What has this guy actually created?
Nintendo has created jobs, entertainment, and basically an entire industry that helps fuel the economy.
If this guy is such an inventor, what has he created with those specific patents that does anyone any good?
Also, there are plenty of 3rd party controller manufacturers, why didn't he go to any of them and get these things made in order to compete with Nintendo?
Also, I find your comment about being rich somewhat odd. What do you define as rich, exactly? How about we take Nintendo's total net payroll and divide it by the number of employees. I am willing to bet a few of my own dollars that if we spread the money out in this fashion that Nintendo is not particularly rich.
You treat Nintendo as though it is a person, when really it's necessary to make a bankroll comparison on a person-to-person basis. The other question is how each of them got that way, but i fear I would join many others here in crying "Patent troll!" which isn't particularly productive at this point.
Sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide are there. This can be processed for various applications, if I'm not mistaken.
Also, we might be able to build the major structural materials needed from the carbon dioxide in the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus#Aerostat_habitats_and_floating_cities
There has been a slashdot poll that has info on the this http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1542&aid=-1
Anyway, the atmosphere is more useful than it might first appear, is my point.
Also, it could be a great place to vacation.
If I were to be snarky: "Our reason for building a flying machine is what?" "Computers will NEVER need more than 640K"
Why go there? we don't know exactly yet, but I'm sure it will produce some great things.
Yeah, they do it with a display mounted on the HUD of the plane, I believe. It could be the helmet too, I RMTTFA (read more than the frackin' article) yesterday.
I thought that was cheesy too, til I read more and found out that is, supposedly, exactly how there will be a "race track" that's more interesting than flying around in a circle.
I can see where if this sort of thing really took off, the X-Prize interests would dovetail perfectly. If private racing could eventually hold races in low earth orbit, beating governments to the technology, the interest and funding for space could really take off. It's just another way to skin the cat, making money while advancing reasonable interests.
So this would imply a new way to recharge an electric car during long drives? Just install them in each window and let the car recharge on the go. The alternator of the future!
Wait, can't the opposite way of lookin gat it be true? If less nano-medication is used (it's nano, so it's more potent due to targeting the problem better), won't it mean that large doses of something will no longer be necessary and will in fact be more useful?
So, less medication equals fewer side effects.
I think the natural argument against this type of statement goes as follows:
Yes, you're right, you have not stolen something from someone. However, what you *have* taken away is the impetus to do business. The reason why you would engage the creator of a work (or creator of a physical object) is what is at stake. If you have something already, what incentive do you have to buy it? Your desire to run or use a piece of software is what creates the transaction. The maker of said object or software created something of worth to people, making them desire it. Take that desire away and there's no deal, right?
I'm playing devil's advocate here a little bit, but I really think that this is the crux of the entire software piracy issue. Take away someone's desire to own something (anything!) and they will not make a transaction. You do not steal an object, you steal a desire (sounds kind of melodramatic, huh?)
Of course there are people that still wish to give money, like National Public Radio for instance, for getting something, but let's not bring that into the picture, huh?:)
We need more bosses putting themselves in the user's shoes if they're going to do something about the problems.
In this case, I don't see much change in the last five years, so as far as I'm concerned Bill gets little or no credit at all.
The question is whether someone who does not have any particular traits advantageous to running, but who does run, will have offspring who may have traits favorable to running because their father or mother ran. Basically, evolution by environment.
wikipedia seems to indicate "sort of but not really", at least as seen in humans, though there appear to be some changes with grandchildren. Is this "sort of" what you meant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
This has to do with a subject brought up in the article, this "new science".
I got into an argument with a friend over some content this article happens to contain. He said that, in fact, environment can influence inherited genes. Epigenetics and such. My argument was that if a parent is a marathon runner, for instance, his son might be prone to doing that simply by being brought up around that sort of thing, rather than having the son be a good runner because the father (or more likely the mother) did that.
