No, we're still going to hate mono until Microsoft takes the mono/.net patents and changes them from "promise not to sue" to "legally unallowed to sue, for any implementation or use", preferably under the GPL. That being said, right now it's safer than java.
If the lib art student knows how to fix a misbehaving AD server? If the engineer is a photoshop wizard? There are people who have skill sets outside their profession, and to dismiss them because what they're known for doesn't encompass their full range of ability is short-sided.
If somebody isn't a lawyer but has extensive knowledge about the law, legal systems, and the fundamental underpinnings of the American legal structure, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered as fair applicants for the Supreme Court.
Especially when you look at the decisions the lawyers appointed to the court have been making towards their former employers (say, Monsanto). Those hardly seems objective to me...
It'd be easier for me to convince a CA state judge that the NY court doesn't have jurisdictional grounds and dismiss the case. Then the NY person would have to file in federal court on the jurisdictional issue, and if he's deemed to have standing (which he should, for the jurisdiction and not the original claim) then it'd depend on what else happened. At that point, the allegation should fall under interstate commerce, where there is no federal statue.
Of course, IANAL, and that's just my understanding of interstate law for harmful actions. It might take a federal judge to rule that NY doesn't have jurisdiction and dismiss the case at the start. Or it could wind up dragging in state attorney generals which would create a clustercuss. Any way, it'd cost.
I actually disagree, thanks to autotune. When you thust non-creatives into the roles that just 15 years ago required creatives (people who have become very good at their craft, and therefore know it well enough to change it) you don't get the driving forces that lead towards greater evolution in music. Instead those ideas are relegated to forces outside the mainstream (which has always been instrumental to musical evolution) and we lose a vector of unique creations.
That being said, it's not as dire as some people think. Indie rock is keeping rock and roll alive, jazz is getting stronger again, bluegrass of all things is getting a resurgence, and the unique creations of the last 15 years (electronica) are getting stronger, while new forms of art are being invented daily. All we've really lost due to autotune is a vector that would generate very polished versions of existing genres with some occasional genuine crossover. It's a loss, but it will only change what's played on golden oldie stations in 30 years. Music will continue on unimpeded.
And while Italy and Germany are probably amongst the best teams of the world currently, they play horribly unattractive soccer games. Very defensive, very little action.
Wait, what? Have you ever watched a German team play? They didn't score their 4 goals off the counter....
For that matter, the Italians don't really play defensively until they're ahead by a few goals, or until late in the game.
I'll stick with Apple (I know the hate out there). At least they are focussed on hardware and not capturing my entire existence in a database someplace.
We did fix the school board. But, for some reason, we let the outgoing board have a textbook curriculum meeting in a revision year before chucking them away. Most of that board lost their elections, and will not be there the next time it meets. But that's after the new books have been made and bought.
I do believe this has been going on for a long time now. It's called publishing in peer reviewed journals. Thousands of times.
And that model holds up until the peer reviewed journals start rejecting alternate theories because they disagree with the AGW gospel.
When the baseline for your field isn't "here's the data, this is what I think it means as somebody who's spent a lot of time learning about it", and is instead "here's the data that fits with the theory our backers want us to prove, we justify it by saying there's a consensus, and kick blasphemers out of the consensus to keep it" then you're no longer science - you're religion.
The difference is that in the US we also take into account citations (at least in Chemistry).
For instance, if I have 7 papers in the last two years with 150 citations, I'm in demand because I'm being used as 'oh, and here's the paper of the guy who came up with the idea for this method' when others right their papers.
Now when I go up for the job against the post doc fresh from China, and he goes on about his 20 papers in the last two years with ~0~ citations (because they're essentially an abstract, a paragraph on methodology that's copy-pasted from a paper he wrote months ago and is out of date, and then his graphs/data with no conclusions drawn), the odds are against him getting the job.
Now, this is not a likely scenario, as I don't know anybody who jumps from one country's academia to another (unless headhunted) without a stop as a postdoc or with a fellowship, but in the US the value of an author is based upon quality citations as well.
Isn't that was wikia does? It lets people set up specific wikis on specific subjects that cover things in more depth than would be allowed by wikipedia due to article notability standards?
You can either scrape microsoft's free guide or, preferably, pay $20 a year for Schedules Direct in the US.
