Only that something bouncing when it hits the bottom is a typical physical effect that you can see when an object (having some degree of elasticity) hits the floor. It is a virtual representation of a physical response just like a button that seems to go down when clicked.
I don't know how can you say that it is not obvious.
Of course, when the organism that grants patents is paid to grant then and not to reject then, the criteria of non obviousness becomes much easy...
Let me know when you find a renewable energy source that provides constant power 24/7/365.
Usually a combination of wind turbines and hydroelectric. When there is wind overcapacity, it is used to pump water upstream. That water can be used as a 24/7/365 source of energy.
I'm not claiming this is the case but why it's so hard for people dissing homeopathy that it may actually work for reasons yet unkonwn to science?
Like someone already pointed, most medicine works for reasons yet unknown to science. The science part happens when there are replicable tests that show some therapy is betters than placebo pills.
All I can say, it worked for me twice, for two different problems and in two different points of my life. It's cheap, and if it's just water, won't hurt so why not try? Even if it works by placebo effect, it works so no harm done.
Many conditions disappear without any external medicine. The thing that you are taking when that happens gets the fame to cure, at least to you. If many thousands are taking a homoeopathic solution, there will be some that solve their problem at the exact time to correlate to the homoeopathic substance.
As for the harm done, it can come from delaying the use of real medicine...
Oh, yes, because everyone knows the future is pushing your own boring knock-off of PalmOS, just like Apple and Google. There's no future in pioneering the first significant UI upgrade since 1984. They should have just keeped on keepin' on, like RIM.
I can't stand companies that ruin themselves by innovating.
Either I missed the <SARCASM> tag or you don't know the meaning of the words "upgrade" and "innovating"...
If all these innovations you think are so obvious are indeed that, then why didn't we see them implemented in popular phones released before 2007? I don't doubt that they existed before then, but it apparently took a company like Apple to implement them in a popular, readily available device.
Because, some "innovations" like pinch to zoom can only be used on capacitive touch devices where you can distinguish more than one finger press. Earlier touch screens, usually using resistive technology could only read one touch. I had a very nice N900 (release date: November 11, 2009) that still had resistive touch screen.
You can't use a technological limitation that existed in the past to conclude that the absence of pinch to zoom was because nobody "thought" to use it.
False equivalency. The TSA (government) let him through without incident, it was a private business (Delta) that blocked him from boarding the plane.
And who made the rule that allowed them to do that? If some "law" is enforced by a private organization that does not mean the State has nothing to do with that.
Sure, that litigation holds back sales and marketplace competition... But "and by extent innovation"? How does litigation over an existing product in any way affect innovation regarding new products? Can you logically support that extension you're proposing?
That is easy. How much time do you think it takes to develop a product if you have to pass several design aspects through the opinions of IP Lawyers and iterate until it is accepted?
If the fear of litigation exists because of what happened to previous products it is natural that new products will be delayed because you have to try to design around stupid patents.
You have to love the hypocrisy.
Everyone on slashdot LOATHES corporations, presuming that anyone trying to turn a profit in groups of more than 3 people must be horrible monsters and parasites.
But legal meth labs? It's GAME ON... because it only makes sense.
It blows my mind.
You must live in a very black and white world!
If you have:
- Activity A that is evil.
- Activity B that is a LOT more evil.
- Defending that activity B should be changed to Activity A is extremely reasonable. Where is the hypocrisy?
If you fire 10 people, 9 may sit on the couch eating cheetos and collecting unemployment benefits for the next 2 years[1]. But 1 will start his (or her) own business and increase economic activity.
Then he (or she) will go bankrupt because the possible costumers are unemployed and can't pay for the goods. (unless it is another cheetos brand)
That makes as much economic sense as paying people to move a mountain of rocks from one place to another, and then paying people to move them all back.
Isn't that very similar to digging gold and then paying people to protect its transport?
Your other replies (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2416906&cid=37327350) were very good. I recommend them. When I made this second rewording I had not yet see them.
This is the sad reality that the people who espouse theoretical free market either never think about or attempt to reject out of hand. But it is exactly what prevents the theoretical model of free market from ever being attempted. As soon as you have two people starting it, the greed and corruption starts.
And now that Pulse Audio does work, Ubuntu is ahead of the rest.
Does it make sense to anyone that Ubuntu has adopted a network transparent audio server but is planning on dropping the network aware graphical server?
Because it makes sense. It is a bandwidth problem. Over a network you can easily stream audio without any problem because 2x44.4Hz@16bits = 1.4208 MBits/s. That's less than 2% of a 100Mbit network. Now for the graphics things change, why do you think that the graphic cards are on a a 16x PCI-Express slots (8GBits/s), and still must use a lot of internal RAM to cache textures? Over a network the kind of performance you get for the graphics makes you cringe.
