It may make me unpopular, but I fully believe that it's important to bow out before you're useless. Far too many shows wait until they're beyond all hope before bowing out.
It may not have been the choice of the Futurama crew to bow out when they did, but they had one of the best endings I've ever seen in my TV viewings. It was emotional and inspiring.
Then Comedy Central comes along an tries to bring it back to life. It's like Frankenstein, creating a monster that is, but not completely, unlike anything a human would ever enjoy.
If Facebook came afterward, then Facebook is not prior art.
More importantly, the USPTO seems to allow patents on whatever hasn't been patented before, regardless of whether it should be patented.
Honestly, I don't think this is the failure of the registrars, but a serious defect in the system that such a simple idea as social networking is patentable.
Newtonian mechanics aren't wrong, but rather, they require a certain set of circumstances.
Just as Einstein's theories fall apart in the real of quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean that they're wrong.
The goal of science is to find elegant truths (scientific theories) about the universe, and trying to find a way to link these elegant truths into a single profound truth encompassing an entire field of study.
Newtonian physics is an elegant truth, Einsteinian physics is a more elegant truth that explains Newtonian Physics, and Unified Field Theory is the single profound truth in the field of physics, explaining both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, that we're hoping to build up to.
Re:NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't h
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
The point is that there's no more use in day trips to the moon. There is nothing a human can tell us, in this instance, that a robot cannot.
On the other hand, sending robots into space will still allow us to experiment on better fuels and launch mechanisms. The issue of permanent settlements on barren landscapes such as the moon here on Earth. We can create underwater habitats for a fraction of the cost of creating similar habitats on the moon with the benefit of exploring the oceans. Sure it's not perfectly the same, but when complemented with the robotic missions and advances in clean efficient energy production, it answers a large majority of the questions of achieving meaningful human space exploration.
My great uncle drove down to Brazil about thirty years back, and most central American rural natives would drive without headlights at night. They felt that it actually improved their ability to see.
The Argentinians seemed very friendly and welcoming of my family when we visited Buenos Aires last summer. The exchange rate is very favorable against the American dollar - between three and four pesos to the dollar.
You see, South America is not synonymous with Venezuela.
You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the collective's sole responsibility is to perpetuate itself. Also, I never said that a society should supersede those of the individuals. While I'm not saying it's possible, I find it hard to conceive of a society that is both successful and fails to meet the needs of its citizens.
In fact, your example of Nazi Germany is an excellent example of a failed society.
[...]if we genuinely come to believe that Jews negatively affect society then it is quite OK to discriminate against them, perhaps even ship them out on trains or enslave them and put them in camps because, hey, making 'society' better is a higher purpose than protecting the rights of individuals.
But the truth is that the Jews were not negatively effecting society, while their actions ultimately provided only a temporary benefit for the society.
If you want to make this argument then you have to drive it down to how it negatively affects individuals, and then address a solution at the most granular level possible to help those individuals.
Again, I find it hard to think of any situation where the individuals in a society are significantly harmed, and yet the society as a whole is not harmed. Note that not all effects are immediate, nor do they necessarily lend themselves to saving/destroying the society.
I'll admit, morality does often get included in legislation, but it should be noted that public unrest can be incredibly detrimental to a conducive society.
While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not.
A lot of people don't realize that the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society, and not for the protection of the individual (though individuals do benefit from a successful society).
Murder may be morally wrong, but that's not why it's illegal. It's illegal since a society which allows murder will likely not function very well. Seatbelt laws are in place because healthy, living people are much more beneficial to society than those that are injured or dead.
From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society, what the effect of banning/regulating porn will provide any benefit, and whether the ban will actually cause more problems than benefits.
Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing.
Obviously you're not from Rochester, NY. Our best known local dish not only looks ugly, but it has an ugly name as well. Then again, Nick Tahou's makes some delicious Garbage Plates.
Slashdot Mirror
You, and whoever modded me troll, seem to misunderstand me. I'm in no way saying that Futurama will never be good again.
What I'm saying is that it died a good death. Perhaps it died far too early, but it had the best death imaginable.
I know that we all are left wanting more, but it ended at exactly the right time.
Yes, it was canceled, and rightly so.
It may make me unpopular, but I fully believe that it's important to bow out before you're useless. Far too many shows wait until they're beyond all hope before bowing out.
It may not have been the choice of the Futurama crew to bow out when they did, but they had one of the best endings I've ever seen in my TV viewings. It was emotional and inspiring.
Then Comedy Central comes along an tries to bring it back to life. It's like Frankenstein, creating a monster that is, but not completely, unlike anything a human would ever enjoy.
We got shafted.
The other major issue with building offshore windmills/windfarms is the cost of servicing.
On land, you can drive/walk up to the windmill and as long as it's not storming, climbing it is no problem.
At sea, even the slightest bit of weather can make it unsafe to send the boat out.
