3. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company.
Yeah, that's a good idea. Possibly even *all* of the application fee should go as bounty; that way the patent office makes a *loss* on revoked patents. You don't want the patent office making a profit- that's the current system and that's why it's so easy to get a patent.
You also want to give net disincentives to patent offices to give bogus patents.
Arguably, even a penalty on top to the government or something should be given, perhaps another 100%.
My best guess is that it's more likely to be a stress reaction, caused by the caffeine.
A lot of people take coffee to perk them up a bit- the caffeine triggers stress reactions that pull glucose out of storage in the liver and elsewhere and put them into circulation where they are picked up by the brain (the brain's preferred fuel in glucose).
So that would tend to deplete the liver's glycogen stores.
Now, when you come along and drink alcohol on top; alcohol tends to inhibit the chemical that turns fructose into glucose, and that means that normally means that the fructose gets turned into fats instead. But if the liver is depleted of glycogen, then it may well end up burning the fats instead for energy; or not laying them down (because of the stress reaction caused by the caffeine) and leaving them in circulation.
Since sclerosis of the liver is when the fat builds up in the liver, this could well help prevent this disease.
(n.b. all the above is mostly armwaving; the precise mechanism may well be different, but I expect I bet it's due to the caffeine in tea/coffee, rather than a diuretic effect.)
My TV, when off, draws 7 watts. That presumeably lets it remember its settings and watch for activity from the remote control. Those two tasks, however, should draw in the low milliwatts, certainly not more than a full watt.
If it's not an LCD, then there's an 'electron gun' at the back of the tube. It needs to be hot enough so that the electrons jump off it, and they can be formed into a beam that can scan the picture out 50-60 times a second.
If they didn't keep that hot, then it would take a minute or so to warm up and you'd have to wait. It has to be quite hot, hundreds of degrees, but it's in a vacuum, so it doesn't take very much to keep it up to temp, just a few watts.
But the lesson is there: the DNS is whatever the US wants it to be, period.
No, not really. For example many companies have their own DNS's with internal-only named hosts. If China or whatever wanted to they can do that; make their own.com addresses and turn the american.com into.com.us or something. It would be vaguely chaotic and horrible, and many things would break, but mostly it would work and many other things would be cludged until they work.
I worked on a *big* embedded telecoms project, with about the same amount of memory available; where initially we used dynamic memory as little as possible. Eventually though, we used it almost everywhere, and the places where we hadn't used it were rather awkwardly written and a source of bugs.
I never personally saw it fragment to the point of failure, but another engineer said he had had to debug that situation on this system- a particular sequence of allocation did this once (in many years).
This problem was solved by using a different memory allocator. That was a rare problem on a huge, long lived project.
Overall, I shouldn't sweat it too much, fragmentation causing the memory allocator to fail is rare enough and there are things you can do to solve the problem if it does occur. But you'll need a guru to solve it if it does happen.
The trick is that the hydrogen is not there to produce energy, but by burning hotter it improves the combustion of the diesel, so the efficiency improvements of the combustion out weigh the losses in the electrolysis system which is driven off the alternator.
A very clever system, I hope whoever came up with it has a patent on it, I'm not a big fan of IP, but that sounds like a real invention.
Actually, mpg123 project members don't have to. Sony has infringed copyright, and hence is subject to the penalties. Depending on the jurisdiction, it's thousands of dollars damages, probably per album.
Quite honestly, I'd love to see them get thoroughly caned over this.
On the other hand, Everything2 seems to automatically link each "interesting" word to a seemingly random internal E2 page.
LOL. It probably seems like that.
In actual fact, the links happen because of the user's behaviour.
If you go along to a page that hasn't already got a full link list (or isn't the homepage of everything2 or one of the automatically generated pages etc.), and then type a different page into the search thing at the top you end up at a new page of course.
What's slightly less obvious is that you just created a link as well, from the page you just left to the one you're now at!
It's bizarre, and not described anywhere that I've seen.
Wow, 6MB a second, that's better than most cable systems, right? Wrong. 6MB a second for the access point. This is divided up amongst all the users within range, and possibly over a significant area if each individual access point doesn't have it's own 6MB/sec Internet connection.
