|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2016 07:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 07:22 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 07:14 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 07:02 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:57 Rebs wrote:On September 22 2016 06:55 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:27 ragz_gt wrote:
[quote]
It's 140% margin, as it's 100 in profit
I am assuming that they have +$170 in costs and they are not making shit up. In reality we know its a 140% mark up and they are just scum. Its ok, though, we will yell at them, fine them and no one will be charged or anything will happen. Their stock will soar and people will make millions again. Just like Wells Fargo. Just like everything else. The people who work for these companies can commit no crimes. Ever. They are immune. The only thing that will happen is a stern talking to by congress. You make it sound as though you don't support it? I don't. Which is why I voted for Warren in the Senate and will vote for her again when she is up for re-election. You make now make your snarky comments about Clinton doing nothing because it is your sole output in this thread. Well I mean at this point, the "I told you so train" is well of the tracks and onto the moon. I hear it rode there on principal It is coming from a guy who backed in a socialist that owns more than one half a million dollar home. He so sad after losing the nomination, he bought one more to make himself feel better. I don't follow, there's not requirement of being ascetic to be a 'true' socialdem The statement is completely hyperbolic. I grew tired of GHs constant sniping at people who plan to vote for Hilary not living up to his "progressive standards". It is classic left wing of the Democratic Party to attack the more center left, rather than the right. And I'm so tired of it. It's the main reason I am unaffiliated. Yeah but GH's attitude is right. You shouldn't be in the same party. GH's attitude at this point is basically "my candidate didn't win, so I'm going to pretend your candidate fucked up the country and mine would've been perfect".
I don't think he's pretending. I think he strongly believes he's correct about that. And for what it's worth, I agree with him.
I do disagree with him on not voting for Clinton now that we are in this situation though. Well, in his case it doesn't matter cause Clinton wins Washington no matter what, but I doubt he would change his view if he was in Florida and I think he's wrong about that.
|
On September 22 2016 06:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:38 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 06:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 06:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:59 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military... Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators. Sure, that's an entirely different argument then. And one I probably requires more facts and numbers than I'm willing to look for right now, nor would I know the conclusion for it. But I was contesting that things outside the IP system aren't innovative, which is very much untrue. There's also been a large number of innovations (software especially) that have come from a kid's concept done up during their highschool/college spare time. Some companies also go the trade secret route to protect IP. Like the Coca Cola formula. Of course Coca Cola's formula itself isn't really that important. There are hundreds of no-name knockoffs that you can find in every single grocery store, and Coca Cola doesn't even taste the same across national borders (Canadians still get sugar in ours, suckers). Coke runs off of marketing and brand recognition, more than anything. Coke is a pretty poor example. I probably should have said something more like some sort of proprietary artificial intelligence or software.  Well, reverse engineering works pretty decently if you really want to figure out an algorithm. Generally, trade secrets are a LOT less safe than if you can patent your invention. Of course, algorithms as such cannot be patented, which is part of the reason that software patents are so stupid.
If you hand over the code. A few of the co's I work with just ingest the data and pop out a report to the client. All hail the cloud!
|
On September 22 2016 07:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 07:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 07:22 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 07:14 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 07:02 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:57 Rebs wrote:On September 22 2016 06:55 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am assuming that they have +$170 in costs and they are not making shit up. In reality we know its a 140% mark up and they are just scum. Its ok, though, we will yell at them, fine them and no one will be charged or anything will happen. Their stock will soar and people will make millions again.
Just like Wells Fargo. Just like everything else. The people who work for these companies can commit no crimes. Ever. They are immune. The only thing that will happen is a stern talking to by congress. You make it sound as though you don't support it? I don't. Which is why I voted for Warren in the Senate and will vote for her again when she is up for re-election. You make now make your snarky comments about Clinton doing nothing because it is your sole output in this thread. Well I mean at this point, the "I told you so train" is well of the tracks and onto the moon. I hear it rode there on principal It is coming from a guy who backed in a socialist that owns more than one half a million dollar home. He so sad after losing the nomination, he bought one more to make himself feel better. I don't follow, there's not requirement of being ascetic to be a 'true' socialdem The statement is completely hyperbolic. I grew tired of GHs constant sniping at people who plan to vote for Hilary not living up to his "progressive standards". It is classic left wing of the Democratic Party to attack the more center left, rather than the right. And I'm so tired of it. It's the main reason I am unaffiliated. Yeah but GH's attitude is right. You shouldn't be in the same party. GH's attitude at this point is basically "my candidate didn't win, so I'm going to pretend your candidate fucked up the country and mine would've been perfect". I don't think he's pretending. I think he strongly believes he's correct about that. And for what it's worth, I agree with him.