I live in upstate NY.
So no matter what their forecast is, it will definitely happen at some point in the day.
If Facebook came afterward, then Facebook is not prior art.
More importantly, the USPTO seems to allow patents on whatever hasn't been patented before, regardless of whether it should be patented.
Honestly, I don't think this is the failure of the registrars, but a serious defect in the system that such a simple idea as social networking is patentable.
Newtonian mechanics aren't wrong, but rather, they require a certain set of circumstances.
Just as Einstein's theories fall apart in the real of quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean that they're wrong.
The goal of science is to find elegant truths (scientific theories) about the universe, and trying to find a way to link these elegant truths into a single profound truth encompassing an entire field of study.
Newtonian physics is an elegant truth, Einsteinian physics is a more elegant truth that explains Newtonian Physics, and Unified Field Theory is the single profound truth in the field of physics, explaining both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, that we're hoping to build up to.
The point is that there's no more use in day trips to the moon. There is nothing a human can tell us, in this instance, that a robot cannot.
On the other hand, sending robots into space will still allow us to experiment on better fuels and launch mechanisms.
The issue of permanent settlements on barren landscapes such as the moon here on Earth. We can create underwater habitats for a fraction of the cost of creating similar habitats on the moon with the benefit of exploring the oceans. Sure it's not perfectly the same, but when complemented with the robotic missions and advances in clean efficient energy production, it answers a large majority of the questions of achieving meaningful human space exploration.
Yes, because it's high noon from dawn till dusk, and everybody lives on the equator.
My great uncle drove down to Brazil about thirty years back, and most central American rural natives would drive without headlights at night. They felt that it actually improved their ability to see.
Yes, because it's high noon from dawn till dusk, and everyone lives on the equator.
This just reminds me of my mother's Gateway laptop that started having popup ads for Gateway after two years.
There's no reason HP couldn't do something similar with their printers.
The Argentinians seemed very friendly and welcoming of my family when we visited Buenos Aires last summer. The exchange rate is very favorable against the American dollar - between three and four pesos to the dollar.
You see, South America is not synonymous with Venezuela.
I still don't quite get it.
Perhaps there's a car analogy...
Apparently several tons of people disagree with you.
FTFY
I don't care how messed up (s)he is, no scientist worth his(/her) credentials would spell that word as "lets'."
No matter how hysterical.
You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the collective's sole responsibility is to perpetuate itself. Also, I never said that a society should supersede those of the individuals. While I'm not saying it's possible, I find it hard to conceive of a society that is both successful and fails to meet the needs of its citizens.
In fact, your example of Nazi Germany is an excellent example of a failed society.
[...]if we genuinely come to believe that Jews negatively affect society then it is quite OK to discriminate against them, perhaps even ship them out on trains or enslave them and put them in camps because, hey, making 'society' better is a higher purpose than protecting the rights of individuals.
But the truth is that the Jews were not negatively effecting society, while their actions ultimately provided only a temporary benefit for the society.
If you want to make this argument then you have to drive it down to how it negatively affects individuals, and then address a solution at the most granular level possible to help those individuals.
Again, I find it hard to think of any situation where the individuals in a society are significantly harmed, and yet the society as a whole is not harmed. Note that not all effects are immediate, nor do they necessarily lend themselves to saving/destroying the society.
I'll admit, morality does often get included in legislation, but it should be noted that public unrest can be incredibly detrimental to a conducive society.
While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not.
A lot of people don't realize that the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society, and not for the protection of the individual (though individuals do benefit from a successful society).
Murder may be morally wrong, but that's not why it's illegal. It's illegal since a society which allows murder will likely not function very well.
Seatbelt laws are in place because healthy, living people are much more beneficial to society than those that are injured or dead.
From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society, what the effect of banning/regulating porn will provide any benefit, and whether the ban will actually cause more problems than benefits.
Apparently the state of gaming on Macs is so bad that the government has to step in.
Apparently nobody bothered to read the first sentence of the article.
"Ever since HP announced plans to acquire Palm a few weeks ago[...]"
Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing.
Obviously you're not from Rochester, NY. Our best known local dish not only looks ugly, but it has an ugly name as well. Then again, Nick Tahou's makes some delicious Garbage Plates.
My issue is more that it's simply inappropriate to take pictures in restaurants fancier than IHOP (excepting special occasions, of course).
This is especially true in restaurants that are worthy of reviewing.
Damn, if they take our Dixie cups, then I won't be able to play civil war!
(that is, the drinking game like beer pong, but with two teams where each person has six cups and can shoot at anyone on the other side)
Your God explanation doesn't seem to conflict with They Might Be Giants, so I think I'll accept it.
Come to think of it, I still prefer the version of the song I grew up with over their that is scientifically correct revision.
('mass of gas' vs. 'miasma of plasma')
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU2ZgaQ_H-Y
The Fucking Big Lebowski.