anon1m0us

I object! Irrelevant, due to false analogy.

No one said they destroyed it. Google appropriated Oracle's intellectual property for Google's own use, specifically because Google didn't want to pay for the use of that intellectual property.

If I write a book and you read it, love it, and then retype the book, print it and sell it, you have violated my property rights.

You and many others here don't want it to be that way, but it is exactly that way.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 states:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...

Sun invented Java. Oracle bought Sun. Oracle owned Java. Google copied Java without compensating Oracle, who owned the rights to Java.

It's pretty clear. The Supreme Court should confirm that Google owes Oracle compensation for the use of Oracle's intellectual property.

It is property law and the ability to protect one's rights to property that has granted the creators of property a return on their investment of resources into property.

If creators of property cannot protect their property, there will be less return on that property and thus, less incentive to create it.

Oracle bought Sun, and with that purchase, the ownership of intellectual property in the form of the Java API. Google then proceeded to copy that property into their own property without abiding by the usage restrictions Oracle, the property owner, specified. That was theft of Oracle's property.

If the Supreme Court does not uphold protections of property, I believe, we will see less investment in such property.

I am not sure if that is good or bad for the future of the world, but I do believe had Sun not had property rights to Java, they wouldn't have created it.

>He sees “transferring money to people who are unproductive” [universal basic income, UBI] as less optimal than finding a way for them to be productive.

Why can't we let the individual find a way to make themselves productive? And, why do they need to be productive? Some of my best times in life are watching and playing games with my friends. Socializing. Loving people.

I, and most people I know, can look around and see things that need to be done. If our lives aren't so focused on paying the bills all the time, we can relax a bit and be creative.

I remember I used to get great school lunches. I knew the cafeteria staff by name and they knew me because I went back for seconds and thirds and fourths... skinny as a bean pole. Lunches were made fresh every day. The staff were there at 6am cooking for the kids. Fresh bread. I used to love watching that dough bounce around in the industrial mixer. It was bigger than I was.

A decade after I was out of school, I saw one of the ladies and asked how the school lunches were. She said they don't get to make them anymore. The menus are decided in Washington DC now and they have very little control over what is cooked or eaten. Kids don't come back for seconds and thirds and fourths anymore.

The federal government took local control away from the schools and homogenized everything and basically ruined it from what I remember.

Why do we think the federal government knows better how to manage our day to day lives than we do ourselves? Get out of our kitchens and homes.

The government doesn't need to find a way for me to be productive. People who need to be productive to keep their sanity will find a way. They'll clean their bedrooms, volunteer in their communities. They won't be judged by what their job is, but rather, what they do for themselves and the people around them.

The need to grind out a day at the office or the shipyard or in the truck hauling cargo saps a person's freewill.

We need more freewill in the world.

> It is only redistribution that sets limits on inequality.

> In a flat redistribution scheme, all those possessing wealth below the mean would receive net funds, whereas those above the mean would pay. And precisely because current levels of inequality are so extreme, far more people would receive than would pay.

In their example, everyone has the same chances of winning/losing the same percentage of their wealth with every transaction and eventually the money trickles up until one entity has it all.

However, this is not how markets work. You don't spend or gain a percentage of your wealth in each transaction. It's more generally a fixed fee. Bread costs what bread costs, not k * wealth.

And, frankly, not all people are created equal. Not under the law. Not physically. Not geographically. Some people have advantages over other people. I know we'd like to ignore that, but we can't and we have to stop that.

The reality is, some people are born with disease. Some are born in the slums.

This is not fair and as a society, we should have some mechanism to balance our placement in life. I say this being born with great advantages over almost everyone. I wasn't born rich or even with a father but even a single mom wasn't enough of a disadvantage to stop me from approaching the top.

I live with this ... guilt. Why do I deserve something better than my neighbor down the street with one leg shorter than the other? How do we mathematically quantify the fairness of that?

We don't choose our lot in life when we are born, yet we claim everyone is equal. No they are not. We might all deserve the same rights and responsibilities, but some are smarter, cuter, stronger.

Where this comes into play is: Envy. When envy grows, bullying increases. Those with more are intentionally or not, socially disadvantaged by those who have less. In fact, those who have more will find themselves producing less, retracting into the shadows to go unnoticed by those with less. We build walls around our houses.

I am "privileged" so to speak. I despise that language and that social movement, but I came into the world better off and can't justify any sort of deserving it. I wear that badge with a sadness for those who have to work harder, try harder, struggle more.