You've forgotten about contention ratio. Basically, users aren't using all their bandwidth all the time.
Common contention ratios are 20:1 or 50:1. In other words one 6MB link can proved 2M service for up to 150 users simultaneously. Or 500K service for 600 users. And that's just one access point... (In practice that access point may not be able to support that many users for other reasons, but bandwidth isn't the problem.)
I heard Abbey National had some weird stuff with their cards. Apparently people were using binoculars from across the street to get the account details from the card... I also heard that Barclays had phantom withdraws from the Abbey National network...
Whatever it is, it doesn't sound very pro-open source. It doesn't even render properly under Mozilla, so I still don't have a clue what it's about. If they can't even get a tiny bit of HTML to follow the standards, then what use it this thing?
(Admittedly I'm running on a CRT at 1600x1200 with a largeish font, but still...)
Re:In a capitalist society...
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
NASA is actually a communist organisation paid for by a capitalist society.
I mean, they're doing it obstensibly for the good of the people, or humanity or whatever, they don't seek profit and they do it from tax dollars.
And they do a lot of good research too, I'm not knocking NASA exactly. But when it comes to manned space it's all a bit pointless; there's little research going on. That badly *needs* to be privatised. It's just pork-barrel politics at it's worst. None of their manned projects have really gone anywhere for the last 30 years. Round and round the Earth.
Atleast tourism is making a profit, and so can exponentially grow. NASA can't because they have a fixed budget (which actually keeps up with inflation, contrary to popular belief).
The current plan looks reasonably good though; but quite a long way out, it stands a good chance of getting canned.
Me, I think the Germans were the only reason NASA got men to the Moon, NASA aren't quite as clever as they think they are, the Germans were pragmatic; whereas the American designed Shuttle was total overreaching- check out the Challenger, Columbia failure and then Discovery. And check out the economics- that's because the market was never there.
Ironically the communists got it right. Just build a bog-standard rocket to launch people with. I guess at the end of the day a communist country does communism better than a capitalist one:-)
Yeah, and just try getting malpractice insurance in an environment where in the middle of an operation the hospital can declare that 'the operation is over, the patient can leave now'; and if the patient dies, it's the surgeons fault and (s)he gets sued.
It's even worse than that if that's possible, the loudest sonar systems seem to *kill* whales by triggering the nitrogen in their bodies to form bubbles. The whales get the bends and often die.
Seriously if this guys maths checks out, he's a shoe-in.
I don't understand all the tensors, but my best guess for the explanation of the qualitive effect is that it's reasonably well known that GR predicts a frame dragging effect around spinning objects. For example if you are in orbit around a spinning black hole you end up orbiting around it faster than you would around a stationary hole.
Presumably this is the same effect, except it's being generated by the rotation of all the stars that make up the galaxy. So everything ends up spinning faster than you would expect from Newtonian mechanics.
In the context of my original observation, what this is meant to suggest is that perhaps the Wikipediasts -- and even the/. community -- might take a page from older books, and by incorporating some aspects of the famously robust institution of the free market, try to armor themselves against those social forces that have, historically, torn apart every communitarian utopia.
Yeah, well that's the thing. People have written the licenses to do that; to keep it in the commons. If people stop contributing, then it will die. But I don't see any signs of that happening. On the contrary, this idea is growing very fast.
Do I have a sustainable model, or are we going to be a merely marvelously fun flash in the pan?
We already have an encyclopedia from this.
There seems no way to easily and reliably sort out value from trash, reward the former and punish the latter.
Welcome to the world! I feel you've never been here before!
Wikipedia has yet to prove it can sustain itself over a single decade, and the fate of other freely shared commodities -- think "Tragedy of the Commons" -- is not especially encouraging.
The Internet is a commons. It's not that tragic and it's not dead yet! (Indeed it's a running joke- Death of the internet predicted, news at 11).
I think you have a nice theory. Unfortunately, the practice of the Wikipedia seems to be pretty good, quite comparable to many encyclopedias you can buy; so in practice your theory that free=garbage seems to be disproved in this case.
