Will this be their own actual proprietary design, or are they just going to steal (like they usually do) some American company's design and sell it as their own?
MIPS in Loongson and Ingeniq, covering all from smartphone to supercomputer; then 'Shenwei' Alpha, mostly for military-linked workstation, servers, supercomputers and such; 'Fengtian' SPARC in the same fields as Alpha; Icube UPU integrated CPU-GPU for mobile and microserver markets, and over a dozen ARM licensees.
If you read further, you'll see all of them are licensed... except for the iCube UPU, which is created by China.
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
I can't imagine what connotation you are inferring for "tap" that would require I change my response. Taking bacteria cultures and dumping them on locations polluted by pesticides is "tapping" into their capabilities.
Like... potentially importing some bacteria strains into Australia because they aren't present there?.
You know, Australia's soil is quite particular - low concentration of phosphorus - so the native flora there adapted to the lack of it. Hang on, aren't the pesticides mentioned by TFA in this class?
Well, here in the USA, you certainly can eat it before you've paid for it.
Yeah... usually this becomes toxic for some-(or every-)one - and the experience shows this is not limited to US only.
Even more, don't hold your breath until bacteria specializes in eliminating this type of toxicity, it is unlikely to happen (you know... bankers aren't that different from other humans to allow bacteria to target them specifically).
I fully agree with being leery of and avoiding introducing species, but these bacteria evolved in places where there was heavy pesticide use. So they aren't exactly introduced species when used to clean up pesticides, they aren't that far removed from their natural environment.
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And my objection stems from the two reasons I listed:
1. in biology/ecology, the things have a tendency to go wrong in more ways and much faster anyone can imagine
2. my distrust into the capabilities of the corporations to act responsible (and I'm not necessary hating the player, but the "game" requires them to maximize their profits and "to act responsible" comes only secondary to that)
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy
If there are bacteria which can "digest" those toxic waste and break-down the chemicals in such that the resultant by-products lose their toxicity - we should tap into the abilities of those bacteria to clean up the environment
And your point being... ?
My point: for the time being, those bacteria requires a gut to function.
I won't volunteer my gut for it and variousexperimentsof thepast make me wary of attempts involving evolution and ecology (take TFA for an example of the law of unintended consequences in ecology).
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper? Or would you like Monsanto to provide both the meal and the "enhanced digestion additive" for it?
Tell me exactly why it is our responsibility to find ways to assist developing regions. There are americans that would love call center work. It beats a lot of other bad jobs.
However... do to the cost of workforce (wages), it is not going to happen. The most plausible outcome is that you'll still be answered by an phillipino support person, except it will be an untrained one (to be fair... maybe it will be trained, but won't be trained on US taxpayers money).
Forget that, what happens when it starts simulating thousands of gaming machines running Crysis on Vista?
Bingo.
The performance of universe rendering (a clever particle/wave algorithm) will start degrading. Now, our lead developer chose to degrade the rendering of the details in a proportional way with the distance to the observer (they call it Hubble constant)... Anyway, rendering the details far away will be done with lower priority, thus they'll see the results later; also, when considering the radiosity rendering part (the part that deals with wave nature of rendering), they'll see the light waves with a red-shifted frequency... (actually, we are generating them at a slower rate).
Now, if they believe the speed of light is constant, they'll interpret the above as the universe in expansion, with the farthest region expanding faster. They'll come with the hypothesis of the dark energy to explain it and attempt to validate the hypothesis by simulating their simulated universe on a simulated Curie-supercomputer.
They can't be helped, we coded the AI of their scientist to follow almost rational methods... they won't be able to comprehend that Macrosoft developed such a bloat as Vista.
I mean, why they restrain themselves to photo ID only?
I bet they can do better... if only your ID will include everything those scanners can see! Even better... that groping, you know?... can be simplified by a simple visual inspection (to be replaced by automatic body recognition), as long as you take off more than your shoes.
You mean a group of organisations which don't shy away of using lies to see the law passed is better in your eyes, eh? After all, SS was equally a "protection squad"... even if the subject of protection was not quite the interest of the part of the German society that preferred democracy and freedom of expression... Besides, you know?, shit will happen when the things are rushed by organisations showing little respect for due process.
By law, the mission of a corporation is to maximize profit for shareholders, and the totality of a corporation's activities must serve that single end.
Thus my question: is it true that a corporation can use its charter and/or bylaws to enforce non-profit maximizing behavior on the part of the corporation - and therefore caveat emptor as a shareholder (who presumably desires only profit maximizing behavior)?
