They aren't getting just $60 million. They're getting $60 million plus undisclosed licensing revenue
No, the $60 million IS the licensing revenue. That's all we get (I'm a BRST stockholder). And $20 million of that goes to the law firm that represented Burst. And another $6 million of it goes to Lang as per the terms of his contract. We shareholders got truly screwed by this settlement.
As someone who's been following this case for two years and bought 22440 shares of BRST, you can not imagine how much I agree with you.
The most comprehensive discussion of this case is over on the Yahoo's BRST message board. Two days ago over there we were all picking out the color of our Porches. Now we're hoping we can get out with our shirts on Monday.
I know, and so was I. That point being that it is silly to demand that top-shelf products be priced like low-end ones. AMD has a complete strata of processors at all price points. You want the top of that line, you pay the top price.
Yeah, kinda gives something away, especially if you've seen all the episodes.
How so? You gotta figure there will at the very minimum be a couple episodes where Adama's in the hospital, morgue, etc. And then there will of course be the standard flashback/reminiscing scenes that they'll need him for.
Just because the full cast is returning doesn't mean they'll all be there for the whole season. We don't really have any idea what happens to who next season.
On a related note, the most secure cast position to have is to play a Cylon. Those characters can practically never be killed off.:)
With current fx-55's costing around a grand, what can we expect these to cost? If AMD wants to remain competitive with Intel they are going to have to work on that.
If you need a car but you're poor, you buy the Chevy Cavalier, not the Chevy Corvette.
If you need a processor but you're poor, you buy an AMD Sempron, not the AMD FX-55.
Complaining that AMD needs to lower the price on their top processors is like complaining that Chevrolet needs to lower the price of Corvettes.
Either that's a Homer stat ("47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot") or there are 33 DVD-copying apps out there and one of them is about to become much more popular than it was.
A hypothesys is an idea that has been put forward but has not yet been tested. A theory is an idea that has some supporting evidence but has not been proven or disproven, and a scientific Law has been proven. You are confusing Law with Theory.
No, it is you who is confused.
A hypothesis is an educated guess. Not a guess pulled out of your ass, but an educated guess based on observation.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in every way we can think up and has not been proven false. Note that that is not the same as saying it has been proven true. Nothing is ever "proven true" in science - that new information may someday arise and disprove a theory is always a possibility.
A law is a description of a principal or pattern found in nature that a theory attempts to explain. Simply put, a law describes the what and a theory describes the why.
While we can't casually just ignore what we feel like it's not valid to treat every word in it as some kind of direct command or God-spoken truth.
A very large number of Christians, particularly southern baptists, would disagree with you on that.
Anyway, what I'd postulate is that, at least in the case of Christianity, science hasn't disproven the core beliefs upon which the faith stands or falls. It may certainly have disproven some of the less-critical claims, but that doesn't mean you get to throw the whole faith out.
It seems odd to me that, as scientific discoveries continue to disprove this or that aspect of a religion's teachings, the reaction of so many people is to take another step back and draw a new line in the sand. You/they say "OK, that particular teaching was wrong, but the rest of it is still good." You've been doing this over and over for centuries. Will it ever occur to you that maybe the whole thing was simply made up a long time ago by people with a much simpler understanding of the world around them? Will you ever stop staring at trees and see the forest around you?
Three thousand years ago, the sun moving overhead in the sky was as mysterious and misunderstood as human mortality. In Jesus' day, people knew as much about geology, paleontology or biology as they did about human mortality. So now today we understand the sun's movements, how old the earth is, and how life changes over time much better than we did back then, and those old beliefs seem quaint, even silly to us. Yet because science has yet to uncover all the mysteries of consciousness, life and death, people insist that their religious beliefs on those concepts are still true. Why do we have to wait until science picks off the very last mistake in a religion's teachings before we recognise that the whole package was just a less advanced worldview from a less advanced era of history.
science does *not* in fact trump or disprove most of the major claims of the major religions.
Ummmm:
Christian mythology stating Earth created in a week, about 6000 years ago -- disproven by geology.
Christian mythology that God created all lifeforms on the planet in their current static states in one fell swoop -- disproven by evolution and archaeology.
Christian mythology that the Earth is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies revolve around it -- disproven by astronomy.
Sorry to be so Christian-centric, but that's the mythology I'm most aware of. I'd guess that other religions also have their share of primitive explanations of natural phenomena that have since been disproven by modern observation and experimentation.
We have an entire system that essentially won't discuss the concept of a God or creator within education.
Um, yeah. That's because religion isn't education. Religion is the opposite of education.
To look at the genetic code and discount that there could in no way be any intelligent design involved (whether God, aliens, or the tooth fairy) is really a foolish and unscientific position to take.
