This is Russnelson's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Russnelson's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The difficulty of blithely waving one's hands at the "disemployment effect" is that you're talking about real people, who lose their real job, who really can't ever find a job again. I cannot see any moral way to volunteer them to suffer that fate.
1 reply
I'm working on an Engelbart reimplementation. Have built PCBs. Still not sure on the keymapping. Of course, Engelbart made his appropriate for Augment, and it can't handle 101 keys.
Four aspects of patents you didn't touch on are: obviousness, prior art, disclosure, and working models. The current interpretation of obviousness is: nothing is obvious and everything is patentable even though it's painfully obvious to an ordinary practitioner of the art. This is a consequence of something you DID touch on: the inexperience of patent examiners in the software field. If I were a patent examiner (and I doubt the USPTO's salary range overlaps mine, so that ain't gonna happen), then anything I could google for would be obvious. Anything taught in colleges would be obvious. Anything you can find in a textbook would be obvious. This is not currently the case. The next is prior art. There are several patents which were issued that overlap with previously issued patents. If the patent system cannot even find prior in its own database of ideas, how can it possibly keep up with the entire world? Basically, prior art is ignored as a criteria for unpatentability. That means that you can write a program, publish it as open source software, and somebody can use it to write a proprietary program, and patent your prior art. This is not a hypothetical -- it happened to me. In addition, there is also the issue of disclosure. The patent system rewards disclosure with a temporary monopoly. And yet software can be both patented and copyrighted. This makes no sense. How do we allow people to claim a copyright on something which must be disclosed, and disclosed so that after the patent expires, people can reuse the idea. And then we also have working models. People used to have to submit a working model, illustrating the operation of the patented device. It's possible to get a software patent which doesn't even work! A software patent MUST include a working stand-alone implementation which is in the public domain. All of these problems should be fixed, or, better yet, just make software unpatentable.
1 reply
Toggle Commented Mar 15, 2012 on The Internet Of Things at Geek And Poke
People "innovate" in finance to get around the stupid rules that your stupid government stupidly places in their way, Mike. Don't blame financial institutions for trying to make their customers happy in spite of every road block the government puts in their way. Blame the government for writing stupid rules that are not robust in the face of two parties uninterested in complying with the rules. Oh, but wait, you never blame the government for ANYTHING.
1 reply
I've been saying for a while that "market failure" is crank-talk:
I hesitate to respond to Daniel, because he ultimately a poopy-head, however, I'll point out that Keynesians made a forecast that failed. We don't really care what Austrians think, because Austrians didn't make that forecast (because as Daniel points out, that's a poopy-head thing to do). However, the Keynesians made the forecast and used it as part of the reasoning for their public policy. Now that the forecast has been seen to be false, so must also be the public policy based on it. Thus, the public policy should be reversed. If you want to make me feel better about you, Daniel, point out a time when stimulus has worked better than leaving the economy alone AND plausibly committing to do so. I'm waiting ... but I'm not going to hold my breath.
He is right. He's the best candidate the GOP could offer to get elected. He's not a good candidate to win the primary, which is another way of saying that the GOP are a bunch of stupid schmucks who deserve to lose.
Dr. David D. Friedman has not a PhD in economics. He hasn't even taken a single economics course!
In general, Krugman is pretty clueless. In specific, some roads were paved when oil was cheaper which simply cannot justify the lack of traffic that they carry. Does he REALLY think that any road, once paved, should remain paved forever regardless of the size of the population (aka tax base) that uses it? Of course he believes it, because he's an idiot. He should get out of the Princeton / NY / Washington circles and see the world. That said, linear infrastructure is a difficult problem to solve. Nobody -- not a government-directed market -- not a customer-directed market -- has any easy answers. Krugman thinks a government-directed market has easy answers; see paragraph #1.
1 reply
Yeah, if you're on a trail with mixed cyclists and pedestrians, you're INSANE to wear headphones. You're INSANE to step sideways without looking. And yeah, you're INSANE to wear one of those old heavy helmets. Have one, am tall and skinny, and STILL wear a new helmet. Must be my total lack of facial hair.
Doughnuts are the perfect food. You have sugar for short-term energy, carbohydrates for medium-term energy, and fats for long-term energy. What's not to like? A doughnut a day keeps the bonk away!
Legislation and regulation are not the same thing. The first is the making of law; the second is the regularization of something. Of course consumer regulation and government regulation are different, but they both serve to constrain the activities of corporations in the marketplace. Free markets, on the other hand, are undesirable because they impose no limits on what a corporation may do. <------ or so goes the thinking of the people we need to convince that government regulation is inferior.
I'm not sure that the concept of a 'free market' is a good one. People don't trust corportations to behave well. I think it's better to say that you can have customer regulation, or you can have government regulation, but a market free of regulation is not an option.
Yeah, let's name names and take prisoners. It's not the "Eastern" establishment. It's MIT's econ department. Between Krugman and Stiglitz, Bernanke, and Thurow, they're all on the dark side. Mankiew is the only ray of hope, and frankly I'd give him up if I could get rid of Krugman and Stiglitz. Retrench the whole department and all of its graduates. Renounce their degrees and pull their PhDs.
Shorter Solow: Free markets don't work because they're not perfect. How many times have we heard this criticism?? No economist who makes it is worthy of any ANY respect. Has he forgotten that everything happens at the margin? It's like the old joke about the bear and the running shoes: Free markeets can suck; they just have to suck less than any real-world alternative. I'm starting to think that no MIT economics grad deserves to be called an economist.
Russnelson is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 24, 2010