Whether it's as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica. No, it's not. Yet. Perhaps it will never be. I personally wouldn't want to bet.
What you seem to have gotten is reciprocation- money is not the only unit of reciprocation. If somebody has found something useful from the Wikipedia, then they are likely to reciprocate by adding something they know back in (like a 'tip' in a restaurant). Generally speaking in the Wikipedia, the quality only ratchets up, other editors will not permit the quality to go down; if that happens they revert the changes. So it gradually evolves into a better and more complete encyclopedia.
The real research is the life support system and the effects on the human body of zero-g. The fact that the electron oxygen generator didn't work well over long periods of time is important information to find out- you simply cannot test that kind of equipment out except in real-life space conditions.
Going to Mars (which presumably we're going to want to do sooner or later) requires life-support that supports life for months or years on end. If life-support fails on the way to Mars, that ends the mission; as well as the astronauts lives.
I think 'reducing it to practice'; in practice, you only need to write it down. The patent is useless if you can't implement it, but you can still get a patent on it.
I haven't looked at it, but it also might be fairly easy to hack on and add ftp file writing and hard encryption for your mail storage. That way you could keep your existing mail on a webserver somewhere, and access it from anywhere in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's a good idea. Possibly even *all* of the application fee should go as bounty; that way the patent office makes a *loss* on revoked patents. You don't want the patent office making a profit- that's the current system and that's why it's so easy to get a patent.
You also want to give net disincentives to patent offices to give bogus patents.
Arguably, even a penalty on top to the government or something should be given, perhaps another 100%.
A lot of people take coffee to perk them up a bit- the caffeine triggers stress reactions that pull glucose out of storage in the liver and elsewhere and put them into circulation where they are picked up by the brain (the brain's preferred fuel in glucose).
So that would tend to deplete the liver's glycogen stores.
Now, when you come along and drink alcohol on top; alcohol tends to inhibit the chemical that turns fructose into glucose, and that means that normally means that the fructose gets turned into fats instead. But if the liver is depleted of glycogen, then it may well end up burning the fats instead for energy; or not laying them down (because of the stress reaction caused by the caffeine) and leaving them in circulation.
Since sclerosis of the liver is when the fat builds up in the liver, this could well help prevent this disease.
(n.b. all the above is mostly armwaving; the precise mechanism may well be different, but I expect I bet it's due to the caffeine in tea/coffee, rather than a diuretic effect.)
Compared to the cost of the rocket, LOX is dirt cheap anyway; well under 1% of the cost.
If it's not an LCD, then there's an 'electron gun' at the back of the tube. It needs to be hot enough so that the electrons jump off it, and they can be formed into a beam that can scan the picture out 50-60 times a second.
If they didn't keep that hot, then it would take a minute or so to warm up and you'd have to wait. It has to be quite hot, hundreds of degrees, but it's in a vacuum, so it doesn't take very much to keep it up to temp, just a few watts.
No, not really. For example many companies have their own DNS's with internal-only named hosts. If China or whatever wanted to they can do that; make their own .com addresses and turn the american .com into .com.us or something. It would be vaguely chaotic and horrible, and many things would break, but mostly it would work and many other things would be cludged until they work.
I never personally saw it fragment to the point of failure, but another engineer said he had had to debug that situation on this system- a particular sequence of allocation did this once (in many years).
This problem was solved by using a different memory allocator. That was a rare problem on a huge, long lived project.
Overall, I shouldn't sweat it too much, fragmentation causing the memory allocator to fail is rare enough and there are things you can do to solve the problem if it does occur. But you'll need a guru to solve it if it does happen.
A very clever system, I hope whoever came up with it has a patent on it, I'm not a big fan of IP, but that sounds like a real invention.
Quite honestly, I'd love to see them get thoroughly caned over this.
LOL. It probably seems like that.
In actual fact, the links happen because of the user's behaviour.
If you go along to a page that hasn't already got a full link list (or isn't the homepage of everything2 or one of the automatically generated pages etc.), and then type a different page into the search thing at the top you end up at a new page of course.