I don't think there is a realistic solution except periodic wealth redistribution like the article suggests. I would give up some of mine for a better, more just world.

I suspect I am. Do you not think about what you search for on the internet before you do it? Sometimes I really have to think, "do I want google to know I want to know about this?"

Even if you use DDG, you go to a site with GA on it, google cdn, maybe facebook too, anything with those icons to share with a social media site.

Even searching for symptoms. I was searching for something my girlfriend mentioned the other day and now wondering if I'll start seeing some kind of ad related to the issue.

It's not good.

And sadly, lots of rich folks with influence buy slaves. Look at what Epstein was doing. Where was he finding those he abused? There must have been a market.

The world is sick. Who knows, perhaps the rich folks are creating sites like Instagram so they can hide their illicit activity among all the data and get away with it.

Right! Sites like this and bitcoin could be handing criminals to the authorities on a silver platter. Why are they shutting them down? They should be intentionally creating sites like this as honey pots.

Would that be entrapment? Catch a predatoresque?

How much of this is typical social indoctrination? Teach children early that they are constantly spied on and they'll accept it in their cars, on their phones, in their houses. Total surveillance state.

I'm more and more certain much of this is the result of post-modernism. God is dead. We can no longer expect the fear of hell or desire for heaven to keep us in line, so the state must become the omniscient god watching over us.

I have a plan! Can an individual class all personal information about them as: Trade Secret?

Companies can do this. Corporations can do this. If someone steals trade secrets, there are repercussions. Why isn't my personal info, which is valuable to me, and can harm me if used by the wrong people, not protected in the same way that information about a company would be?

AND

If that doesn't work, how do we get Trade Secrets for human beings? Why do companies and corporations have rights to protect information that human persons don't?

SEEKING FREELANCERS:

1) 3D gaming developer with BABYLON.js experience

2) Web designer with CSS experience to make some existing sites look better.

3) Structural Engineer who can help me calculate loads, bending moments, etc of 3D models.

4) A math/stats person with Sentiment Analysis and SQL/Relational Model and tokenizing experience.

5) Canadian attorney experienced in employment law.

Remote only. Respond with contact details or have them in your profile and which type of work above you can do and I'll contact you with more details.

> most Americans (64%) think young adults should reach [financial independence] by the time they are 22 years old... Census Bureau data finds that, in 2018, 24% of young adults were financially independent by age 22 or younger, compared with 32% in 1980

This divergence is symptomatic of a broken society. It's easier to divide a bigger pie. The pie was bigger in 1980 and now we are dividing up the crumbs, so it's harder to get enough.

Parents helping their children longer in life is really the only solution. It's basically like, those who achieved financial independence in 1980 did so by taking from future generations, their own children, and are now being chastised for giving some of it back.

It's nonsensical to admonish parents for helping their children overcome the burdens society has placed on future generations by having already taken too much from the planet.

Let's just look at the burdens:

  College education costs are soaring
  Housing costs are soaring
  Healthcare costs are soaring
  Jobs are diminishing
  Salaries are flat

Of course parents have to help their children longer.

> Comparitech conducts security research that entails scanning the web for exposed databases. When we uncover a database that hasn’t been properly secured and allows unauthorized access, we immediately notify the owner.

Germany, the government, does this. They routinely scan systems in Germany and alert the owners to security issues.

I wonder if this is something all governments should do. I'm not convinced yet, but heavily leaning toward that it is something governments should do.

Exposed servers are a national security risk. They are a risk to public safety. Governments are there to protect their citizens.

airbnb lost me forever at, "Oh, that'll be another 10%" and then again at "Yeah, that $89/night place is actually $264/night after all the fees and ridiculousness."

Fraud all the way down...

I don't care where they are. I will never stay at one of my own free will.

How do you get your employer to hear you? I don't think these problems are isolated to women. I think women just don't understand that there's an "old boys club" that attacks other men too. I know lots of men who say the same things.

Pitting employees against each other. The masters recruiting spies from among the ranks to report dissenting comments from the servants. Cutting back on coffee breaks. Not being allowed to report actual time worked because you're an exempt employee so your boss can say, "I'm not aware of any overtime being worked." Uh that's because you won't allow me to enter more than the minimum.

This happens to more than just women. Instead of pitting one bullied group against another, bullied people need to rise up against a system that rewards bullies at the expense of the employees with integrity!