And if I recall, Comcast doesn't sell you the guide, they rent you the hardware that's capable of using their system. Even if you own your own hardware, they still make you pay to rent the cable card.
if $browser["browser"] == "Googlebot" { print $answer; };
?>
That'd solve that problem even better than the css alone. Granted, you'd have to adapt it for other search engines (oh, and the off chance the person visiting the page is a member), but this would be easy to do. I wonder why they don't?
If I were able to patent math, or a concept, which is too generic for a patent, what is to stop me from suing anyone for doing anything considered "Similar" to said concept? This is the issue. When you get down to patenting 2+2 that means you can stop people from patenting any form of math. See how this leads to a circular argument that only goes down the drain for inventors?
Unless the inventors work for a company with the legal and financial muscle to compete. I'm really jaded (especially in presentation), but the system really is set up so that innovation can be stifled so that large entities who could be destroyed (in whole or in part) by rapid market innovation don't have to worry. I know the system is set up in such a way that it's supposed to protect the very people it stifles from having their ideas stolen instead of bought, but the practice of overly-broad generic patents on basic concepts in many fields has created litigious loopholes which allows the giants to reverse the tables on the small innovator, forcing them to sell the idea or face a patent suit that will bankrupt them before discovery is finished. (Holy run-on sentence Batman!) I don't like that setup, I'd rather let market forces subject only to anti-collusion and anti-price-fixing regulations reach a similar end effect in the marketplace independent of the litigation.
Software patents are a bit of an anomaly, and their presence still needs justification.
How does a brown paper bag full of Benjamin Franklin marked "Campaign to Re-elect Senator ????" sound for a justification? It'll be waiting behind the usual dumpter (you know, the one in the Microsoft parking lot).
I know 3 MDs, about a dozen med students in various years, and way too many pre-med undergrads. All of them would be stuck livid at the notion that they would purposefully let a patient go so they could harvest the organs to save another. It's jut not in their mindset - they might not be super jaded yet, but they try to save anybody, anytime. That's how they're wired.
But the cost of fighting any of these mega-corps is so immense that, in effect, unless you're fighting somebody near your own weight class (in terms of available resources) you will lose, and likely never even get to see the verdict. Look at what Monsanto's done to agriculture in the last decade. If you don't pay to plant Monsanto's seed, they sue you into bankruptcy where you have to sell the farm to a Monsanto friend. It is defacto illegal to harvest seed from crops now, because though there is no law against it the people who used to make a living running the seed-collecting machines were sued for contributory infringement against Monsanto's genetic patents. It just costs too much for a person to defend against that. Especially since most corperations structure themselves in such a way that they don't own anything and use cashflow for everything, and the laws are written to that effect. Farmers have little cashflow and millions of dollars in assets (land, property) and therefore repeatedly get destroyed if they don't lay down and give a large cut of profits to Monsanto.
Your argument about the RIAA stealing an indie band's music and selling it on their own is crap. The laws that protect the RIAA don't cover that, and the indie bands can't afford the cost to use a DMCA-approved content protection system to trigger DMCA violations. Having music IP laws that allow for statuatory payments per performance and such is fine, but the erosion of fair use (though, historically, fair use as a legal concept has re-emerged more recently than not, and is being beat back down) is soley the RIAA powed by friends in Washington DC.
Other IPs vary, but more often than not it's the Monsantos that the laws are written for to protect, not the individual inventor.
It's the same in chemistry. What gets published in Chinese journals would get flat-out rejected from a US peer-reviewed journal. And the data is about as trustworthy as an old (1970's-ish) Russian journal, where often they just group a whole bunch of variations on a compound together and say they all react with the same mechanism, even when they shouldn't. That makes me have to disprove them, which eats up a lot of my own time. I've had to do it with both Chinese and Russian data in the fuel-cell polymer field.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the part where, you know, Comcast BUYS NBC and BECOMES a content provider. But that's a separate, if somewhat related, issue.
No, we're still going to hate mono until Microsoft takes the mono/.net patents and changes them from "promise not to sue" to "legally unallowed to sue, for any implementation or use", preferably under the GPL. That being said, right now it's safer than java.
If the lib art student knows how to fix a misbehaving AD server? If the engineer is a photoshop wizard? There are people who have skill sets outside their profession, and to dismiss them because what they're known for doesn't encompass their full range of ability is short-sided.
