in the C-suites.
If you're after pointing the finger at somebody for denying inventors their just rewards, you don't need to look anywhere near as far as China.
@Intercourse said:
That is the problem with our patent laws. In lots of cases you get the patent and then sell the license. How about doing something and doing it better than anyone else? No one can take that away from you. If you do a shit job of it, then someone else does it better and they reap the rewards. Patent laws are more about patent trolls these days.
I agree entirely.
When you analyse a law, the most important thing to consider is the "spirit of the law".
Patents are there for a individual who doesn't have the capacity to produce the concept, to patent the concept and sell a license so that the person can be compensated for their contributions.
Personally, I think patents as a way to protect production of a product is counter-purpose.
But on the flip side, how do you protect the cost of research. If you are a corporation that invested greatly into research, and tomorrow another company produces the product better than you, you lost all your research investment.
They extend the concept of patents to protect this very reason.
The problem is a troll comes in a claims they have researched and engineered a concept well after the concept is shown to be successful, hoping to benefit from the claim.
On a math test, this is why teachers ask you to show your work.
I wonder if there would be some way to validate work and investment done into engineering a solution prior to production, and whether that can be used to bring patents more in line.
-
...so anybody who seriously suggests that the ability to see overpopulation for what it is automatically confers an additional obligation to suicide is just being a dick.
I think that if I thought about population like you do I'd already want to kill myself.
-
If I did, I'd volunteer for that Mars mission. After all, in a decade or three, we might start to have a solution to overpopulation that doesn't involve having less people.
-
It does.
Less people on Earth.
-
If you are a corporation that invested greatly into research, and tomorrow another company produces the product better than you, you lost all your research investment.
Tough shit. Someone else does it in a way that is better suited to the market demands. The way it is now, you have people who sit on patents and produce shitty products or services because they have patent protection.
IP law is even more fucked. When they allowed Disney to copyright stuff that used to be public domain, we should have revolted and burned some government buildings.
-
Or markets it better.
Is that the big complaint about Apple.
That they don't really engineer, they just act like they do.
I'm sorry, I can't see the marketplace being healthy if you can't at least guarantee a fair chance at return on research investment.
If two companies research similar ideas and produce similar products, it's different.
I mean, imagine if it's an individual that spends 2 years without income, produces something a company is interested in, only to lose out because his neighbor copied the idea word for word, and sold the idea sooner.
It only makes sense to extend that protection to companies.
The problem isn't protecting from investment, the problem is trolls that intervene without investment and make false claims.
-
@Intercourse said:
we should have revolted and burned some government buildings.
...and Disney HQ, because, of course, they're one of the drivers.
-
True enough, but you can still have more people in general. I mean really, we've been able to get off the planet for decades now, and all we've done is come back. There are all these movies and such about end of the world scenarios, and all these people worried about the environment. I say, let them have their boring back-to-nature planet.
-
I'm sorry, I can't see the marketplace being healthy if you can't at least guarantee a fair chance at return on research investment.
Then your definition of a healthy marketplace is worthless.
-
What about my comparison to an individual?
Can you answer if it's fair for someone to plagiarize and steal a research investment?
-
I'm sorry, I can't see the marketplace being healthy if you can't at least guarantee a fair chance at return on research investment.
Our laws guarantee "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Happiness is not a given. Do it better, do it faster and give outstanding service and you will succeed.
-
Can you answer if it's fair for someone to plagiarize and steal a research investment?
I think it's possibly unjust or unethical. I just think that sentiments like "guaranteeing fairness" lead to dark places.
-
...and Disney HQ, because, of course, they're one of the drivers.
Yeah, burn Cinderella's castle to the ground also. That bitch is up to something. I just know it.
-
That's true for production and service.
Not for engineering.
You can spend all your life engineering something, only to have someone else steal your research.
Are you suggesting the fault is in not protecting your research?
-
"Fair" enough.
I still think that investment needs protection.
I'm not guaranteeing a profit. I just want to protect from plagiarization.
-
Are you suggesting the fault is in not protecting your research?
Engineering is attached to a product or service. Can you describe a situation where people just engineer shit for the sake of engineering shit and then make money off of it without a product or service?
-
Sure.
You spend your time coding the next thing to replace SAP.
Yet, you aren't good at marketing it or shelving it.
Until it's on the shelf under your name, it's not a product.