The scientific method has led to the discovery, more than 100 years ago now, how complex life came into being on this planet. It's called evolution, and it isn't controversial except to people who have a religious reason for not accepting it. Guess what? We also now know that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, despite what Christianity insisted for centuries.
Science reveals truths about the workings of the universe that contradict the mythologies that primitive man made up and codified into religion. Get over it already.
That is a fairly narrow view of technology - how about GM crops, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, etc.
That's a good point. When he talked about the 'tensions' between technology and religion, I narrowly (and possibly incorrectly) interpreted that to mean technology exposing the errors in a religion's worldview. I hadn't considered 'tension' to mean when a technology enabled an activity that a religion didn't like us doing.
One would think that humans getting such a handle on the science of life and physics would have obliterated religion
Those humans that have been educated in what the science of life and physics has taught us have for the most part left religion behind. It is among the uneducated who have not been exposed to the knowledge revealed by science that religion is most prevalent. Science does trump religion, but only if you've been exposed to it.
The thing that makes religion so interesting in sci-fi is that you can explore the continuing tensions between technology and faith as technology evolves
Technology doesn't have any effect on religion. Smaller mp3 players and bigger TVs don't contradict the Bible. It's the understanding of the world around us that science reveals that contradicts the mythology of religion.
I agree - it was ridiculous. But as someone who's cheated and watched the whole season already, let me assure you that that episode is the low point of the season. It gets much better.
I wonder what Google's policy on this will be?...most data licensing contracts prohibit secondary use of their data.
'Policies' are irrelevant. You and I aren't bound by Google's license with their data provider. If Google doesn't want us to use their service for our own purposes, they can (and will) change how the service works to stop those unwanted uses. For an example of this, see the story posted earlier this week about Microsoft trying to patent how they encode lat/lon coordinates.
So the guiding rule is: if you can do it, you're allowed to do it.
First, and above all, it does not give you coordinates.
Not sure if you were complaining that they don't display coordinates on the page, or that they aren't there at all for you to grab. While it is true that the lat/lon coordinates are not displayed on the results page, they are there in the html source. Which the submitter mentioned in his review.
So any app you might have (like a geocoder) that would like those coordinates can grab them from the html, just like you used to be able to do with Yahoo's map site.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the $60 million IS the licensing revenue. That's all we get (I'm a BRST stockholder). And $20 million of that goes to the law firm that represented Burst. And another $6 million of it goes to Lang as per the terms of his contract. We shareholders got truly screwed by this settlement.
As someone who's been following this case for two years and bought 22440 shares of BRST, you can not imagine how much I agree with you.
The most comprehensive discussion of this case is over on the Yahoo's BRST message board. Two days ago over there we were all picking out the color of our Porches. Now we're hoping we can get out with our shirts on Monday.
That's an urban myth! I never went blind, and my palms aren't hairy either!
No, I'll never get over Macho Grande."
I know, and so was I. That point being that it is silly to demand that top-shelf products be priced like low-end ones. AMD has a complete strata of processors at all price points. You want the top of that line, you pay the top price.
Yeah, kinda gives something away, especially if you've seen all the episodes.
How so? You gotta figure there will at the very minimum be a couple episodes where Adama's in the hospital, morgue, etc. And then there will of course be the standard flashback/reminiscing scenes that they'll need him for.
Just because the full cast is returning doesn't mean they'll all be there for the whole season. We don't really have any idea what happens to who next season.
On a related note, the most secure cast position to have is to play a Cylon. Those characters can practically never be killed off. :)
If you need a car but you're poor, you buy the Chevy Cavalier, not the Chevy Corvette.
If you need a processor but you're poor, you buy an AMD Sempron, not the AMD FX-55.
Complaining that AMD needs to lower the price on their top processors is like complaining that Chevrolet needs to lower the price of Corvettes.
That's a nice lie you used to prove your point. Too bad the truth proves the opposite.
1: Bush is pushing for expanded funding for NASA, even as he cuts all other domestic spending.
2: Bush is claiming there is a Social Security crises because we'll soon have too many old people collecting and not enough young people paying.
BUSH WANTS TO JETTISON ALL OUR OLD PEOPLE INTO SPACE!
SCOX, SCOXE, SUXOR
These haxors and their funny spellings. Why can't they just write "SUCKS"?
Which part didn't you understand? The buh? Or the bye?
Yes, the purpose is to distract you from how poorly Intel's processor business has been doing lately.
Either that's a Homer stat ("47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot") or there are 33 DVD-copying apps out there and one of them is about to become much more popular than it was.
