Comment Re:Summary of what he did (Score 1) 211
Point of interest: in order to get to step 5, I'd have had to set up AdSense prior to step 3.
Google's 'ID Validation' Is a Joke, But Not Funny 211
An anonymous reader writes "I was curious about the whole profile reporting and ID validation process on Google+ so I decided to do a little experimental work to find out just what is involved. Answer: very little which could be called rigor." Tease: this story involves a form of I.D. only slightly less funny than the 409-eater with a passport in the name of James Tiberius Kirk.
Comment Re:Oh Look.. (Score 1) 283
Says someone similarly using a pseudonym. That's not evidence, that's just
Pseudonymous usage does not == uncivil assholeishness.
If you need evidence of that, have a look at some of the anti-pseudonym sentiments that have cropped up under people's "real" names on Google+ thus far. On the whole the pseudonymous crowd have been considerably more civil, more reasonable, and more able to present research supportive of their arguments.
Submission + - Google's "ID Validation" Is a (non-funny) Joke (blogspot.com)
An anonymous reader writes: I was curious about the whole profile reporting and ID validation process on Google+ so I decided to do a little experimental work to find out just what is involved. Answer: very little which could be called rigor.
Comment Re:Tools of Violence (Score 1) 115
1) India is not kicking our ass. India is providing services for us. Regardless, India is not creating any of the advances you used as examples, but rather manufacturing the products of them. Similarly, I have to question the validity of your claim if the best evidence you can find to link is a two-year-old 2 para speculative bit from the Times of India (which isn't exactly known to be impartial where India vs the world issues are concerned). Where are the more recent articles about this actually coming to pass? I suppose they were somehow blocked from being written by patents on business journalism processes?
2) You cannot invalidate my argument by painting it with slavery. You can probably fool stupid people with that rhetorical technique, but no rational person will fall for it. You'll need to do better. Patents, just for one, are legal. Slavery is not. The fact that slavery was, at one time, legal, didn't change the fact that it violated the essential human rights of the persons subjected to it. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that patents should be regarded in the same ballpark, and so will anyone else with 2 brain cells to rub together.
3) People have a right to the control over their creations offered by patents because such is the law. If you don't like living in a society founded on the supremacy of the law, I can suggest any number of countries in the 3rd world where you can enjoy relief from this burdensome practice.
Understand, I'm not arguing that the patent process is perfect (as I stated previously, you would have to be feeble-minded in order to fail to see that it is flawed) only that attacking patents themselves is intellectually dishonest and/or ignorant. I don't really care what you "lived." In my experience, people always have reasons why some big thing held them back from succeeding. That big thing is rarely, if ever, their own inadequacies or failure to properly prepare for the realities of the world in which they were working. Patent law, sir, is a part of that world. You're free to dislike it. You're free to hate it or rail against it as you wish. I'm free to rebut your arguments and will continue to do so as long as you persist in making such silly ones.
2) You cannot invalidate my argument by painting it with slavery. You can probably fool stupid people with that rhetorical technique, but no rational person will fall for it. You'll need to do better. Patents, just for one, are legal. Slavery is not. The fact that slavery was, at one time, legal, didn't change the fact that it violated the essential human rights of the persons subjected to it. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that patents should be regarded in the same ballpark, and so will anyone else with 2 brain cells to rub together.
3) People have a right to the control over their creations offered by patents because such is the law. If you don't like living in a society founded on the supremacy of the law, I can suggest any number of countries in the 3rd world where you can enjoy relief from this burdensome practice.
Understand, I'm not arguing that the patent process is perfect (as I stated previously, you would have to be feeble-minded in order to fail to see that it is flawed) only that attacking patents themselves is intellectually dishonest and/or ignorant. I don't really care what you "lived." In my experience, people always have reasons why some big thing held them back from succeeding. That big thing is rarely, if ever, their own inadequacies or failure to properly prepare for the realities of the world in which they were working. Patent law, sir, is a part of that world. You're free to dislike it. You're free to hate it or rail against it as you wish. I'm free to rebut your arguments and will continue to do so as long as you persist in making such silly ones.
