The authors/publishers have no incentive to release the out-of-print works under the current system. That is why the blame rests with the system itself. Copyrights are designed to provide sufficient incentive for the creation of works that are useful to the public. In order to achieve this goal, the works must be released to the public while they remain useful. The limited-time monopoly rights need not last any longer than is necessary to encourage the initial creation of the works.
I've got a better one. Check out "C++: An Introduction to Data Structures" by Larry Nyhoff, copyright 1999.
Under section 9.5 (Other Multiply-Linked Lists), there is a description of "Multiply-Ordered Lists" which is identical to what is in the patent.
An excerpt from the text:
"In some applications however, it is necessary to maintain a collection ordered in two or more different ways... One way to accomplish such multiple orderings is to maintain separate ordered linked lists, one for each of the desired orders... A better approach is to use a single list in which multiple links are used to link the nodes together in the different orders."
The same section of a newer edition is available for viewing online here.
The same technology used to deflect asteroids away from Earth can be used to steer them towards us. Who would want to do that? Well, the military, terrorist groups, anyone with the financial backing and desire to destroy entire regions of the planet. In my estimation, we're more likely to be struck by an asteroid intentionally directed here than by chance.
It would actually be much cheaper to redirect an asteroid for this purpose than it would be to acquire and deliver nuclear weapons. Another reason this may be desirable to the military is that they can pretend they have nothing to do with it. Whenever an asteroid is detected that has the potential to strike Earth, there is no way to know whether the final trajectory was influenced artificially, as long as it stays within the predicted range. Very small changes in an asteroid's trajectory can make the difference between a near-miss and a direct hit.
Although I think it's important for us to be prepared for a potential collision with an asteroid, we must also ensure that the technology does not fall into the wrong hands. If NASA indeed gains the capability to deflect an asteroid, there should be no excuse for one that somehow "falls through" the system. I think that any organization with this capability must be accountable for any future impact, regardless of where it occurs and who it affects.
Oh man, this will totally screw up the whole sex robot industry. Now when robots become lifelike enough to be viable sex slaves, we'll still have to buy them dinner (or batteries), and hope they're in the mood...
Apparently, computers have rights beyond those of humans. When a human misbehaves, is it generally considered acceptable to impair his or her operation. The same should hold for machines. It cannot be assumed that they are operating properly at all times. When a machine behaves in a way contrary to the intent of its designers and/or users, impairing its operation is usually the only form of recourse.
Does this law require people to allow computers to go wild, even when they are clearly malfunctioning? What about when they acquire enough intelligence to make decisions on their own? Must we assume that they know best, and bow to their superiority?
First off, SSI is for supplementing low income. SSDI is for disability. Secondly, how can you claim that Asperger's is a "fake mental disorder"? It's not something that just appeared recently. It took about 50 years from the time Hans Asperger identified it to when it became an accepted medical diagnosis. Clearly, there's been plenty of time between then and now to study and evaluate the validity of the work. I think it's pretty careless of you to dismiss it off-hand.
One reason people don't get the services they need is that people like you assume that if you can't see the disability, then they probably don't have one. Anyone who knows how a computer program works should know that malfunctioning code is not always obvious, and the cause of its mis-behavior is not always easy to trace. Well the human brain is much less understood than machine code, and is that much harder to diagnose when something is not right.
So if you know something the experts do not, then perhaps you should enlighten the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
This wouldn't sound so silly if copyright infringement was equivalent to stealing.
Add the $15 billion federally funded Big Dig to the list of engineering disasters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_ceiling_collapse
The authors/publishers have no incentive to release the out-of-print works under the current system. That is why the blame rests with the system itself. Copyrights are designed to provide sufficient incentive for the creation of works that are useful to the public. In order to achieve this goal, the works must be released to the public while they remain useful. The limited-time monopoly rights need not last any longer than is necessary to encourage the initial creation of the works.
Could this explain why when a traffic light turns yellow, nobody seems to notice it?
Crude? The graphs/labels from this link look like they were drawn using MS Paint!
http://www.safarix.com/0131409093/ch11lev1sec5
Under section 9.5 (Other Multiply-Linked Lists), there is a description of "Multiply-Ordered Lists" which is identical to what is in the patent.
An excerpt from the text:
"In some applications however, it is necessary to maintain a collection ordered in two or more different ways... One way to accomplish such multiple orderings is to maintain separate ordered linked lists, one for each of the desired orders... A better approach is to use a single list in which multiple links are used to link the nodes together in the different orders."
The same section of a newer edition is available for viewing online here.
The same technology used to deflect asteroids away from Earth can be used to steer them towards us. Who would want to do that? Well, the military, terrorist groups, anyone with the financial backing and desire to destroy entire regions of the planet. In my estimation, we're more likely to be struck by an asteroid intentionally directed here than by chance.
It would actually be much cheaper to redirect an asteroid for this purpose than it would be to acquire and deliver nuclear weapons. Another reason this may be desirable to the military is that they can pretend they have nothing to do with it. Whenever an asteroid is detected that has the potential to strike Earth, there is no way to know whether the final trajectory was influenced artificially, as long as it stays within the predicted range. Very small changes in an asteroid's trajectory can make the difference between a near-miss and a direct hit.
Although I think it's important for us to be prepared for a potential collision with an asteroid, we must also ensure that the technology does not fall into the wrong hands. If NASA indeed gains the capability to deflect an asteroid, there should be no excuse for one that somehow "falls through" the system. I think that any organization with this capability must be accountable for any future impact, regardless of where it occurs and who it affects.
I didn't realize it took quantum computing to power my wireless router...
Oh man, this will totally screw up the whole sex robot industry. Now when robots become lifelike enough to be viable sex slaves, we'll still have to buy them dinner (or batteries), and hope they're in the mood...
Apparently, computers have rights beyond those of humans. When a human misbehaves, is it generally considered acceptable to impair his or her operation. The same should hold for machines. It cannot be assumed that they are operating properly at all times. When a machine behaves in a way contrary to the intent of its designers and/or users, impairing its operation is usually the only form of recourse. Does this law require people to allow computers to go wild, even when they are clearly malfunctioning? What about when they acquire enough intelligence to make decisions on their own? Must we assume that they know best, and bow to their superiority?
That's a pretty thoughtless remark.
First off, SSI is for supplementing low income. SSDI is for disability. Secondly, how can you claim that Asperger's is a "fake mental disorder"? It's not something that just appeared recently. It took about 50 years from the time Hans Asperger identified it to when it became an accepted medical diagnosis. Clearly, there's been plenty of time between then and now to study and evaluate the validity of the work. I think it's pretty careless of you to dismiss it off-hand.
One reason people don't get the services they need is that people like you assume that if you can't see the disability, then they probably don't have one. Anyone who knows how a computer program works should know that malfunctioning code is not always obvious, and the cause of its mis-behavior is not always easy to trace. Well the human brain is much less understood than machine code, and is that much harder to diagnose when something is not right.
So if you know something the experts do not, then perhaps you should enlighten the rest of us.