He ranted and fumed that his teachers at school were right, and I asked if we could have a rational discussion on the subject, assuming him to be completely off his rocker. Another friend of ours also backed me up, saying he did not believe that environment could have an effect on inherited genes in that matter. We asked him how these traits were passed on, and he had no answer, just anger and frustration.
What is the skinny on this "new biology"? Can someone here please enlighten me? I feel ignorant here and wouldn't mind some information to sort things out a bit. Is this stuff proven, or just more hypothesizing?
If he is elected President, he will be the "intelligence community's" boss. If he isn't elected then as Senator he still holds power over them, not the other way around.
Was it President Jackson who said something to the effect of,"It's their law. Let them enforce it."
He may be the intelligence community's boss, but without their actual support it gets him nowhere. You also state that a good negotiator is someone who gets something he wants for giving up something trivial. Do you think that perhaps he is looking past this lost battle and realizing that if he has the intelligence community's support then this thing can be repealed or mitigated? I'm playing devil's advocate here for a minute, but I still think there is something to be said for playing politics here.
Admittedly, this is a pretty serious issue, but is it possible that he's giving up something now in order to gain a better foothold later?
Also, let's be realistic. The only actual change that can occur will be from the bottom. It will be through massive social uprising of one sort or another, not by simply electing one official over another. At this point, all votes are basically wasted, from a certain point of view. Anyway, this is not an issue about candidacy, this is an issue about why someone would vote for such a terrible bill in the first place.
Sounds fair. Let's get down to brass tacks, though (I've always wanted to say that):
Which is better? Knowing someone is a political ass master, or not? Which is going to allow for the possibility of change back toward a government by and for the people?
Well? A politician who needs to compromise in order to get where they want is nothing new.
Why not show in your post that Obama needs the intelligence community and cannot afford to anger his constituents who have worked hard on a compromise?
Granted, this compromise stills appears to be a potential death knell for the separation of the real church (big corporate money) and state, but condemning someone for doing what may be necessary doesn't seem very productive especially when the alternative is someone who works toward very sinister ends as well (looking at you, Mr. McCain). I'm not saying Obama can't be evil, but I will say he seems like a better (if slightly) chance at some forward progress.
There is no such thing as expresso. Yes, i am a Nazi about this. No, I wouldn't mind this being the last thing that is ever said before being sucked into a black hole. It's really that important (obviously).
On one hand we have legislation that would cut off internet to illegal users. On the other hand we have technologies that lock down hardware that lack the necessary precautions in understanding fair use.
My understanding of geothermal from a Slashdotter some time ago was that it is VERY toxic and ultimately much worse than coal or oil. I do not have the post or a link, but would be interested in hearing opinions and knowledge on the subject.
my girlfriend's router conks out EVERY Monday, sometime between midnight and 7am. I keep meaning to put a faraday cage aorund it, and we've tried a number of different fixes. Now the whole thing is down.
My point? If the technology isn't there to reliably and consistently allow internet access which is *being paid for* then I see no reason why we shouldn't piggyback off someone else until the problem is solved. Redundancy and all (isn't that how the Intertubules are designed anyway)
On the other hand, if we all did that and piggybacked, obviously it would be a problem.
Is this one way for MS to push more business to the Big 4 during hard times and curry favor?
I know it sounds a little tinfoily (as in hats), but if they can just keep pushing back the date won't that just keep scaring more admins/IT managers to buy new systems?
Absolutely not. I have a friend who works at MS who feels the same way. He feels Vista is just fine.
That's the problem though. It's just fine with no real reason to upgrade unless you're buying a new system. From what I see of my clients most of them are worried about keeping their jobs (Jobs? heh) and saving money, and the last thing on their mind is buying systems for their department or themselves.
I assumed we were talking about those cars that run on triple-A batteries. Yes, a mid-sized is fine for a family trip, and I've done it numerous times in the distant past. In fact, it's what I drive now. Not the best gas mileage (~29 highway) but I don't drive enough for it to make too much difference yet.