Now look... my opinion:
1. Any business will act in a certain area/industry and will have limits in how it obtains the revenue (e.g. IBM is not in the business of hospitality). IANAL, but I see nothing wrong (in the eye of corporation law) with a corporation declaring in its charter that it is not going to obtain revenue by entering other industries or following certain practices - even if it would be capable and it would be legal and profitable - in this case by aggressive use of the patents.
2. If, in the context of patents, the corporation law is to be interpreted as asking for a compulsory use of patents in an aggressive manner, I don't understand why we don't see a compulsive and permanent state of patent war across all the industries (even if the mobile devices industry seems to exhibit one in the present).
Is that true? Then why do B corporations need a separate definition under the law?
1. Twitter seems to say: "We are not in the business of patent trolling, we'll not going to attempt getting income/profit from suing". Now, how's this in the contradiction with the corporation laws? Do these laws require a corporation to sue?
2. You say: "B corporations need a separate definition under the law". I'm asking: in which jurisdictions?
Let's see: Maryland, Hawaii, Virginia, California, Vermont, and New Jersey. Benefit corporation legislation introduced or partially passed in Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Well, the last I checked, Twitter is founded/based in California, and has some presence in New York. So, which jurisdiction would apply?
... they must also promise never to become a publicly traded company, such as a corporation, because if they do that, then we will only be able to trust that they will forget that they ever said that.
Unless the incorporation charter explicitly includes provisions in that direction. (when you'd buy any company stock, you should read their charter, isn't it?)
Slashdot Mirror
The increase in valuation of the AUS dollar is due to sale of raw materials internationally, mostly coal to China.
Iron ore even more than coal
Once China gets it's shale gas fracking going I think that will tail off quite a bit.
Can you do steel with shale gas? This aside, Japan imports from Australia 4 times more coal than China.
Now, get out of my paddock, mate.
What steering wheel?
This one
Will this be their own actual proprietary design, or are they just going to steal (like they usually do) some American company's design and sell it as their own?
Hmmm...you're in for a surprise.
Which architecture?
MIPS in Loongson and Ingeniq, covering all from smartphone to supercomputer; then 'Shenwei' Alpha, mostly for military-linked workstation, servers, supercomputers and such; 'Fengtian' SPARC in the same fields as Alpha; Icube UPU integrated CPU-GPU for mobile and microserver markets, and over a dozen ARM licensees.
If you read further, you'll see all of them are licensed... except for the iCube UPU, which is created by China.
Microsoft has been trying to be the predominant web portal for 17 years. This isn't strategy, it's abject failure.
Show me a web portal that isn't a failure.
nonono. They have a totally cool website plan to get that ten billion dollars back.
Where did you get it from? On a Bing search or something?
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
I can't imagine what connotation you are inferring for "tap" that would require I change my response. Taking bacteria cultures and dumping them on locations polluted by pesticides is "tapping" into their capabilities.
Like... potentially importing some bacteria strains into Australia because they aren't present there?.
You know, Australia's soil is quite particular - low concentration of phosphorus - so the native flora there adapted to the lack of it.
Hang on, aren't the pesticides mentioned by TFA in this class?
Well, here in the USA, you certainly can eat it before you've paid for it.
Yeah... usually this becomes toxic for some-(or every-)one - and the experience shows this is not limited to US only.
Even more, don't hold your breath until bacteria specializes in eliminating this type of toxicity, it is unlikely to happen (you know... bankers aren't that different from other humans to allow bacteria to target them specifically).
I fully agree with being leery of and avoiding introducing species, but these bacteria evolved in places where there was heavy pesticide use. So they aren't exactly introduced species when used to clean up pesticides, they aren't that far removed from their natural environment.
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And my objection stems from the two reasons I listed:
1. in biology/ecology, the things have a tendency to go wrong in more ways and much faster anyone can imagine
2. my distrust into the capabilities of the corporations to act responsible (and I'm not necessary hating the player, but the "game" requires them to maximize their profits and "to act responsible" comes only secondary to that)
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy
If there are bacteria which can "digest" those toxic waste and break-down the chemicals in such that the resultant by-products lose their toxicity - we should tap into the abilities of those bacteria to clean up the environment
And your point being ... ?
My point: for the time being, those bacteria requires a gut to function.
I won't volunteer my gut for it and various experiments of the past make me wary of attempts involving evolution and ecology (take TFA for an example of the law of unintended consequences in ecology).
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
Or would you like Monsanto to provide both the meal and the "enhanced digestion additive" for it?
"Ultra Intelligent Electronic Agent"? What the hell *that* means?
There's nothing "Ultra Intelligent" in this kind of systems
Then... maybe is ultra electronic?