Companies are losing SO much value from their greatest employees because they are afraid to be noticed. You do something great for your employer and everyone else says, "Show off." or "You're making the rest of us look bad." or "Overachiever".

They force great employees to be mediocre. Even managers do the same thing. If you find a problem with your boss's code -- watch out!

This is not a problem women experience. It's a problem people experience.

> And then you'll see that it jumps from 2/6 successes to 3/6.

It jumps to 4/6! Even better.

I grew up in a religious family and community and I asked the same question! There was a debate among people about which version to use and anything but the King James version was wrong.

Why?

Because of Revelation 22:18,19

18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So my first question was: The King James version is a translation, so it had to be changed at some point. No translations are perfect!

Their responses to the question ranged from: King James didn't experience those plagues, he must have translated it correctly, ... to the King James version is the first one translated into English and since The Living Bible or another version is different, then King James must be right as the change happened between the time of the King James and the subsequent translations.

Three of the cases cited are incidents where state organizations are buying AI, which then benefits that state organization at the expense of its citizens: People were arrested others got less benefits.

These systems are black boxes. The software companies have a financial incentive to sell them. The programmers have a financial incentive to get the customer what they want not what is honest and true. If this software meant the customer would have to pay out more benefits, how many states would buy it?

The same thing happens when the product is not AI. AI is a product. Manufacturers of the product are liable. The product should be open to investigation.

When Ford Pintos were killing people, the Ford Pinto could be examined. The 737MAX can be examined.

AI can't be examined. The decisions it makes can't even be explained a lot of times.

Companies are using AI as a shield. Someone here said the other day that they think people are actually making a lot of the decisions Google makes and saying it was Algorithmic absolves them of the responsibility to explain the decision.

This is not a good way forward. You can't say, "I don't know why the machine is hurting people."

It's hurting people. Shut it off.

That comment struck me too. Perhaps there is a difference between Opium overdose and Opioid overdose?

When I think consuming opium, I conjure images of old chinese artwork where they are smoking it in a hookah type instrument.

The Opioid overdoses are mostly Fentanyl and other extracts from opium. I'm not an expert, but if I am understanding correctly, it seems easier access to Opium which may be, according to the GP, hard to OD on, would reduce the Opioid OD epidemic.

There are probably a lot of factors: New Mexico is the second poorest state in terms of poverty rates. It's a drug smuggling gateway from Mexico. Very high Native American population, which itself, struggles disproportionately with addiction. Mostly rural isolated populations where drugs offer a means of escape and long wait times for an ambulance to arrive in the case of an overdose situation.

As an aside, looking at those charts, no wonder Breaking Bad was set there.

It's funny how the hacker says, "Cool" and the reader said, "Cool? It's not cool. It's commie bullshit."

Honest question: Which one is correct?

Can you even force something like that on yourself? From what I saw in the documentary about Magnus, he just loved it. He seemed uncontrollably driven toward it.

What you're saying sounds like you'd have to force yourself to endure the training, but you'd have to force Magnus to stop playing chess.

How do we hack ourselves into better human beings?

Awesome!@ Thank you. I didn't realize there were benchtop mini-mills like that. That's perfect for what I want to do.

I think I'll have enough space! I'm pretty much interested in the same things.k

I'm in the process of creating such a space for myself. How much space should I dedicate to such a lab? I'm interested in IoT, robotics, databases, wood and metal working.

I'm designing the house around the room. I basically want to build a research lab where I could make any idea a reality -- within reason of course.

Could you offer any guidance from your experience with such a lab? I have a lot of questions like, What kind of floor should it have? How tall should the walls be? How much space do I need for each of the tasks I want to perform in the lab?

Which tools will I need and how much space does each one require? Can I make the tools movable or should the be fixed in place? Do I need a gantry crane?

It would be good when trying to determine if there's a build-up of plaque anywhere in a person's arteries and thus at risk of many different cardio-vascular diseases.

They use special dyes injected into arteries to facilitate seeing them. Similar things are done for examining the gastrointestinal tract of those who might have cancers somewhere in it.

You might also want to see if cancers have metastasized to other parts of the body to determine the extent of the disease.

I think it's the only reason.

Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.

It's not just about managing your own emotions, but emotional labor might also be about producing emotions in other people according to her definition.

I think that helps people expand the word's meaning, because "People feel good when they are in a clean house."