Whereas I would never use either of the features you want, but could definitely use a component modeling synth, a new ring modulator, and some of the other more effect/processing functions.
You should have patented it in January of 2000. If the criteria for grant is "idea", then patent when you have an idea, whether or not you think it will have value. If the criteria is implementation, well, if someone else implements it before you independently and first, too damn bad.
I still see no issue with my assertion. The issue is with your behavior.
Wrong, by the way. According to the patent lawyers I work with, you shouldn't read *current* patents. Any expired patent is fair game.
First off, the knowledge isn't yours. Knowledge doesn't belong to anyone (yes, this is true in a patent system, in fact more so than in a non-patent system). The knowledge is intentionally made available to all in a patent system; no one owns the knowledge, or equally validly, everyone owns the knowledge equally giving no one any more or less rights to use it than anyone else. A patent is a license to exploit that knowledge.
Second, let's say you do own the knowledge. You don't have a right to do whatever you want with your property; you don't have a right to build a 400 foot tower on your 1/4 acre lot. You don't have a right to shoot your dog, even if it is your dog. You don't have a right to obstruct travel over a legally obtained easement on your property. There are all sorts of things you can't do with your property; why would knowledge be any different?
Finally, knowledge can, in fact, be lost. You want an example? I worked up a new technique for attacking a certain problem on my way home from work tonight (for the purpose of this demonstration, the technique is not important, nor is the truth of my former statement - take it as a given). I did not communicate this new knowledge to anyone. If I had a heart attack right now, that knowledge is *lost*. Gone. If no one else ever thinks of the same approach to the same problem, its gone forever.
Government granted monopolies can, in fact, be good for everyone. The current system is abusive, but that doesn't change the fact that a patent system can have significant benefits.
You are talking out of your asscrack, and anyone who modded you up should be ashamed.
Patents are *slavery*? Patents are designed to encourage sharing knowledge; without the limited license provided by a patent, people would just try to keep trade secrets. You aren't prevented from using your knowledge; use it all you want. But you may have to obtain a license from the patent-holder in order to obtain the legal right to make money off of their idea, even if you independently developed the knowledge, because the system is designed to promote the greater good, not your specific good.
The problem with this patent is not with the patent system, it's with the patent. Patents are supposed to be on novel techniques used to accomplish something new; from the overview, there's no new technique, just the item to be accomplished (this is also why software patents are universally bad - they almost never include the new technique, even if there is one, because they aren't forced to include example source code).
By definition, if you can't make value from it it isn't a good idea. There's nothing wrong with patenting some technology you've developed, even if you can't make it work on the business end - so long as the technology fits the real definition for a patent, i.e. an innovation non-obvious to someone skilled in the field.
(I use the term value rather than money to avoid being accused of being a capitalist pig - but if an idea has no value, it isn't a good idea, now matter how clever of a hack it is - UNIX ON GBA PEOPLE, I LOOK AT YOU!)
Because Microsoft has very good lawyers, and it's probably a safe assumption that you aren't. Not meaning that to be offensive, but I'm assuming you aren't a corporate patent lawyer (I could be wrong, of course); those guys get paid a lot of money for a reason.
You have Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2, one of which is definitely better than Perfect Dark was (and I very much liked Perfect Dark, don't get me wrong) and one of which likely will be. The Monkey Ball games as well. Pikmin. Eternal Darkness.
Gamecube is hardly worthless; it may not have as wide of a library of games as a PS2, but it does have some damn good ones.
All PowerBooks running OS X, yes. But, "sleep when the lid shuts" != "can't be run with lid closed". Stick an Apple keyboard on there and use the wake key and it'll wake up.
That said, the G4 ones need to run open for heat reasons. G3 powerbooks, on the other hand, can be run closed without overheating. Any photographers out there wanna buy my Pismo?
Not all drugs are psychoactive, and neurochemical dependence requires that the drug cause changes in neurochemistry/neurophysiology that last beyond the drugs active period.
Physical dependence is when the body adapts to the presence of a chemical such that it can't function without it. Physically dependent drugs (heroin, alcohol) produce gross physiological effects during withdrawal, as the body re-adapts to operating without the drug present.