So you prefer to Call people, receive calls, check voicemail, and text instead of read your e-mail, remote into your PC, play MP3s, tether, control your TV or play games? No sir, you are not a geek. Please hand your card at the exit...
the DRM wouldn't affect pirates who crack the software, but it would affect the crowd who wants to copy the game freely and distribute it to everyone they know. The average user doesn't know how and wouldn't do this, right?
"the crowd who wants to copy the game freely and distribute it to everyone they know" will download the crack and proceed with their plan of distributing it, cracked, to everyone they know.
Again, the main inconvenience is to those who paid for the game. Strange, isn't it?
Cool,
Why the 19 years at 0 G? I know that is the speed of light, but if you are are going nearly that fast, and you measure the speed of light, in any direction, it would still be 299792458 m/s which means you can still accelerate at 1g and never reach that speed.
Then of course, we would have to have two times. One time for the astronauts on the spaceship, and another as observed from earth.
Yes there are two times, one for an observer here on earth and another to the spaceship passengers.
The times that I gave are for the observer here on earth.
Any ideas on what those times would be?
For the the spaceship passengers, the time dilation would make the voyage look shorter. At the speed of light (witch theoretically could not be reached) time would "stop" and only the acceleration and deceleration periods would be perceived.
Perhaps that's why the passenger could think that they are always accelerating... Weird...
At least, the muscle atrophying problem could be solved this way.
Someone already said: it is a operator precedence problem, not about students' interpretation of the equal sign.
Looks like the researchers could not pinpoint where the misunderstanding is.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how can you say that it is not obvious.
Of course, when the organism that grants patents is paid to grant then and not to reject then, the criteria of non obviousness becomes much easy...
Let me know when you find a renewable energy source that provides constant power 24/7/365.
Usually a combination of wind turbines and hydroelectric. When there is wind overcapacity, it is used to pump water upstream. That water can be used as a 24/7/365 source of energy.
I'm not claiming this is the case but why it's so hard for people dissing homeopathy that it may actually work for reasons yet unkonwn to science?
Like someone already pointed, most medicine works for reasons yet unknown to science. The science part happens when there are replicable tests that show some therapy is betters than placebo pills.
All I can say, it worked for me twice, for two different problems and in two different points of my life. It's cheap, and if it's just water, won't hurt so why not try? Even if it works by placebo effect, it works so no harm done.
Many conditions disappear without any external medicine. The thing that you are taking when that happens gets the fame to cure, at least to you. If many thousands are taking a homoeopathic solution, there will be some that solve their problem at the exact time to correlate to the homoeopathic substance.
As for the harm done, it can come from delaying the use of real medicine...
Oh, yes, because everyone knows the future is pushing your own boring knock-off of PalmOS, just like Apple and Google. There's no future in pioneering the first significant UI upgrade since 1984. They should have just keeped on keepin' on, like RIM.
I can't stand companies that ruin themselves by innovating.
Either I missed the <SARCASM> tag or you don't know the meaning of the words "upgrade" and "innovating"...
If all these innovations you think are so obvious are indeed that, then why didn't we see them implemented in popular phones released before 2007? I don't doubt that they existed before then, but it apparently took a company like Apple to implement them in a popular, readily available device.
Because, some "innovations" like pinch to zoom can only be used on capacitive touch devices where you can distinguish more than one finger press. Earlier touch screens, usually using resistive technology could only read one touch. I had a very nice N900 (release date: November 11, 2009) that still had resistive touch screen. You can't use a technological limitation that existed in the past to conclude that the absence of pinch to zoom was because nobody "thought" to use it.
Patents don't require that an invention be totally original. Improvement is fine. For prior art to work as a defense you need to show
2) That experts in the field of touchscreen UI would have seen the application of a bolt.
Now you insulted all of the experts in the field of touchscreen UI. Thinking a bit more, I fear most of them deserve the insult.
I think that's a good example. I don't think swipe to unlock is obvious.
1) No one else used swipe to unlock prior to Apple. Generally they used hitting some sort of button to unlock.
Well, I think there is prior art, dating more than a few centuries, on swipe to unlock: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitxer:Bolt_lock.jpg
False equivalency. The TSA (government) let him through without incident, it was a private business (Delta) that blocked him from boarding the plane.
And who made the rule that allowed them to do that? If some "law" is enforced by a private organization that does not mean the State has nothing to do with that.
Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.
By that logic, even the people from North Korea are free, even to mock their beloved ruler...
