Google search is a service that you may use, but is the content it generates copyrighted? After all, Googles knowledge of the web comes from Googles reasearch and resides on Googles databases, and so is owned by Google.
If Google has copyrighted that information, then Micrsoft would be up for copyright infringement by trying to copy that information. Although that's not strictly speaking cheating, I think Micrsoft would cry foul in a big way if Google did the same to Bing.
Discoveries should never be patentable.
Consider them "naturally occurring prior art" if you like. They're already well and truly the "public domain". When you discover something, then although the dicovery might be new, what you have dicovered is not. It always was there for anyone and everyone to use. To suddenly claim that from now on, only you're allowed to use it and nobody else, is absurd.
Note: There's nothing to stop you from keeping it secret until you've worked out a way to capitalise on it.
Inventions could perhaps be patentable, for a time
Have you invented some clever new way of doing something? Someone else could invent the same thing anytime, completely independently from you. A patent should give you enough time to get your business up and running so you have a head start on your competition. Though, is that fair to the other inventor? And preventing the use of an excellent invention stymies other creations.
Personally, I prefer no patents, as it's much harder for an individual to get a patent than it is for large organisations.
Note: There's nothing to stop you from keeping it secret until you've worked out a way to capitalise on it.
Creations should be copyrightable
Have you created some form of artwork? Your brainchild, your creation, your baby, yours. But if you want to popularise your creation, then consider that DRM and copyright laws are there to control (ie. limit) popularisation, so using them may not always be the best option.
In short, there ought to be no patents, especially regarding discoveries.
I like a well made 3D movie. To me, that's a movie that uses sterevosion as yet another a tool in film making, but not as a feature. That will come, eventually, as the fad fades.
But in 3D games I can tell you that the spacial sense that stereovision gives is awsome. Sometimes almost feels like cheating.
In Total War games one gets a better feel for the lay of the land and can see exactly when the archers should fire that volley or the cavalry should charge for maximum effect.
In WoW in monovision, I can see on the mini-map that the cave branches, and sometimes I must move back and forth to get some parallax with the mottled bitmaps to find that branch. In stereovision I clearly see the shape of the cave (who needs a map?), oh and the walls happen to be covered in mottled bitmaps.
Apparently it's great with FPS's where you can estimate where to aim a rocket launcher so the rocket intercepts the target. (I don't play FPS's myself.)
In tools, I can imagine Kinekt or PS3 controls in combination with stereovision. You'd start a session by calibrating four reference points: origin, X, Y, Z. Then you'd control things within that space. I think it could be handy in engineering, flight control, anything where spacial awareness and control comes in handy.
I suspect that something similar applies to people with perfect vision too. My gf has excellent vision, and can clearly percieve stereovision. But she complains about the "fake look" in 3D and sees where stereovision fails (ex. on the edges of object that stick out alot), the dimness, and so on. So she much prefers monovision, perhaps because of her better than average vision. Me, I wear glasses, and so I don't notice those small deficiencies.
I also thought it was obvious that Neo dicovered he was in another layer. The Architect said there were 7 attempts to curb humans. I interpeted that that as saying that there were 7 layers. That being reason enough for Neo to accept human defeat and allow the Archtect to create the peaceful sunny layer at the end of the 3rd movie. It also seemed as though the Archtect used Neo to learn how to better create that next layer, and probably even had a hand in creating Neo for that purpose.
the precession effect is "nothing new" and had already been taken into consideration.
"The constellations don't suggest what's coming up, it's the planets! The constellations are a measuring device."
I think what pisses astrologers off is that this "news" undermines their percieved authority. Also, I think that "serious" astrologers need to know a fair bit of astronomy, so they would have known about this for a very long time.
The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. It’s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth’s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem.
Even this overstates the effect of CO2, because the primary sources of these emissions—cars and power plants—also produce aerosols. Aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the magnitude of this cooling approximately cancels out the warming effect of CO2. The surprising result is that sources of CO2 emissions are having roughly zero effect on global temperatures in the near-term!
This result is not widely known in the environmental community, due to a fear that polluting industries will use it to excuse their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists had the data reviewed by other climate experts, who affirmed Hansen’s conclusions. However, the organization also cited climate contrarians’ misuse of the data to argue against curbs in CO2. This contrarian spin cannot be justified.
...
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.
If the link is right, then the CIA probably has direct access to the Facebook database.
If worked for the CIA and had direct access to the Facebook database, then I would prefer to mine the database, because page scripts can be found by users and can fail for a variety of reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... are Google pages copyrighted?
Google search is a service that you may use, but is the content it generates copyrighted? After all, Googles knowledge of the web comes from Googles reasearch and resides on Googles databases, and so is owned by Google.
If Google has copyrighted that information, then Micrsoft would be up for copyright infringement by trying to copy that information. Although that's not strictly speaking cheating, I think Micrsoft would cry foul in a big way if Google did the same to Bing.
Well, Einstein is dead in this universe. Though it might make him happy in another universe. ;)
Better that than China, which is holding on to its rare minerals. At least the US is more likely to share.
Board, Mother, Lube... My mind reels, in a disturbing way.
How about deciding upon a fixed number for Mol? (ie. not basing it upon any other unit)
Then say that 1 Newton = X * Mol * <Atomic weight of some isotope of some element>.
Then the definition of a kg could happily change from the equator to a pole, as expected.
Would that be such a bad idea?
Discoveries should never be patentable.
Consider them "naturally occurring prior art" if you like. They're already well and truly the "public domain". When you discover something, then although the dicovery might be new, what you have dicovered is not. It always was there for anyone and everyone to use. To suddenly claim that from now on, only you're allowed to use it and nobody else, is absurd.
