That's exactly right. It's eye candy that does its trick only once or twice, and after that it becomes nothing but a visual obstacle. I looked at plentyoffish.com, and quite frankly, it's not all that bad. The key factor is that it is SIMPLE...the information is there, it's legible, and users don't have to go through any hoops to see anything of value. In terms of form vs function, my own preference would be 30% - 40% form, and 60% - 70% function. I can easily get by with a web site that doesn't use the latest design trends, as long as it doesn't impede my objectives.
Here's an example - just this morning, I had to use MapQuest to look up a location. Rather than just PRESENTING me with the only matching location that it found, I'm supposed to click on a second button so that I can actually SEE it. Poor design, if you ask me. An ironically, MapQuest's aesthetics are more inline with some of the current trends.
However, a method for extracting, isolating, and purifying a gene may be patentable. But keep in mind that patents only last for 20 years
Only in theory. I read not too long ago that Big Pharma, Inc. was keen to ways of extending the patents beyond their 20-year span. Lawrence Lessig has some words to say about this: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001554.shtml
If I retrieve my mail on a daily basis (and keep my mail box empty), chances are there is nothing to back up (at least as far as MY mail is concerned).
I remember a few years ago, a story about an odd occurrence in an upper-class neighborhood. For some unexplained reason, a significant number of teens (some kind of young) started showing up at doctors' offices to report symptoms characteristic of at least one STD- mostly the same one. They thought it was kind of strange that it would not only happen to so many within a small geographic area, but within such a short period of time. After somes investigation, it was dicovered that these kids were doing exactly what the show suggested - having sex parties/orgies while parents weren't around to supervise. Oh, the horror. I'm not sure what value the FCC sees in burying these kinds of issues by sweeping them under a carpet of fines. Oh that's right...if people don't hear about it, that must mean that it's simply not happening.
I have a shelf at home STUFFED with this crap - mostly because I detest the idea that I have to sort through the mounds of junk mail to make sure none of it will gets ME into trouble if I toss it, and the spend the time required to shred it. I'm considering boxing it all up and hauling it to a commercial shredder, where the whole thing can be done in 2 minutes. Maybe I'll pick one of these nice, thoughtful credit card vendors and return the favor by shipping them the leftovers.
I didn't see too much value in this service, but I will say - after someone mentioned offsite backups, I can see where this might be very useful to some people who don't necessarily need to store huge amounts of data, but data that is critical nonetheless. Make no mistake - if I ever decided to use a third party for storage, I'd encrypt the hell out of it using a key of sufficient length as to make brute-force decryption impossible.
provided it hadn't been done before or is not otherwise obvious.
That's the problem in many of these cases - people mistakenly believe that the absence of a patent implies "novelty". No, sorry to say, the absence of a patent could very well mean that nobody has been stupid enough to waste their time trying. This is not to say that someone might eventually get away with a patent, but the reason something hasn't been patented could very well be precisely because there's nothing novel or unique about it. Unfortunately, the USPTO doesn't know its ass from page six when it comes to making this determination.
With respect to patents, I believe that "obvious" means obvious to someone in the field. This is why software patents are so stupid...almost every piece of software builds on prior knowledge and methods, and to start cordoning those off is a recipe for disaster. With few exceptions, I'd argue that most software-based methods are either so obvious, or the next logical step in refinement, that any sane person wouldn't think twice about patenting. But then, we're stuck with lawyers.
Just because the majority believe a pandemic would affect their business, that's not the same as saying they believe such a pandemic is likely to happen.
Interesting comment. Every time I see phrases like "when it hits the US," it makes me wonder - seriously. It hasn't "hit" anywhere else with significance, so why would it "hit" the US? Does the US have a special nation-sized bullseye on it? Is there something special about the genetic makeup of US citizens? It almost makes me think we're being primed for some kind of bizarre, self-fulfilling prophecy.
Something just dawned on me - cubes are nothing more than movable partitions with junk that can be attached (like desks, shelves, etc). Walls are nothing more than floor-to-ceiling partitions, if you will. Maybe the next step is to back off from the standard cubicle and go for an office space that has detachable, movable walls. After all, building in doors, walls, etc., is the expense that companies are trying to avoid. It seems to me that it wouldn'd be too difficult to come up with something that might be almost as effective as a walled office, but not nearly as expensive as the "built-in" approach.
Nice thought there. I decided a long time ago that it was rather presumptuous of the "concertly-inclined" to decide that an artist had to tour in order to make any money. It's their music, let them choose their venue.
My understanding is that one of the reasons that Enron got as far as it did was because of the absence of laws that declared a conflict of interest if the same firm used for accounting/auditing, was also used for consulting. Doing the right thing would have meant giving up either of those roles, and all the money that went with it. Money talks, integrity walks.