Sure, that litigation holds back sales and marketplace competition... But "and by extent innovation"? How does litigation over an existing product in any way affect innovation regarding new products? Can you logically support that extension you're proposing?
That is easy. How much time do you think it takes to develop a product if you have to pass several design aspects through the opinions of IP Lawyers and iterate until it is accepted?
If the fear of litigation exists because of what happened to previous products it is natural that new products will be delayed because you have to try to design around stupid patents.
You have to love the hypocrisy. Everyone on slashdot LOATHES corporations, presuming that anyone trying to turn a profit in groups of more than 3 people must be horrible monsters and parasites. But legal meth labs? It's GAME ON... because it only makes sense. It blows my mind.
You must live in a very black and white world!
If you have:
- Activity A that is evil.
- Activity B that is a LOT more evil.
- Defending that activity B should be changed to Activity A is extremely reasonable. Where is the hypocrisy?
Ask me before you make the changes.
So that you can tell Henry Ford that you want a faster horse?
No, those who want a faster horse get a motorbike.
The automobile was for those who wanted a faster horse carriage.
If you fire 10 people, 9 may sit on the couch eating cheetos and collecting unemployment benefits for the next 2 years[1]. But 1 will start his (or her) own business and increase economic activity.
Then he (or she) will go bankrupt because the possible costumers are unemployed and can't pay for the goods. (unless it is another cheetos brand)
That makes as much economic sense as paying people to move a mountain of rocks from one place to another, and then paying people to move them all back.
Isn't that very similar to digging gold and then paying people to protect its transport?
Your other replies (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2416906&cid=37327350) were very good. I recommend them. When I made this second rewording I had not yet see them.
This is the sad reality that the people who espouse theoretical free market either never think about or attempt to reject out of hand. But it is exactly what prevents the theoretical model of free market from ever being attempted. As soon as you have two people starting it, the greed and corruption starts.
It's amazing how so many people cling to the delusion that it is possible to implement theoretical free market. It's just not possible.
Aha! Finally, the path reveals itself...
It's like Apple, but with more hardware to pick from.
Beware! For many, that sounds like a praise...
And now that Pulse Audio does work, Ubuntu is ahead of the rest.
Does it make sense to anyone that Ubuntu has adopted a network transparent audio server but is planning on dropping the network aware graphical server?
Because it makes sense. It is a bandwidth problem. Over a network you can easily stream audio without any problem because 2x44.4Hz@16bits = 1.4208 MBits/s. That's less than 2% of a 100Mbit network. Now for the graphics things change, why do you think that the graphic cards are on a a 16x PCI-Express slots (8GBits/s), and still must use a lot of internal RAM to cache textures? Over a network the kind of performance you get for the graphics makes you cringe.
So you prefer to Call people, receive calls, check voicemail, and text instead of read your e-mail, remote into your PC, play MP3s, tether, control your TV or play games? No sir, you are not a geek. Please hand your card at the exit...
the DRM wouldn't affect pirates who crack the software, but it would affect the crowd who wants to copy the game freely and distribute it to everyone they know. The average user doesn't know how and wouldn't do this, right?
"the crowd who wants to copy the game freely and distribute it to everyone they know" will download the crack and proceed with their plan of distributing it, cracked, to everyone they know. Again, the main inconvenience is to those who paid for the game. Strange, isn't it?
Cool, Why the 19 years at 0 G? I know that is the speed of light, but if you are are going nearly that fast, and you measure the speed of light, in any direction, it would still be 299792458 m/s which means you can still accelerate at 1g and never reach that speed. Then of course, we would have to have two times. One time for the astronauts on the spaceship, and another as observed from earth.
Yes there are two times, one for an observer here on earth and another to the spaceship passengers.
The times that I gave are for the observer here on earth.
Any ideas on what those times would be?
For the the spaceship passengers, the time dilation would make the voyage look shorter. At the speed of light (witch theoretically could not be reached) time would "stop" and only the acceleration and deceleration periods would be perceived.
Perhaps that's why the passenger could think that they are always accelerating... Weird... At least, the muscle atrophying problem could be solved this way.
Ok, if we had an engine that could produce 1G of accelleration over a large number of years. Does anybody how long would it take to get there?
With constant acceleration a = 1G = 9.8m/s^2 we have v = a.t
:(
With maximum v = C = 299792458 m/s
t = 299792458/9.8 seconds = 0.969393127 years
So 1 year to accelerate, 1 to decelerate, 19 to travel at 0G...
No muscles atrophying problem solving this way.
Someone already said: it is a operator precedence problem, not about students' interpretation of the equal sign. Looks like the researchers could not pinpoint where the misunderstanding is.