Someone comes by, copies your solution, and sells it to Google.
On what basis do you press for a lawsuit?
-
I'm sorry, I can't see the marketplace being healthy if you can't at least guarantee a fair chance at return on research investment.
Funny... a lot of good corporate research was done at companies that never intended to make money from it. In our industry, PARC was the classic example, but I ran across this one the other day. Who would have thought Ford would have invented something completely unrelated to cars.The abuse of the patent system probably outweighs the benefits. The costs of the normal operation of the copyright system far outweighs the benefits, even before you get into the abuses. As a stand-alone country, we would be better off getting rid of both. Unfortunately, both are a big part of our protection from the global market.
-
On what basis do you press for a lawsuit?
You would have no basis, because you would not be a person who could bring it to market so maybe you should have sold it to Google because they can?
-
I agree. The implementation benefits abuse more than legitimate uses.
The whole point of it was to encourage innovation.
Without any protection of research, innovation dies.
We have to replace it with something.
A method to prove your investment and be acceptable in court for the purpose of acquiring compensation would go a long way.
-
That's just it. Someone stole it from you and sold it to Google.
That's against the law.
-
Without any protection of research, innovation dies.
That sounds right, but has been shown to not be as important as common sense would lead you to believe.
-
The biggest problem with patents is the knuckleheads at the USPTO will allow you to patent anything. When one can patent mobile devices with a screen and rounded corners, that's not a problem with the patent system, that's a problem with those approving the patents!
I kind of think the patent system is no longer needed, and copyrights will cover the most important stuff, but I haven't done much in either system so I may be talking out my bum.
-
In those cases, you scale the compensation to the investment.
So, rounded mobile devices, hmm that was 10 mins of work. You win $100.
-
Even if they did their job well, the system is still a problem. Millions of people die every year because of pharmaceutical patents. It's far from a given that those drugs wouldn't have been invented if patent protection didn't exist.
-
No one would create a new drug if they couldn't patent it?
-
No one would create a new drug if they couldn't patent it?
That's the argument for drug patents. I don't buy it. Since it's the same argument you are making for software patents, I'm surprised you put a question mark at the end.
-
That's just it. Someone stole it from you and sold it to Google.
That's against the law.
Here is the way I see it, if you are not capable of bringing an idea to market, then someone else should. It is as simple as that.
I have friends who are VC's. They routinely come to this area and scout potential investments. Here is what happens in those meetings:
-hipster douchebag wannabe entrepreneur- "We are going to need you to sign this NDA before we can discuss our idea and business plan with you."
-VC- "Yeah, we are not going to do that."
-hipster douchebag wannabe entrepreneur- "Why not?!"
-VC- "Because we invest in people, not ideas. If you are the right person to bring an idea to market, we will love to work with you. If not, you are having us sign an NDA because nothing you have is patentable or original and we would be better off to either pass or pay you off and take it to market without you. Regardless, you need us or you would not be sitting here so we can either proceed without the NDA or you can leave and we will meet with the next group."Hipster douchebag wanna be entrepreneurs always think they are so savvy because they have an NDA, and NDAs don't mean shit. Just like patents don't really mean anything anyway because if Google or MS "steals your idea", do you really have the resources to fight them? No. But they do have the resources to fight you. Patents and copyright only protect the big guys because the big guys care fuckall about your patents and copyrights. They can engage in a war of attrition if they think your IP is worth it.
-
That's the argument for drug patents. I don't buy it.
No one would pay for all the testing that the FDA requires.
-
No one would pay for all the testing that the FDA requires.
It got better when this asshole passed away:
Edit: Here is the more relevant article:
-
Ok, this discussion is confusing me.
First the argument that patents are, in any form, downright detrimental.
Then, a person that cannot bring a product to market shouldn't be protected for their work, always. Even if said product is better than existing products, he gets zero protection. (My imagination immediately wonders why anyone would take a risk then, and thus society loses out).Then @boomzilla say that without patents, pharmaceutical companies wouldn't pay for testing.
Then @Intercourse links an article that describes (never passing a drug) as a traffic jam that kills people.
I feel like there's a paradox here.
-
Then @boomzilla say that without patents, pharmaceutical companies wouldn't pay for testing.
No, @boomzilla was arguing that the shitloads of testing are unnecessary, which feeds in to my comment. At least that is how I read his comment.
John Nestor - Wikipedia