Yes, your Peugeot story makes my legs cramp just thinking about it. What were you thinking?
I remember doing an overnight trip to washington DC, about 13 hours I believe, with a huge American football-player sized guy and another fellow my size in a tiny pickup truck (about 2 feet of floor for a back seat of course). Sleeping consisted of burrowing down to the bottom of the luggage, and then curling up with a pile of luggage on top of you. Decent gas mileage for the time, though!
At least I can usually count on slashdotters to come back with reasoned answers. I don't drive a boat, btw, and am NOT in favor of huge cars. I am 6'2" though and the legs do get pretty cramped after more than 5 hours on the road, even with the small four-door I drive.
I did not know the drive from France to Scotland was so long. Does that include traffic? My point was that this type of driving is not typical, is it? How are commute times? I assume public transit is used more? I feel like there needs to be an understanding between people about the situations in each country in order to get a real sense for how gas prices actually affect drivers, hence the apples/oranges comment.
What if they know that H.R. 4279 (PRO-IP), that article a couple clicks down on the main/. page, is going to fix all this for them? Sort of a "Hey look at this hand!" while they pound civil rights into the ground with the other?
Isn't this just a big bad scary monster of a bill designed to scare us? That way, it'll get watered down to something that can actually pass and lay the groundwork for the slow, insidious trudge of rights-snatching that has been going on for the last 100 years?
It's like saying "Hey I'm gonna shoot you in the head!" then you stab them in the toe with a needle. It hurts like a bastard, but at least it doesn't kill you. Then they stab you in the thigh. They poke you in the nipple with a hot iron. Then they dip you in lemon juice.
After a while, getting shot in the head sure starts to seem mighty nice.
Slashdot Mirror
What has this guy actually created? Nintendo has created jobs, entertainment, and basically an entire industry that helps fuel the economy. If this guy is such an inventor, what has he created with those specific patents that does anyone any good? Also, there are plenty of 3rd party controller manufacturers, why didn't he go to any of them and get these things made in order to compete with Nintendo? Also, I find your comment about being rich somewhat odd. What do you define as rich, exactly? How about we take Nintendo's total net payroll and divide it by the number of employees. I am willing to bet a few of my own dollars that if we spread the money out in this fashion that Nintendo is not particularly rich. You treat Nintendo as though it is a person, when really it's necessary to make a bankroll comparison on a person-to-person basis. The other question is how each of them got that way, but i fear I would join many others here in crying "Patent troll!" which isn't particularly productive at this point.
Sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide are there. This can be processed for various applications, if I'm not mistaken. Also, we might be able to build the major structural materials needed from the carbon dioxide in the air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus#Aerostat_habitats_and_floating_cities There has been a slashdot poll that has info on the this http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1542&aid=-1 Anyway, the atmosphere is more useful than it might first appear, is my point. Also, it could be a great place to vacation. If I were to be snarky: "Our reason for building a flying machine is what?" "Computers will NEVER need more than 640K" Why go there? we don't know exactly yet, but I'm sure it will produce some great things.
Yeah, they do it with a display mounted on the HUD of the plane, I believe. It could be the helmet too, I RMTTFA (read more than the frackin' article) yesterday. I thought that was cheesy too, til I read more and found out that is, supposedly, exactly how there will be a "race track" that's more interesting than flying around in a circle.
I can see where if this sort of thing really took off, the X-Prize interests would dovetail perfectly. If private racing could eventually hold races in low earth orbit, beating governments to the technology, the interest and funding for space could really take off. It's just another way to skin the cat, making money while advancing reasonable interests.
Easy solution: Lots of Europeans.
So this would imply a new way to recharge an electric car during long drives? Just install them in each window and let the car recharge on the go. The alternator of the future!