I mean it's not like I think she's as bad as they say Trump would be or anything, but loyal Democrats are just not being honest (commonplace in political situations like this) about her problems.
This EpiPen and Wells Fargo thing happens to be a pretty good example. Hillary is going to make stuff like that worse, not better, and that's what the center left is all about. No one is forcing Democrats to occupy that space, but it's not sensible to occupy it while simultaneously denying they are. Leave the space, or accept you're there, don't just lash out at people who point it out.
It's actually remarkably similar to the argument about whether supporting Trump makes one racist.
EDIT:
I do disagree with him on not voting for Clinton now that we are in this situation though. Well, in his case it doesn't matter cause Clinton wins Washington no matter what, but I doubt he would change his view if he was in Florida and I think he's wrong about that.
It would be a harder decision in a place like Florida but there's more to my opposition of Clinton and the Democratic establishment than just this election.
Borrowing a post from Yoav
There is a tendency among "blue tribe" whites (well-educated, liberal, cosmopolitan) to talk about the failings of "whites" and only mention the failings of "red tribe" whites (the deplorables). This of course ignores the ways in which blue tribe whites (who are an actual self-defined "in-group") fuck over minorities and women in their own, polite, well-educated ways.
"blue tribe whites" will think they did something for the minorities they claim to want to help/protect by beating Trump. When in reality it will be like putting a t shirt on over broken ribs and internal bleeding. Sure you won't see the bruises or any blood, but the the wounds will just be getting worse.
I've mentioned several other aspects about why I'm not voting Clinton, so it's safe to say that people trying to reduce it to spite are being disingenuous at best.
|
On September 22 2016 07:29 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:27 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah but GH's attitude is right. You shouldn't be in the same party. If GH is backing Stein rather than listening to Bernie and rallying behind Hillary, I guess they aren't. As an aside, I've actually taken more of a shine to Bernie since the primaries completed, compared to when they were actually going on. But apparently GH doesn't seem to think the same way.
GH is all in on the anti-establishment movement. Bernie just briefly provided a potential vehicle.
|
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else.
|
Maybe its just cause I haven't been in this thread for too long, and missed a few pages here and there since I've started frequenting it, but what I see is a bunch of people ganging up on GH about his attitude and vote, not the other way around. Maybe cut the personal attacks.
|
On September 22 2016 07:50 a_flayer wrote:
Maybe its just cause I haven't been in this thread for too long, and missed a few pages here and there since I've started frequenting it, but what I see is a bunch of people ganging up on GH about his attitude and vote, not the other way around.
GH was a wee bit enthusiastic about his candidate earlier in the campaign, and kind of bummed out when he lost. Also he doesn't like Hillary Clinton and a lot of people think that he's short-sighted about his approach to the matter.
|
On September 22 2016 07:48 CobaltBlu wrote:
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else.
This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing.
I don't care who people vote for, what bothers me is not owning up to what they are voting for.
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
|
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:48 CobaltBlu wrote:
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else. This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing. I don't care who people vote for, what bothers me is not owning up to what they are voting for.
So are you owning up to voting for someone that wants "discussions" on whether vaccines cause autism and if 9/11 was an inside job?
|
On September 22 2016 07:50 a_flayer wrote:
Maybe its just cause I haven't been in this thread for too long, and missed a few pages here and there since I've started frequenting it, but what I see is a bunch of people ganging up on GH about his attitude and vote, not the other way around. Maybe cut the personal attacks.
it's cuz you haven't been in the thread long. If you'd been here back during the primaries, you'd get why people feel the way they do.
|
On September 22 2016 07:28 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2016 07:05 Doodsmack wrote:On September 22 2016 07:03 Nevuk wrote:
Trump said this in an African American church, during a black voter outreach event. Isn't that literally the opposite of what the black community wants though? With so many arbitrary police interactions ending in unlawful arrests, injuries, or deaths for the black "suspects", why would blacks want more of them? Yes I probably should have been more clear that I was pointing that out due to the absurdity of it. And the incompetence of someone who would say that while attempting to appeal to black voters.
Oh I didn't mean that as a judgment on you; I was wondering what the Trump campaign's thought process was for how this sounded like a good idea to gain popularity with blacks.
|
On September 22 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:50 a_flayer wrote:
Maybe its just cause I haven't been in this thread for too long, and missed a few pages here and there since I've started frequenting it, but what I see is a bunch of people ganging up on GH about his attitude and vote, not the other way around. Maybe cut the personal attacks. it's cuz you haven't been in the thread long. If you'd been here back during the primaries, you'd get why people feel the way they do.
