New zealand. FWIW.

Healthcare doesn't suck, it's getting there, though.

And, when Canada is ****ed up, it's not "collapse the world economy" ****ed up. It's "why are we letting protesters sit on the same piece of land preventing houses being built for 3 years" ****ed up.

Good people of POG, it's not like you haven't been told that the **** was going to hit the fan. There's a reason why I took the gold in the bet.

I'll say it again so it doesn't get lost and maybe can make some of you money. If you want to invest in stocks (just get index stuff) buy them a little before the elections or shortly after the elections. Do not hold them long (3 month max imo), once you realized your profits invest everything in the economy tanking...
????
profit
[plan was initially developed for an Obama win but I think it only requires slight changes for a MC win]

I will probably cash out my whole poker BR to do this.

p.s.: Found the link:
Praxeology Lecture (audio)
If you want more details there's also the whole book "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" as an audio book which I'll listen to and/or read the next week:
Economic Science and the Austrian Method

If anyone wants to do a study group for any of the Austrian books in POG let me know. I started one on Man, Economy, State in politics a while back but gave up on it.

Call me over the top but I think people who defend fiat money should not complain too much about the state of the economy.
And "government should do something about it" is a pretty bad line of though. Agree with swiitch if they just stayed out of everything we'd be better off. They'll just do some hot fixes that will help whoever they think they need votes from which in the long run will just help make everything even worse. Rinse, repeat.

IIRC that's close to impossible for US citizens anyways.

Bah - my response got eaten

Basically I was saying that The US economy can **** up the world because our economy is so huge (about 15-20% iirc).

I was also responding to clown that many people did see it coming, it's just hard to do much about a meltdown of these proportions as an individual.

I also have an interest in the Austrian School of Economics, but I have a very limited economic background, and won't have much time for the next 6 months+, so I wouldn't be of much value to a study group.

I think UCLA had a similar problem (protesters sitting in a tree for 2+ years blocking construction of a new athletic building). So I guess we get that kind of effed up too, but maybe only in California.

That's where I would go.

The beauty of Austrian economics is that it's pretty much perfect for the layman because it's all based on logical reasoning.
I'd be up for any speed just tossing it out there.

We have natives blocking construction of a subdivision, ignoring a court order to move and beating people up.

vigilantes

Let's discuss intelectual property (if there's interest). I'll gladly argue the pro stance.

Huh, I'm in favor of some form of "IP rights", although I don't like that phrase because it's a bit vague, and I think there should definitely be differences between copyright, trademark, and patent law. I am however opposed to copyright terms that last 100+ years, as well as being opposed to software patents.

There are two key features of "intellectual property", as far as modeling a legal regime is concerned.

1) the principle of non-exclusivity. That my use of IP does not preclude your use.
2) that almost without exception each new creation in the realm of IP builds on that which comes before it

These two principles are what underlie the constitutional idea of striking a balance between giving incentives to drive creation (the potential for profit) and allowing for works to be built upon by others.

Besides outlining various abuses of the current IP regimes, which I agree exist, it seems like the crux of the argument in the link is just that incentives are not necessary, but I don't really agree with this. It's true that people will create without direct monetary incentives but they may not create on the same scale and in the same time frames, unless there is some kind of patronage system, but all in all I think copyright and patent regimes scale better and are less troublesome than a patronage system.

But I do think the current IP regimes are way too tilted in favor of IP owners and at the detriment of the public domain and public interest.

I actually understood that.

Holy ****.

Software patents are pretty BS. It's like applying a patent to a math equation.

the dollar went up like 10 pesos today, that means 75000 more chilean pesos to me ( I can buy like 9 absolute vodkas with that)

OTOH, software copyright is vital.

I'm a big supporter of open source, but I think that, long term, true open source projects aren't viable. In order to make it work, you need something like what Mozilla has going... $50M+/year coming in from corporate partnership with Google, and a paid engineering staff to handle the core work.

What's the difference between patenting ideas (software patents etc.) or words/slogans which are merely an expression of ideas (copyrights)?
I don't understand people who argo pro one and contra the other.