If somebody isn't a lawyer but has extensive knowledge about the law, legal systems, and the fundamental underpinnings of the American legal structure, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered as fair applicants for the Supreme Court.
Especially when you look at the decisions the lawyers appointed to the court have been making towards their former employers (say, Monsanto). Those hardly seems objective to me...
It'd be easier for me to convince a CA state judge that the NY court doesn't have jurisdictional grounds and dismiss the case. Then the NY person would have to file in federal court on the jurisdictional issue, and if he's deemed to have standing (which he should, for the jurisdiction and not the original claim) then it'd depend on what else happened. At that point, the allegation should fall under interstate commerce, where there is no federal statue.
Of course, IANAL, and that's just my understanding of interstate law for harmful actions. It might take a federal judge to rule that NY doesn't have jurisdiction and dismiss the case at the start. Or it could wind up dragging in state attorney generals which would create a clustercuss. Any way, it'd cost.
I actually disagree, thanks to autotune. When you thust non-creatives into the roles that just 15 years ago required creatives (people who have become very good at their craft, and therefore know it well enough to change it) you don't get the driving forces that lead towards greater evolution in music. Instead those ideas are relegated to forces outside the mainstream (which has always been instrumental to musical evolution) and we lose a vector of unique creations.
That being said, it's not as dire as some people think. Indie rock is keeping rock and roll alive, jazz is getting stronger again, bluegrass of all things is getting a resurgence, and the unique creations of the last 15 years (electronica) are getting stronger, while new forms of art are being invented daily. All we've really lost due to autotune is a vector that would generate very polished versions of existing genres with some occasional genuine crossover. It's a loss, but it will only change what's played on golden oldie stations in 30 years. Music will continue on unimpeded.
And while Italy and Germany are probably amongst the best teams of the world currently, they play horribly unattractive soccer games. Very defensive, very little action.
Wait, what? Have you ever watched a German team play? They didn't score their 4 goals off the counter....
For that matter, the Italians don't really play defensively until they're ahead by a few goals, or until late in the game.
I'll stick with Apple (I know the hate out there). At least they are focussed on hardware and not capturing my entire existence in a database someplace.
LOL! Mod parent +5 Funny!
We did fix the school board. But, for some reason, we let the outgoing board have a textbook curriculum meeting in a revision year before chucking them away. Most of that board lost their elections, and will not be there the next time it meets. But that's after the new books have been made and bought.
Boy... do you think we should tell him that more Supreme Court Justices are former council for Monsanto than any other company?
I do believe this has been going on for a long time now. It's called publishing in peer reviewed journals. Thousands of times.
And that model holds up until the peer reviewed journals start rejecting alternate theories because they disagree with the AGW gospel.
When the baseline for your field isn't "here's the data, this is what I think it means as somebody who's spent a lot of time learning about it", and is instead "here's the data that fits with the theory our backers want us to prove, we justify it by saying there's a consensus, and kick blasphemers out of the consensus to keep it" then you're no longer science - you're religion.
None of those quotes stand on their own at all. A funny quote is funny in or out of context.
Do you like or hate Arrested Development? I, for one, find "There's always money in the Banana Stand" hilarious, and it absolutely requires context.
The difference is that in the US we also take into account citations (at least in Chemistry).
For instance, if I have 7 papers in the last two years with 150 citations, I'm in demand because I'm being used as 'oh, and here's the paper of the guy who came up with the idea for this method' when others right their papers.
Now when I go up for the job against the post doc fresh from China, and he goes on about his 20 papers in the last two years with ~0~ citations (because they're essentially an abstract, a paragraph on methodology that's copy-pasted from a paper he wrote months ago and is out of date, and then his graphs/data with no conclusions drawn), the odds are against him getting the job.
Now, this is not a likely scenario, as I don't know anybody who jumps from one country's academia to another (unless headhunted) without a stop as a postdoc or with a fellowship, but in the US the value of an author is based upon quality citations as well.
Isn't that was wikia does? It lets people set up specific wikis on specific subjects that cover things in more depth than would be allowed by wikipedia due to article notability standards?
That's kind of a duh statement.
You can either scrape microsoft's free guide or, preferably, pay $20 a year for Schedules Direct in the US. And if I recall, Comcast doesn't sell you the guide, they rent you the hardware that's capable of using their system. Even if you own your own hardware, they still make you pay to rent the cable card.