What's slightly less obvious is that you just created a link as well, from the page you just left to the one you're now at!
It's bizarre, and not described anywhere that I've seen.
You've forgotten about contention ratio. Basically, users aren't using all their bandwidth all the time.
Common contention ratios are 20:1 or 50:1. In other words one 6MB link can proved 2M service for up to 150 users simultaneously. Or 500K service for 600 users. And that's just one access point... (In practice that access point may not be able to support that many users for other reasons, but bandwidth isn't the problem.)
But I don't really know.
Anyone?
(Admittedly I'm running on a CRT at 1600x1200 with a largeish font, but still...)
I mean, they're doing it obstensibly for the good of the people, or humanity or whatever, they don't seek profit and they do it from tax dollars.
And they do a lot of good research too, I'm not knocking NASA exactly. But when it comes to manned space it's all a bit pointless; there's little research going on. That badly *needs* to be privatised. It's just pork-barrel politics at it's worst. None of their manned projects have really gone anywhere for the last 30 years. Round and round the Earth.
Atleast tourism is making a profit, and so can exponentially grow. NASA can't because they have a fixed budget (which actually keeps up with inflation, contrary to popular belief).
The current plan looks reasonably good though; but quite a long way out, it stands a good chance of getting canned.
Me, I think the Germans were the only reason NASA got men to the Moon, NASA aren't quite as clever as they think they are, the Germans were pragmatic; whereas the American designed Shuttle was total overreaching- check out the Challenger, Columbia failure and then Discovery. And check out the economics- that's because the market was never there.
Ironically the communists got it right. Just build a bog-standard rocket to launch people with. I guess at the end of the day a communist country does communism better than a capitalist one :-)
They don't, if nothing else, because the hospital would be liable, not the surgeon.
Yeah, and just try getting malpractice insurance in an environment where in the middle of an operation the hospital can declare that 'the operation is over, the patient can leave now'; and if the patient dies, it's the surgeons fault and (s)he gets sued.
It's even worse than that if that's possible, the loudest sonar systems seem to *kill* whales by triggering the nitrogen in their bodies to form bubbles. The whales get the bends and often die.
I don't understand all the tensors, but my best guess for the explanation of the qualitive effect is that it's reasonably well known that GR predicts a frame dragging effect around spinning objects. For example if you are in orbit around a spinning black hole you end up orbiting around it faster than you would around a stationary hole.
Presumably this is the same effect, except it's being generated by the rotation of all the stars that make up the galaxy. So everything ends up spinning faster than you would expect from Newtonian mechanics.
Of course it collapsed- its head came off! :-p
Yeah, well that's the thing. People have written the licenses to do that; to keep it in the commons. If people stop contributing, then it will die. But I don't see any signs of that happening. On the contrary, this idea is growing very fast.
We already have an encyclopedia from this.
There seems no way to easily and reliably sort out value from trash, reward the former and punish the latter.
Welcome to the world! I feel you've never been here before!
Wikipedia has yet to prove it can sustain itself over a single decade, and the fate of other freely shared commodities -- think "Tragedy of the Commons" -- is not especially encouraging.
The Internet is a commons. It's not that tragic and it's not dead yet! (Indeed it's a running joke- Death of the internet predicted, news at 11).
Whether it's as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica. No, it's not. Yet. Perhaps it will never be. I personally wouldn't want to bet.
What you seem to have gotten is reciprocation- money is not the only unit of reciprocation. If somebody has found something useful from the Wikipedia, then they are likely to reciprocate by adding something they know back in (like a 'tip' in a restaurant). Generally speaking in the Wikipedia, the quality only ratchets up, other editors will not permit the quality to go down; if that happens they revert the changes. So it gradually evolves into a better and more complete encyclopedia.
"Consider it evolution in action."
Going to Mars (which presumably we're going to want to do sooner or later) requires life-support that supports life for months or years on end. If life-support fails on the way to Mars, that ends the mission; as well as the astronauts lives.
I think 'reducing it to practice'; in practice, you only need to write it down. The patent is useless if you can't implement it, but you can still get a patent on it.
It might even have that already for all I know.