Just for grins, do a bit of research to find out just how much taxes that 1% actually pays.
Aren't corporation also "persons"? Why did you let them out of the picture?
Tell me exactly why it is our responsibility to find ways to assist developing regions. There are americans that would love call center work. It beats a lot of other bad jobs.
However... do to the cost of workforce (wages), it is not going to happen.
The most plausible outcome is that you'll still be answered by an phillipino support person, except it will be an untrained one (to be fair... maybe it will be trained, but won't be trained on US taxpayers money).
Forget that, what happens when it starts simulating thousands of gaming machines running Crysis on Vista?
Bingo.
The performance of universe rendering (a clever particle/wave algorithm) will start degrading.
Now, our lead developer chose to degrade the rendering of the details in a proportional way with the distance to the observer (they call it Hubble constant)... Anyway, rendering the details far away will be done with lower priority, thus they'll see the results later; also, when considering the radiosity rendering part (the part that deals with wave nature of rendering), they'll see the light waves with a red-shifted frequency... (actually, we are generating them at a slower rate).
Now, if they believe the speed of light is constant, they'll interpret the above as the universe in expansion, with the farthest region expanding faster. They'll come with the hypothesis of the dark energy to explain it and attempt to validate the hypothesis by simulating their simulated universe on a simulated Curie-supercomputer.
They can't be helped, we coded the AI of their scientist to follow almost rational methods... they won't be able to comprehend that Macrosoft developed such a bloat as Vista.
I bet they can do better... if only your ID will include everything those scanners can see! Even better... that groping, you know?... can be simplified by a simple visual inspection (to be replaced by automatic body recognition), as long as you take off more than your shoes.
Clearly they're parasites
Why do you limit yourself to humans? Aren't corporations treated like persons? (oh, my apologies, I guess they indeed are treated better).
Confusing France and Nazi Germany is just fucking dumb.
You reckon?
You mean a group of organisations which don't shy away of using lies to see the law passed is better in your eyes, eh? After all, SS was equally a "protection squad"... even if the subject of protection was not quite the interest of the part of the German society that preferred democracy and freedom of expression... Besides, you know?, shit will happen when the things are rushed by organisations showing little respect for due process.
'Piracy has been costly,' Hollande said, 'but I do not think that law enforcement alone is the answer to the problem.'
If law enforcement is not enough, bring in the Inquisition... or Schutzstaffel.
I hope that healthcare you can afford results in malpractice and kills you, bourgie scum.
I live in a country that has universal health care, you unfortunate and sad excuse for a human being.
... at 10% of the population is quite a high level. The Occupy movement seemed to be triggered by only 1%.
But they don't want to see you naked. Wuw..Huh?!
This is too low of a tech, can't justify billions in the x-ray machines.
Whisson Windmill at least as old as 2007. Also, patented.
That wiki page says:
By law, the mission of a corporation is to maximize profit for shareholders, and the totality of a corporation's activities must serve that single end.
Thus my question: is it true that a corporation can use its charter and/or bylaws to enforce non-profit maximizing behavior on the part of the corporation - and therefore caveat emptor as a shareholder (who presumably desires only profit maximizing behavior)?
Now look... my opinion:
1. Any business will act in a certain area/industry and will have limits in how it obtains the revenue (e.g. IBM is not in the business of hospitality). IANAL, but I see nothing wrong (in the eye of corporation law) with a corporation declaring in its charter that it is not going to obtain revenue by entering other industries or following certain practices - even if it would be capable and it would be legal and profitable - in this case by aggressive use of the patents.
2. If, in the context of patents, the corporation law is to be interpreted as asking for a compulsory use of patents in an aggressive manner, I don't understand why we don't see a compulsive and permanent state of patent war across all the industries (even if the mobile devices industry seems to exhibit one in the present).
Is that true? Then why do B corporations need a separate definition under the law?
1. Twitter seems to say: "We are not in the business of patent trolling, we'll not going to attempt getting income/profit from suing". Now, how's this in the contradiction with the corporation laws? Do these laws require a corporation to sue?
2. You say: "B corporations need a separate definition under the law". I'm asking: in which jurisdictions?
Let's see: Maryland, Hawaii, Virginia, California, Vermont, and New Jersey. Benefit corporation legislation introduced or partially passed in Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Well, the last I checked, Twitter is founded/based in California, and has some presence in New York. So, which jurisdiction would apply?
... they must also promise never to become a publicly traded company, such as a corporation, because if they do that, then we will only be able to trust that they will forget that they ever said that.
Unless the incorporation charter explicitly includes provisions in that direction. (when you'd buy any company stock, you should read their charter, isn't it?)