Note: There's nothing to stop you from keeping it secret until you've worked out a way to capitalise on it.
Inventions could perhaps be patentable, for a time
Have you invented some clever new way of doing something? Someone else could invent the same thing anytime, completely independently from you. A patent should give you enough time to get your business up and running so you have a head start on your competition. Though, is that fair to the other inventor? And preventing the use of an excellent invention stymies other creations.
Personally, I prefer no patents, as it's much harder for an individual to get a patent than it is for large organisations.
Note: There's nothing to stop you from keeping it secret until you've worked out a way to capitalise on it.
Creations should be copyrightable
Have you created some form of artwork? Your brainchild, your creation, your baby, yours. But if you want to popularise your creation, then consider that DRM and copyright laws are there to control (ie. limit) popularisation, so using them may not always be the best option.
In short, there ought to be no patents, especially regarding discoveries.
Don't worry. I'm sure he won't do it again.
Note/Disclaimer: I cringe that I just referred to science as a belief system, but you get my drift.
I mean I really, REALLY do cringe.
A teacher who teaches politics still has to teach political systems they disagree with.
A teacher who teaches "belief systems" still has to teach belief systems they disagree with.
Note/Disclaimer: I cringe that I just referred to science as a belief system, but you get my drift.
Well, the SMS made it a happy new year for lots of people who didn't loose their lives, limbs, friends or family (even if they don't know it).
Kinda like those Good Year ad's... "If it saves you once a year, it's a good year."
How long until we hear about a curse? Isn't that what happens when there's any sort of morbid coincidence?
For goodness' sake!
Roleplaying games are good practice in (verbal) communication and cooperation.
Isn't the lack of those skills part of why many of them are in jail?
I like a well made 3D movie. To me, that's a movie that uses sterevosion as yet another a tool in film making, but not as a feature. That will come, eventually, as the fad fades.
But in 3D games I can tell you that the spacial sense that stereovision gives is awsome. Sometimes almost feels like cheating.
In Total War games one gets a better feel for the lay of the land and can see exactly when the archers should fire that volley or the cavalry should charge for maximum effect.
In WoW in monovision, I can see on the mini-map that the cave branches, and sometimes I must move back and forth to get some parallax with the mottled bitmaps to find that branch. In stereovision I clearly see the shape of the cave (who needs a map?), oh and the walls happen to be covered in mottled bitmaps.
Apparently it's great with FPS's where you can estimate where to aim a rocket launcher so the rocket intercepts the target. (I don't play FPS's myself.)
In tools, I can imagine Kinekt or PS3 controls in combination with stereovision. You'd start a session by calibrating four reference points: origin, X, Y, Z. Then you'd control things within that space. I think it could be handy in engineering, flight control, anything where spacial awareness and control comes in handy.
I suspect that something similar applies to people with perfect vision too. My gf has excellent vision, and can clearly percieve stereovision. But she complains about the "fake look" in 3D and sees where stereovision fails (ex. on the edges of object that stick out alot), the dimness, and so on. So she much prefers monovision, perhaps because of her better than average vision. Me, I wear glasses, and so I don't notice those small deficiencies.
The university developed the technology for making sausages. ;)
I really wish that could apply to fusion too.
I also thought it was obvious that Neo dicovered he was in another layer. The Architect said there were 7 attempts to curb humans. I interpeted that that as saying that there were 7 layers. That being reason enough for Neo to accept human defeat and allow the Archtect to create the peaceful sunny layer at the end of the 3rd movie. It also seemed as though the Archtect used Neo to learn how to better create that next layer, and probably even had a hand in creating Neo for that purpose.
Whatever happened to imagination?
I think he was killed in the 3rd movie.
the precession effect is "nothing new" and had already been taken into consideration.
"The constellations don't suggest what's coming up, it's the planets! The constellations are a measuring device."
I think what pisses astrologers off is that this "news" undermines their percieved authority. Also, I think that "serious" astrologers need to know a fair bit of astronomy, so they would have known about this for a very long time.
Source: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8196971/star-sign-changes-spark-controversy ...
Disclaimer: I know that ninemsn is not exactly a proper news source. But, hey, we're talking astrology here.
The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. It’s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth’s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem.
Even this overstates the effect of CO2, because the primary sources of these emissions—cars and power plants—also produce aerosols. Aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the magnitude of this cooling approximately cancels out the warming effect of CO2. The surprising result is that sources of CO2 emissions are having roughly zero effect on global temperatures in the near-term!
This result is not widely known in the environmental community, due to a fear that polluting industries will use it to excuse their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists had the data reviewed by other climate experts, who affirmed Hansen’s conclusions. However, the organization also cited climate contrarians’ misuse of the data to argue against curbs in CO2. This contrarian spin cannot be justified.
...
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/earth-day-update-meat-methane-laughing-gas/
http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2
We need to eat less meat and switch to less polluting meats (such as kangaroo).
Spoil sport :\
...whether by use of page scripts or by data mining: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10456534&pnum=0
If the link is right, then the CIA probably has direct access to the Facebook database.
If worked for the CIA and had direct access to the Facebook database, then I would prefer to mine the database, because page scripts can be found by users and can fail for a variety of reasons.
No, no, no. One can clearly see that it's a giant bug with a huge pincer. Either it's made of green ectoplasm or conjured up by evil magic.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/01/11/voorwerp/
Yes, they're field testing now... on the users. ;)
Have we learnt nothing from the past?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3179101952_3f729a500a.jpg
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/538/538263/starship-troopers-20040812003517858_640w.jpeg