Let's look at software specifically, since that's the only place the two really cross. Outside of software, something's either copyrighted - music, writing, etc - or patented - products, medicines, etc.

Copyright protects the author of a creative piece from other people taking & using it without compensating the creator. Not a good thing, since then the creative people either (The not good thing is taking it without compensating the creator, since that was inherently unclear)

a) Have no motivation to create
b) Die from lack of food due to not getting paid

So we copyright it, so they get paid wherever their creative stuff gets used.

Patents, otoh, say "this is mine, you can't use it, and here's exactly how it's made". This is fine for things like products and medicines, as a lot of R&D went in to creating a new product, it's a physical thing, etc.

With software, companies (IBM) are trying to patent algorithms. Like I said above, that's like trying to prevent everyone in the world from using a math equation... it's impossible, and wrong on some deep level. Copyright prevents others from using a given implementation of an algorithm. Patent prevents them from using it at all.

I'm not enunciating the difference here very clearly. All I have are similes that use the words "patent" and "copyright". But there is a very distinct difference between the two, and things that should be patented should be, and things that should be protected by copyright should be, and there's really no crossover between them.

What if there's only one (usually trivial) implementation?

If I write a bubble sort and slap a copyright on it, you can't take my bubble sort and put it in your application. You can rewrite it.

If I write a bubble sort and slap a patent on it, you can't use a bubble sort. You should thank me for it, too.

Ultimately, software copyright is hard, because proving theft instead of rewrite is difficult bordering on impossible. That doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile.

There is a standard for evaluating software copyright claims that is used by the courts (based on precedent) such that certain kinds of expressions which are tied to recognized public standards, or are trivial implementations of a commonly known and used algorithm, are not considered copyrightable. I don't remember the exact name of the criteria (It's the x-y-z test) but generally it falls under the "scenes a faire" affirmative defense to copyright infringement.

http://www.copyright-laws.com/pgs/protect-rights.html

Well what about something trivial that can only be replicated in exactly one way. How do copyrights and patents differ there (bubble sort while trivial is not trivial enough)?

How so? I can surely license it from you and if you don't want to sell me a license I have to accept that.

First come, first serve. Simple really. I mean you can argue that I thought about the same thing without ever hearing about your idea but that's just tough luck for me.
As long as you are still using the idea and were the first person to have used it I'm out of luck unless I can prove I used it before you did.

Note I'm not concerned with how the stuff is currently handled. I'm always arguing about the general principle from an ivory tower in case that wasn't clear.

I'm using US law because I'm unfamiliar with other countries. I don't know how similar US copyright law and court precedent is to other countries, FWIW.

Basically, Patent law and copyright law are completely different in terms of incentives, terms, and liabilities, so they just can't be directly compared.

This works less well for software than other inventions because almost all new software development is incremental in terms of the underlying concepts, which are what are protected under patent. There may be an argument for the usefulness of allowing patents on some software designs, but many many software patents in the US are bad because they give too strong a monopoly when one isn't really deserved and the monopoly stifles further innovation because of the fact that such innovation is almost always incremental.

All right to make this easier on everyone, I'll argue that ideas are properties of the thinker worth protecting (to get rid of this whole copyright or patent or whatnot mess)
I don't see a problem with the inventor of "click on an 'x' " prohibiting everyone else to use the same concept in their code.
I also wouldn't see a problem with allowing whoever invented the concept of "0" in math for example to protect that. If it's in his best interest to do so is another question but he should be free to choose.

As WN kindly pointed out, you can't protect something too trivial.

Yes, you could license it from me if you want to pay for it, and I want to let you. I don't think this is appropriate in software. Since so much of software development is reinventing a wheel and slapping different hubcaps on it, having to license a tread, and bolt, and tube, etc etc etc every time a piece of software is being built will destroy the software industry. IMO. It's great for the big boys that can afford to patent every mildly non-trivial thing they develop, but not for everyone as a whole.

It promotes monopolies, which are not desirable, I think, and it stifles further development. And besides, it just feels wrong to patent software. It's something that belongs in copyright.

As mentioned, the two are completely different beasts, and apply to completely different types of products.