Wait, can't the opposite way of lookin gat it be true? If less nano-medication is used (it's nano, so it's more potent due to targeting the problem better), won't it mean that large doses of something will no longer be necessary and will in fact be more useful? So, less medication equals fewer side effects.
I think the natural argument against this type of statement goes as follows: Yes, you're right, you have not stolen something from someone. However, what you *have* taken away is the impetus to do business. The reason why you would engage the creator of a work (or creator of a physical object) is what is at stake. If you have something already, what incentive do you have to buy it? Your desire to run or use a piece of software is what creates the transaction. The maker of said object or software created something of worth to people, making them desire it. Take that desire away and there's no deal, right? I'm playing devil's advocate here a little bit, but I really think that this is the crux of the entire software piracy issue. Take away someone's desire to own something (anything!) and they will not make a transaction. You do not steal an object, you steal a desire (sounds kind of melodramatic, huh?) Of course there are people that still wish to give money, like National Public Radio for instance, for getting something, but let's not bring that into the picture, huh? :)
We need more bosses putting themselves in the user's shoes if they're going to do something about the problems. In this case, I don't see much change in the last five years, so as far as I'm concerned Bill gets little or no credit at all.
The question is whether someone who does not have any particular traits advantageous to running, but who does run, will have offspring who may have traits favorable to running because their father or mother ran. Basically, evolution by environment.
wikipedia seems to indicate "sort of but not really", at least as seen in humans, though there appear to be some changes with grandchildren. Is this "sort of" what you meant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
This has to do with a subject brought up in the article, this "new science".
I got into an argument with a friend over some content this article happens to contain. He said that, in fact, environment can influence inherited genes. Epigenetics and such. My argument was that if a parent is a marathon runner, for instance, his son might be prone to doing that simply by being brought up around that sort of thing, rather than having the son be a good runner because the father (or more likely the mother) did that.
He ranted and fumed that his teachers at school were right, and I asked if we could have a rational discussion on the subject, assuming him to be completely off his rocker. Another friend of ours also backed me up, saying he did not believe that environment could have an effect on inherited genes in that matter. We asked him how these traits were passed on, and he had no answer, just anger and frustration.
What is the skinny on this "new biology"? Can someone here please enlighten me? I feel ignorant here and wouldn't mind some information to sort things out a bit. Is this stuff proven, or just more hypothesizing?
Thanks!
If he is elected President, he will be the "intelligence community's" boss. If he isn't elected then as Senator he still holds power over them, not the other way around.
Was it President Jackson who said something to the effect of,"It's their law. Let them enforce it." He may be the intelligence community's boss, but without their actual support it gets him nowhere. You also state that a good negotiator is someone who gets something he wants for giving up something trivial. Do you think that perhaps he is looking past this lost battle and realizing that if he has the intelligence community's support then this thing can be repealed or mitigated? I'm playing devil's advocate here for a minute, but I still think there is something to be said for playing politics here.
Admittedly, this is a pretty serious issue, but is it possible that he's giving up something now in order to gain a better foothold later?
Also, let's be realistic. The only actual change that can occur will be from the bottom. It will be through massive social uprising of one sort or another, not by simply electing one official over another. At this point, all votes are basically wasted, from a certain point of view. Anyway, this is not an issue about candidacy, this is an issue about why someone would vote for such a terrible bill in the first place.
Sounds fair. Let's get down to brass tacks, though (I've always wanted to say that):
Which is better? Knowing someone is a political ass master, or not? Which is going to allow for the possibility of change back toward a government by and for the people?
Well? A politician who needs to compromise in order to get where they want is nothing new.
Why not show in your post that Obama needs the intelligence community and cannot afford to anger his constituents who have worked hard on a compromise?
Granted, this compromise stills appears to be a potential death knell for the separation of the real church (big corporate money) and state, but condemning someone for doing what may be necessary doesn't seem very productive especially when the alternative is someone who works toward very sinister ends as well (looking at you, Mr. McCain). I'm not saying Obama can't be evil, but I will say he seems like a better (if slightly) chance at some forward progress.
