felipeko

I'm also curious about that. If you ever find the answer, please, come back to tell me.

The principle is pretty simple, if it's two consenting adults doing something that does not impact a third person rights, they should be allowed to do it.

So I would be okay with laws about how money is earned, if there's a third person being impacted (pollution, for example), and i am okay with laws about how money is spent if there's a third person being impacted (idk, hiring a assassin)

Of course when one of the two consenting parties does something outside of the contract (false advertising, fraud, etc.), it should also be unlawful.

Everything else someone does to limit my choices/actions I do disagree.

Both your problems (bad driving, buying a car) seems to completely ignore the 'autonomous' and 'club' parts of the idea.

Just a nitpick, by definition what does not have protection is not IP.

Not really. Most people on most developed countries don't have scarcity for water, food, clothes, transport... It wasn't always like that. Things do become more abundant and people will dot not always change expectation on the same amount.

And it went to war for the following reasons:

a) scarcity of resource (oil) / humanitarian reasons (whichever you prefer to believe)

b) was provoked into it (because of cold war or terrorists)

a) World gdp per capita is less than $18.000, hardly what i would call abundance. We are still a few good decades away from abundance.

b) I bet that rich countries, where people have all they need, will not provoke wars or engage on unprovoked wars (unless for humanitarian reasons).

I call it scarcity of resources. You won't see wars and what not when you have humanity with abundance of resources.

According to a member of the dev team: 'We are aiming for sometime in the second half of the year. There's still a few details to work out beyond just feature parity with 15. '

https://www.reddit.com/r/reactjs/comments/6g3e98/react_fiber...

1- I don't think it is controversial that some people like to drive, but I think this is such a tiny fraction of the market as to not matter. This point - that people like to drive - contradicts your "transportation alternatives" more than self-driving cars, as self-driving cars are closer to "driving a car" than public transportation.

2- Your point was that other improvements were way better. I don't disagree that we can make roads safer without it.

3- Self-driving car will certainly diminish the need for ownership. But I was just arguing on the environmental point of yours, that even if it does not solve, it will help alleviate.

> people actually like to drive

This does not appear to be true, do you have any research?

> road safety could be improved way better with other improvements (better education, harsher fines, lowering and enforcing speed limits)

This also does not appear to be true. It's like saying humans can get better than computers at Go if you push them hard enough. And we know that's false.

> environmental impact decreased by moving away from motorized transportation etc.

While i agree, i can point out that a self-driving car will mean less cars (as it can be shared), so it will be more environmental efficient than private ownership of cars.

Not op, but i will try. There's no distinction of biological computation and machine computation, there's just computation. What our brain is doing is computation, we may not fully understand how it does what it does yet, but what we know is that our brain is a very powerful computational machine, that's why it is so hard to emulate its processes. But as man-made machines are still getting more powerful, it will someday be able to do everything our brains do (from playing chess, go, understanding images, walking, driving to understanding language, creating a self-model a reality model and having self awareness).

But as man-made machines are not constrained to a skull and body, and other physical limitations, it will eventually surpass our processing power. There will be some limit for it though, just nowhere close to our wetware.

Education is cheaper than prohibition. If costs are the problem, that's what we should do.

That's if you discount the booming of solar energy.

I've been thinking a lot of "how would it work if it was an Artificial Intelligence".

I don't think any kind of AI would learn to live in society by being all alone, and i have a hard time understanding how any natural intelligence would work differently.

She can't spend what congress doesn't aprove on the yearly budget.

Lets do it the other way. Consumers let Comcast use their land, so Comcast can serve them with internet and earn profit. If Comcast doesn't want to give consumers full and neutral internet, Comcast shall not profit from the land.

Anything public can be used to invalidate a patent.

The first to file only refers to two inventors patenting the same non public (or public in the span of a year) invention. Anything public for more than a year cannot be patented because there's prior art (obviously).

So if you want to ensure someone don't sue you for a patent, you just have to publish everything you've been using.

Of course this is a lie, because there's always a patent that you can be sued, because even if you can invalidate said patent (even with another patent), you will still have to pay a lot of money.

No it's not. It's a illustration of a need for some kind of regulation on the field.

Patents are much more 'powerful' than needed for pharma industry. They hinder good research by universities and other NGOs.

I don't think you can prove this.

I'd love to see research proving patents do more good than harm (in any field).

I'm not sure i agree. I'm used to reading horizontally and usually i scroll enough so the content i'm reading is always at the top of the page. So it was much faster, and looked more natural, for me to check my progress on the reading on the page that had the horizontal progress than it is on the vertical scrollbar.

It's way worse than that. Microsoft uses FUD tatics to sign patent licenses. You can check Microsft vs B&N case, in which B&N showed the kind of patents [1] Microsoft is using against Android. (By the way, Microsoft had to invest in B&N to end this case. This is how strong good these patents are) It's obvious that Microsoft is using IBM's old playbook on patents[2], where it's cheaper to license than fight.

[1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck...

[2] http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

You're missing the reward for those who get higher grades.

If students with higher grades got better food, chair and transport (that's what happens in basic income), you would probably see some students trying their best.

I don't think there's a problem with Apple selling for eBooks more on their store. The problem is they forced everybody to sell for more on other stores.

The treaty only work when their actions constitute a crime on their resident country. In both cases this is not true.

This didn't stop US from bullying NZ and UK. NZ police even acted unlawfully because of this bullying.

Oh well, that's just because US thinks it owns every other country.

Just see what they tried to do with Assange and Kim Dotcom.

They could've done that countless times with less public people.

Not true. We also have contract subsidized phones, and you can still unlock and use your phone however you want, you still have the contract to fulfill, or you can pay the ETF and be done with it.

This is sad.

In Brazil, my home country, is illegal for a carrier to not unlock your phone if you ask.

I'm not sure i agree with his reasons, mostly because what the data really shows is that Android users don't really browse on Wi-Fi [1] (on 3G the discrepancy - device marketshare vs browsing marketshare - is much lower).

My opinion (with anecdotal evidence) is that Android users just stick with their PCs when at home (presumably when they have Wi-Fi), whereas iOS users prefer the small screen, for some reason.

[1] http://blog.cloudfour.com/explaining-the-ios-and-android-mob...

You're the one misunderstanding. A big company don't take any risk to file a patent, it's a few thousand of dollars and a few lawyer hours, and that's chump change for them. And that's a great sum for the small guy.

That's why you see companies like IBM, Samsung, Microsft and Apple patenting the hell out of everything[1]. It's actually a great defense move (so, yeah, it's the inverse of risk) and sometimes take no research (just lawyers and money).

There are some patents that USPTO keeps rejecting from Apple, and Apple just changes the wording and try again[2] (no small guy can afford that) until they finally get the patent. Such a wonderfully new researched and risky idea shouldn't take more than one try on the USPTO, don't you think?

Sources:

[1] A Patent Warrior’s Education: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...

[2] The Patent Bureaucracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...