If my understanding is accurate, I wonder why it wasn't fixed by simply closing this loophole. Seems like every time something goes wrong (and it went terribly wrong here), there's an additional excuse to increase "oversight" - and all the red tape, hassle, and extra cost that goes with it. I also seem to recall that someone sounded the alarm quite aways before Enron broke, but was ignored by Congress.
I hope it sounds good - Apple sure hyped it. Another review I read seemed to sum it up nicely. It's not that Apple has redefined home stereo, as claimed, but compact stereo - and even then that might be a stretch, because there are others that still give it a run for its money.
I think it belongs here. I also thing Apple stepped in a rather large pile of shall we say, "largesse" when it announced the "hi-fi" accessory for the iPod. Anyone with even a moderate appreciation for sound quality was probably snickering at the specs. I sure did.
Ellison has only one objective - use open source as bait (via the products from the recently-acquired companies), to channel people into Oracle's own cash cows - the costly proprietary software backed by expensive support contracts.
More American workers lose their jobs to lower-cost foreign labor. Some of them may find comparable work, others may find work that pays less. Some may remain unemployed. Here you have a situation where a number of individuals who were able to participate in higher spending levels, have been confronted with conditions that now mandate they spend less. Combine less spending with the lower cost of foreign goods, and the net benefit may be marginal, if it even exists. The only "winners" in this game are the ones at the top of the money chain.
No, it's just that Amazon thought it could benefit from the methods endorsed by the Microsoft School of Legal Obfuscation: Deny it all! Deny it all! Deny it all! Deny it all!
"I am Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, Inc. I get paid a huge salary that is many times that of the average employee here, have major perks that most people will only dream of, and I am completely full of myself. I'd have a mirror here in my office so that I could admire my one true love, I haven't been able to find one big enough."
He's obviously forgotten where/how Linux originated.
Slashdot Mirror
He/she didn't.
That's exactly right. It's eye candy that does its trick only once or twice, and after that it becomes nothing but a visual obstacle. I looked at plentyoffish.com, and quite frankly, it's not all that bad. The key factor is that it is SIMPLE...the information is there, it's legible, and users don't have to go through any hoops to see anything of value. In terms of form vs function, my own preference would be 30% - 40% form, and 60% - 70% function. I can easily get by with a web site that doesn't use the latest design trends, as long as it doesn't impede my objectives.
Here's an example - just this morning, I had to use MapQuest to look up a location. Rather than just PRESENTING me with the only matching location that it found, I'm supposed to click on a second button so that I can actually SEE it. Poor design, if you ask me. An ironically, MapQuest's aesthetics are more inline with some of the current trends.
However, a method for extracting, isolating, and purifying a gene may be patentable. But keep in mind that patents only last for 20 years
Only in theory. I read not too long ago that Big Pharma, Inc. was keen to ways of extending the patents beyond their 20-year span. Lawrence Lessig has some words to say about this: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001554.shtml
Exactly. I was hoping I'd see the name of a company that might be able to offer some competition. So far, same 'ol same 'ol.
Once you get past a certain number of frames per second, it doesn't freaking matter. It's not going to one bit more for the quality of the experience.
If I retrieve my mail on a daily basis (and keep my mail box empty), chances are there is nothing to back up (at least as far as MY mail is concerned).
I remember a few years ago, a story about an odd occurrence in an upper-class neighborhood. For some unexplained reason, a significant number of teens (some kind of young) started showing up at doctors' offices to report symptoms characteristic of at least one STD- mostly the same one. They thought it was kind of strange that it would not only happen to so many within a small geographic area, but within such a short period of time. After somes investigation, it was dicovered that these kids were doing exactly what the show suggested - having sex parties/orgies while parents weren't around to supervise. Oh, the horror. I'm not sure what value the FCC sees in burying these kinds of issues by sweeping them under a carpet of fines. Oh that's right...if people don't hear about it, that must mean that it's simply not happening.
I have a shelf at home STUFFED with this crap - mostly because I detest the idea that I have to sort through the mounds of junk mail to make sure none of it will gets ME into trouble if I toss it, and the spend the time required to shred it. I'm considering boxing it all up and hauling it to a commercial shredder, where the whole thing can be done in 2 minutes. Maybe I'll pick one of these nice, thoughtful credit card vendors and return the favor by shipping them the leftovers.
I didn't see too much value in this service, but I will say - after someone mentioned offsite backups, I can see where this might be very useful to some people who don't necessarily need to store huge amounts of data, but data that is critical nonetheless. Make no mistake - if I ever decided to use a third party for storage, I'd encrypt the hell out of it using a key of sufficient length as to make brute-force decryption impossible.