Ok, time to lose some karma and be modded down:
There is no such thing as expresso. Yes, i am a Nazi about this.
No, I wouldn't mind this being the last thing that is ever said before being sucked into a black hole. It's really that important (obviously).
Last option? We haven't had that option for decades and the government knows it.
On one hand we have legislation that would cut off internet to illegal users.
On the other hand we have technologies that lock down hardware that lack the necessary precautions in understanding fair use.
That sure seems like a lovely combination.
My understanding of geothermal from a Slashdotter some time ago was that it is VERY toxic and ultimately much worse than coal or oil. I do not have the post or a link, but would be interested in hearing opinions and knowledge on the subject.
my girlfriend's router conks out EVERY Monday, sometime between midnight and 7am. I keep meaning to put a faraday cage aorund it, and we've tried a number of different fixes. Now the whole thing is down.
My point? If the technology isn't there to reliably and consistently allow internet access which is *being paid for* then I see no reason why we shouldn't piggyback off someone else until the problem is solved. Redundancy and all (isn't that how the Intertubules are designed anyway)
On the other hand, if we all did that and piggybacked, obviously it would be a problem.
Is this one way for MS to push more business to the Big 4 during hard times and curry favor?
I know it sounds a little tinfoily (as in hats), but if they can just keep pushing back the date won't that just keep scaring more admins/IT managers to buy new systems?
Absolutely not. I have a friend who works at MS who feels the same way. He feels Vista is just fine.
That's the problem though. It's just fine with no real reason to upgrade unless you're buying a new system. From what I see of my clients most of them are worried about keeping their jobs (Jobs? heh) and saving money, and the last thing on their mind is buying systems for their department or themselves.
I assumed we were talking about those cars that run on triple-A batteries. Yes, a mid-sized is fine for a family trip, and I've done it numerous times in the distant past. In fact, it's what I drive now. Not the best gas mileage (~29 highway) but I don't drive enough for it to make too much difference yet.
Yes, your Peugeot story makes my legs cramp just thinking about it. What were you thinking?
I remember doing an overnight trip to washington DC, about 13 hours I believe, with a huge American football-player sized guy and another fellow my size in a tiny pickup truck (about 2 feet of floor for a back seat of course). Sleeping consisted of burrowing down to the bottom of the luggage, and then curling up with a pile of luggage on top of you. Decent gas mileage for the time, though!
Hm. Ok, that's fair.
:).
At least I can usually count on slashdotters to come back with reasoned answers.
I don't drive a boat, btw, and am NOT in favor of huge cars. I am 6'2" though and the legs do get pretty cramped after more than 5 hours on the road, even with the small four-door I drive.
I did not know the drive from France to Scotland was so long. Does that include traffic? My point was that this type of driving is not typical, is it? How are commute times? I assume public transit is used more? I feel like there needs to be an understanding between people about the situations in each country in order to get a real sense for how gas prices actually affect drivers, hence the apples/oranges comment.
I've heard Astras can be... Astras
What if they know that H.R. 4279 (PRO-IP), that article a couple clicks down on the main /. page, is going to fix all this for them? Sort of a "Hey look at this hand!" while they pound civil rights into the ground with the other?
Isn't this just a big bad scary monster of a bill designed to scare us? That way, it'll get watered down to something that can actually pass and lay the groundwork for the slow, insidious trudge of rights-snatching that has been going on for the last 100 years?
It's like saying "Hey I'm gonna shoot you in the head!" then you stab them in the toe with a needle. It hurts like a bastard, but at least it doesn't kill you. Then they stab you in the thigh. They poke you in the nipple with a hot iron. Then they dip you in lemon juice.
After a while, getting shot in the head sure starts to seem mighty nice.
Thanks, government!