<?php
$browser = get_browser(null, true);
if $browser["browser"] == "Googlebot" {
print $answer;
};
?>
That'd solve that problem even better than the css alone. Granted, you'd have to adapt it for other search engines (oh, and the off chance the person visiting the page is a member), but this would be easy to do. I wonder why they don't?
Money is just paper backed by the trust that it is worth the goods and services you exchange it for. All money is imaginary.
Oh, that's just creative accounting. Why pay taxes on a profit when you can claim it as a loss and still get the money?
If I were able to patent math, or a concept, which is too generic for a patent, what is to stop me from suing anyone for doing anything considered "Similar" to said concept? This is the issue. When you get down to patenting 2+2 that means you can stop people from patenting any form of math. See how this leads to a circular argument that only goes down the drain for inventors?
Unless the inventors work for a company with the legal and financial muscle to compete. I'm really jaded (especially in presentation), but the system really is set up so that innovation can be stifled so that large entities who could be destroyed (in whole or in part) by rapid market innovation don't have to worry. I know the system is set up in such a way that it's supposed to protect the very people it stifles from having their ideas stolen instead of bought, but the practice of overly-broad generic patents on basic concepts in many fields has created litigious loopholes which allows the giants to reverse the tables on the small innovator, forcing them to sell the idea or face a patent suit that will bankrupt them before discovery is finished. (Holy run-on sentence Batman!) I don't like that setup, I'd rather let market forces subject only to anti-collusion and anti-price-fixing regulations reach a similar end effect in the marketplace independent of the litigation.
Software patents are a bit of an anomaly, and their presence still needs justification.
How does a brown paper bag full of Benjamin Franklin marked "Campaign to Re-elect Senator ????" sound for a justification? It'll be waiting behind the usual dumpter (you know, the one in the Microsoft parking lot).
Don't forget to remove sugar tariffs that allow domestic corn producers to maintain a monopoly on the US sweetener market!
I know 3 MDs, about a dozen med students in various years, and way too many pre-med undergrads. All of them would be stuck livid at the notion that they would purposefully let a patient go so they could harvest the organs to save another. It's jut not in their mindset - they might not be super jaded yet, but they try to save anybody, anytime. That's how they're wired.
In theory, yes.
But the cost of fighting any of these mega-corps is so immense that, in effect, unless you're fighting somebody near your own weight class (in terms of available resources) you will lose, and likely never even get to see the verdict. Look at what Monsanto's done to agriculture in the last decade. If you don't pay to plant Monsanto's seed, they sue you into bankruptcy where you have to sell the farm to a Monsanto friend. It is defacto illegal to harvest seed from crops now, because though there is no law against it the people who used to make a living running the seed-collecting machines were sued for contributory infringement against Monsanto's genetic patents. It just costs too much for a person to defend against that. Especially since most corperations structure themselves in such a way that they don't own anything and use cashflow for everything, and the laws are written to that effect. Farmers have little cashflow and millions of dollars in assets (land, property) and therefore repeatedly get destroyed if they don't lay down and give a large cut of profits to Monsanto.
Your argument about the RIAA stealing an indie band's music and selling it on their own is crap. The laws that protect the RIAA don't cover that, and the indie bands can't afford the cost to use a DMCA-approved content protection system to trigger DMCA violations. Having music IP laws that allow for statuatory payments per performance and such is fine, but the erosion of fair use (though, historically, fair use as a legal concept has re-emerged more recently than not, and is being beat back down) is soley the RIAA powed by friends in Washington DC.
Other IPs vary, but more often than not it's the Monsantos that the laws are written for to protect, not the individual inventor.
Funny doesn't cut it: this needs to be +5 AMAZING
If you use your computer, no. If you use a script on a bunch of computers that aren't yours....
It's the same in chemistry. What gets published in Chinese journals would get flat-out rejected from a US peer-reviewed journal. And the data is about as trustworthy as an old (1970's-ish) Russian journal, where often they just group a whole bunch of variations on a compound together and say they all react with the same mechanism, even when they shouldn't. That makes me have to disprove them, which eats up a lot of my own time. I've had to do it with both Chinese and Russian data in the fuel-cell polymer field.