The US is a democratic republic. We use the democratic process to elect officials to act on our behalf.
Como on...this is the US we're talking about. Don't you mean...on their behalf?
Just because it hadn't been done before doesn't mean it wasn't obvioius
Indeed. That's sort of what I was getting at, but your statement is much more succinct.
provided it hadn't been done before or is not otherwise obvious.
That's the problem in many of these cases - people mistakenly believe that the absence of a patent implies "novelty". No, sorry to say, the absence of a patent could very well mean that nobody has been stupid enough to waste their time trying. This is not to say that someone might eventually get away with a patent, but the reason something hasn't been patented could very well be precisely because there's nothing novel or unique about it. Unfortunately, the USPTO doesn't know its ass from page six when it comes to making this determination.
9/11
Need anyone say more?
With respect to patents, I believe that "obvious" means obvious to someone in the field. This is why software patents are so stupid...almost every piece of software builds on prior knowledge and methods, and to start cordoning those off is a recipe for disaster. With few exceptions, I'd argue that most software-based methods are either so obvious, or the next logical step in refinement, that any sane person wouldn't think twice about patenting. But then, we're stuck with lawyers.
Just because the majority believe a pandemic would affect their business, that's not the same as saying they believe such a pandemic is likely to happen.
Interesting comment. Every time I see phrases like "when it hits the US," it makes me wonder - seriously. It hasn't "hit" anywhere else with significance, so why would it "hit" the US? Does the US have a special nation-sized bullseye on it? Is there something special about the genetic makeup of US citizens? It almost makes me think we're being primed for some kind of bizarre, self-fulfilling prophecy.
Something just dawned on me - cubes are nothing more than movable partitions with junk that can be attached (like desks, shelves, etc). Walls are nothing more than floor-to-ceiling partitions, if you will. Maybe the next step is to back off from the standard cubicle and go for an office space that has detachable, movable walls. After all, building in doors, walls, etc., is the expense that companies are trying to avoid. It seems to me that it wouldn'd be too difficult to come up with something that might be almost as effective as a walled office, but not nearly as expensive as the "built-in" approach.
Nice thought there. I decided a long time ago that it was rather presumptuous of the "concertly-inclined" to decide that an artist had to tour in order to make any money. It's their music, let them choose their venue.
My understanding is that one of the reasons that Enron got as far as it did was because of the absence of laws that declared a conflict of interest if the same firm used for accounting/auditing, was also used for consulting. Doing the right thing would have meant giving up either of those roles, and all the money that went with it. Money talks, integrity walks.
If my understanding is accurate, I wonder why it wasn't fixed by simply closing this loophole. Seems like every time something goes wrong (and it went terribly wrong here), there's an additional excuse to increase "oversight" - and all the red tape, hassle, and extra cost that goes with it. I also seem to recall that someone sounded the alarm quite aways before Enron broke, but was ignored by Congress.
I hope it sounds good - Apple sure hyped it. Another review I read seemed to sum it up nicely. It's not that Apple has redefined home stereo, as claimed, but compact stereo - and even then that might be a stretch, because there are others that still give it a run for its money.
I think it belongs here. I also thing Apple stepped in a rather large pile of shall we say, "largesse" when it announced the "hi-fi" accessory for the iPod. Anyone with even a moderate appreciation for sound quality was probably snickering at the specs. I sure did.
Ellison has only one objective - use open source as bait (via the products from the recently-acquired companies), to channel people into Oracle's own cash cows - the costly proprietary software backed by expensive support contracts.
More American workers lose their jobs to lower-cost foreign labor. Some of them may find comparable work, others may find work that pays less. Some may remain unemployed. Here you have a situation where a number of individuals who were able to participate in higher spending levels, have been confronted with conditions that now mandate they spend less. Combine less spending with the lower cost of foreign goods, and the net benefit may be marginal, if it even exists. The only "winners" in this game are the ones at the top of the money chain.
Google is great:
o ryId=3795%20#Box
http://www.ewg.org/farm/findings.php
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr141f.htm
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?St
The fact that most of the subsidies go to large agribusinesses makes it even more depressing.
No, it's just that Amazon thought it could benefit from the methods endorsed by the Microsoft School of Legal Obfuscation: Deny it all! Deny it all! Deny it all! Deny it all!
"I am Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, Inc. I get paid a huge salary that is many times that of the average employee here, have major perks that most people will only dream of, and I am completely full of myself. I'd have a mirror here in my office so that I could admire my one true love, I haven't been able to find one big enough."
He's obviously forgotten where/how Linux originated.