I say they'll do the same thing with Xbox - they're going straight to Xbox3 so the kiddos don't get the idea that Sony is a generation ahead.
Dang that's a big ball o' plastic. It reminds me of the old Super Controller from my ColecoVision childhood.
No, it is you who is confused.
A hypothesis is an educated guess. Not a guess pulled out of your ass, but an educated guess based on observation.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in every way we can think up and has not been proven false. Note that that is not the same as saying it has been proven true. Nothing is ever "proven true" in science - that new information may someday arise and disprove a theory is always a possibility.
A law is a description of a principal or pattern found in nature that a theory attempts to explain. Simply put, a law describes the what and a theory describes the why.
A very large number of Christians, particularly southern baptists, would disagree with you on that.
Anyway, what I'd postulate is that, at least in the case of Christianity, science hasn't disproven the core beliefs upon which the faith stands or falls. It may certainly have disproven some of the less-critical claims, but that doesn't mean you get to throw the whole faith out.
It seems odd to me that, as scientific discoveries continue to disprove this or that aspect of a religion's teachings, the reaction of so many people is to take another step back and draw a new line in the sand. You/they say "OK, that particular teaching was wrong, but the rest of it is still good." You've been doing this over and over for centuries. Will it ever occur to you that maybe the whole thing was simply made up a long time ago by people with a much simpler understanding of the world around them? Will you ever stop staring at trees and see the forest around you?
Three thousand years ago, the sun moving overhead in the sky was as mysterious and misunderstood as human mortality. In Jesus' day, people knew as much about geology, paleontology or biology as they did about human mortality. So now today we understand the sun's movements, how old the earth is, and how life changes over time much better than we did back then, and those old beliefs seem quaint, even silly to us. Yet because science has yet to uncover all the mysteries of consciousness, life and death, people insist that their religious beliefs on those concepts are still true. Why do we have to wait until science picks off the very last mistake in a religion's teachings before we recognise that the whole package was just a less advanced worldview from a less advanced era of history.
Ummmm:
Christian mythology stating Earth created in a week, about 6000 years ago -- disproven by geology.
Christian mythology that God created all lifeforms on the planet in their current static states in one fell swoop -- disproven by evolution and archaeology.
Christian mythology that the Earth is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies revolve around it -- disproven by astronomy.
Sorry to be so Christian-centric, but that's the mythology I'm most aware of. I'd guess that other religions also have their share of primitive explanations of natural phenomena that have since been disproven by modern observation and experimentation.
Um, yeah. That's because religion isn't education. Religion is the opposite of education.
To look at the genetic code and discount that there could in no way be any intelligent design involved (whether God, aliens, or the tooth fairy) is really a foolish and unscientific position to take.
The scientific method has led to the discovery, more than 100 years ago now, how complex life came into being on this planet. It's called evolution, and it isn't controversial except to people who have a religious reason for not accepting it. Guess what? We also now know that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, despite what Christianity insisted for centuries.
Science reveals truths about the workings of the universe that contradict the mythologies that primitive man made up and codified into religion. Get over it already.
That's a good point. When he talked about the 'tensions' between technology and religion, I narrowly (and possibly incorrectly) interpreted that to mean technology exposing the errors in a religion's worldview. I hadn't considered 'tension' to mean when a technology enabled an activity that a religion didn't like us doing.
Those humans that have been educated in what the science of life and physics has taught us have for the most part left religion behind. It is among the uneducated who have not been exposed to the knowledge revealed by science that religion is most prevalent. Science does trump religion, but only if you've been exposed to it.
The thing that makes religion so interesting in sci-fi is that you can explore the continuing tensions between technology and faith as technology evolves
Technology doesn't have any effect on religion. Smaller mp3 players and bigger TVs don't contradict the Bible. It's the understanding of the world around us that science reveals that contradicts the mythology of religion.
I agree - it was ridiculous. But as someone who's cheated and watched the whole season already, let me assure you that that episode is the low point of the season. It gets much better.
(Score:-1, Missed the Joke)
'Policies' are irrelevant. You and I aren't bound by Google's license with their data provider. If Google doesn't want us to use their service for our own purposes, they can (and will) change how the service works to stop those unwanted uses. For an example of this, see the story posted earlier this week about Microsoft trying to patent how they encode lat/lon coordinates.
So the guiding rule is: if you can do it, you're allowed to do it.
Not sure if you were complaining that they don't display coordinates on the page, or that they aren't there at all for you to grab. While it is true that the lat/lon coordinates are not displayed on the results page, they are there in the html source. Which the submitter mentioned in his review.
So any app you might have (like a geocoder) that would like those coordinates can grab them from the html, just like you used to be able to do with Yahoo's map site.