Well I was there and I don't. But I'm probably not people.
|
On September 22 2016 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 07:48 CobaltBlu wrote:
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else. This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing. I don't care who people vote for, what bothers me is not owning up to what they are voting for. So are you owning up to voting for someone that wants "discussions" on whether vaccines cause autism and if 9/11 was an inside job?
Yeah, I suppose. I don't see harm in exposing the illegitimacy of people questioning vaccine-autism links or if 9/11 was an inside job.
I don't know if any of the engineers or architects read this thread but I'd be curious on their takes on building 7's collapse.
|
Oof, what a rough day in the polls for Trump today.
Clinton +1, Tie, Clinton +1, Clinton+3, Clinton +4, Clinton +1, Clinton +2, Clinton +3, Clinton +5 in national polls today.
For Trump: NC +2, NH -8, Wisconsin -3, Nevada +3, AZ +5
Interestingly he's doing quite well in the swing states, but a couple points down at the national level. I guess it's only a 2-3% drop in his chances (though 6% in the silly now-cast)... Hopefully just outliers - the Trump haters are out in full force now that the stuff about the deplorables and health is slowing down.
|
On September 22 2016 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 07:48 CobaltBlu wrote:
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else. This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing. I don't care who people vote for, what bothers me is not owning up to what they are voting for. So are you owning up to voting for someone that wants "discussions" on whether vaccines cause autism and if 9/11 was an inside job? Yeah, I suppose. I don't see harm in exposing the illegitimacy of people questioning vaccine-autism links or if 9/11 was an inside job. I don't know if any of the engineers or architects read this thread but I'd be curious on their takes on building 7's collapse.
...sigh.
So, okay, apparently GH has become that conspiracy guy.
|
On September 22 2016 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 07:48 CobaltBlu wrote:
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else. This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing. I don't care who people vote for, what bothers me is not owning up to what they are voting for. So are you owning up to voting for someone that wants "discussions" on whether vaccines cause autism and if 9/11 was an inside job? I don't know if any of the engineers or architects read this thread but I'd be curious on their takes on building 7's collapse.
A friend of mine told me that she was taught at architect school in Switzerland that the buildings couldn't have collapsed like this because of the planes. I'm sure for every teacher like him there are nine who think it's nonsense, but I still think it's worth noting there are truthers teaching at architect schools. I heard it several months ago and it still blows my mind when I think about it.
|
On September 22 2016 07:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 07:28 Doodsmack wrote:On September 22 2016 07:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2016 07:05 Doodsmack wrote:Trump said this in an African American church, during a black voter outreach event. Isn't that literally the opposite of what the black community wants though? With so many arbitrary police interactions ending in unlawful arrests, injuries, or deaths for the black "suspects", why would blacks want more of them? Yes I probably should have been more clear that I was pointing that out due to the absurdity of it. And the incompetence of someone who would say that while attempting to appeal to black voters. Oh I didn't mean that as a judgement on you; I was wondering what the Trump campaign's thought process was for how this sounded like a good idea to gain popularity with blacks.
I think I can see where you went wrong with that one.
|
On September 22 2016 07:35 Dan HH wrote:For someone supported in large part by the constitution-thumping types, he sure proposes a crapload of unconstitutional policies
Trump supporters aren't the constitution thumpers. Those people are all backing Johnson at this point or praying Trump lets Pence run the country and appoint justices.
|
On September 22 2016 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 07:48 CobaltBlu wrote:
As defensive and self righteous as GH is about his right to vote for whoever he wants you would think he would spend less time sniping at people who want to vote for someone else. This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing. I don't care who people vote for, what bothers me is not owning up to what they are voting for. So are you owning up to voting for someone that wants "discussions" on whether vaccines cause autism and if 9/11 was an inside job? I don't know if any of the engineers or architects read this thread but I'd be curious on their takes on building 7's collapse. A friend of mine told me that she was taught at architect school in Switzerland that the buildings couldn't have collapsed like this because of the planes. I'm sure for every teacher like him there are nine who think it's nonsense, but I still think it's worth noting there are truthers teaching at architect schools. I heard it several months ago and it still blows my mind when I think about it.
Welp the Nobel price winner and discoverer of the HI virus Luc Montagnier believes that DNA can teleport and doesn't believe that autism is real. Some people just lose it
|
Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