Neurochemical dependence is produced by drugs that mainly operate by affecting the way the body handles neurotransmitters, and produce lasting effects on neurochemistry, effects that last after the active drug has dissipated - e.g., drugs like coke. They don't produce gross physiological effects during withdrawal, but they do have lasting effects on neurophysiology and can cause mental effects with physiological causes during withdrawal. Pot *probably* fits into this profile for extremely heavy users, but I don't do drug research for a living so I could be wrong, and all of this is just research done when a friend was addicted.
Purely psychological dependence is mainly produced by drugs that have high tolerance/very little lasting effect, drugs like LSD or mushrooms. The only danger here is that you become psychologically needy; this is also the mechanism of dependence for things like gambling or sex.
Addiction is defined as dependence (any of the three) where harm is caused by the dependence. Thus, you can be physically dependent on a drug (a painkiller during pain management, for example) without being addicted. Addiction is not normally prefixed with the type.
Ecstasy is not believed to cause physical dependence (heroin, alcohol, and nicotine are good examples of chemicals that cause physical dependence - coke is a weird case, which I'm not going to go into right now). However, it does have some potential for psychological addiction, and possibly neurochemical dependence (cocaine is mainly a neurochemical drug).
If you want, I'll go into detail on the differences between physical, neurochemical, and psychological dependence, but I'm going to sleep now.
Part of the point is that correlation is weak, and most likely has very little to do with the drug and a lot to do with the circumstance (i.e. the vast majority of people who try smoking cigarettes don't go on to do coke; a somewhat larger number of marijuana users go on to coke because marijuana is illegal and that illegality causes the 'gateway effect', not any inherent property of marijuana)
Basically, the problem is that causality of pot leading to harder drugs has not been proven to be causally linked to *the drug*; it can only be linked to drug+circumstances. Many people (I count myself here) believe that if the drug was unlinked from the circumstance; if smoking pot no longer required dealing with sketch-ass dealers and was no longer demonized, there would be little to no gateway effect present.
Physical addiction is actually a deprecated term; the correct term is physical dependence, used to refer to a physical state of adaptation to the substance, the absence of which produces withdrawal syndrome. Addiction is defined as repeated use of a substance despite it causing harm to the user or those around the user. (NIH-provided information, from NIDA).
The definition for physical dependency is defined as producing certain characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Caffeine causes withdrawal symptoms (I suffer from them if I don't drink caffeine for about a day, specifically lethargy and headaches), and as such is considered physically addictive.
Cocaine, on the other hand, does not cause these characteristic symptoms, despite the fact that it does cause physiology-related changes in the body. Merck states it as "physical dependence has not been confirmed" which might be the best way of putting it. The changes noted from cocaine use strongly resemble those of amphetamine use (prolonged use causes something similar to amphetamine psychosis) and withdrawal does cause physical effects (EEG abnormalities and disturbed sleep patterns). I suspect cocaine will be classified as causing physical dependence sometime in the near future, even if it isn't always classed as such right now. Cocaine does produce physical changes which result in reinforcing behavior, which is why its hard to classify.
The real problem is using physical addiction as a defining line; the OP probably meant it to be used as a distinction between drugs that cause addiction in otherwise non-addictive individuals (tobacco, heroin, etc.) and drugs that generally do not (pot, LSD, mushrooms). Cocaine is acknowledge to be a member of the first group, as it causes addiction even in people who are not generally susceptible to addictive behavior.
Unemployment rate doesn't count people who've stopped looking, and the people for whom benefits have run out. You really think nationwide unemployment is at 5.4%?
Also, there's a well-known effect in the household index, which is that lots of people don't like to admit to being out of work and will instead say "I'm self-employed".
Both coke (white powder) and coke (black liquid) are generally considered physically addictive. Cocaine is not 'traditionally' physically addicting, but there are physical effects (specifically, how it changes your response to your neurotransmitters) that lead to a physical component to addiction in its case. The usual definition for physical addiction relies on tolerance, not physiological changes; the problem is that cocaine's physiological changes result in differences in the non-high physiology, not in how the drug itself operates; as a result, an equivalent dose of coke early in the addiction compared to later will produce the same high, but lower low. I'd call it physically addictive based on this.
Coke (black liquid) has caffeine, which is physically addictive.
Ironically, the physical effects of cocaine and caffeine share some significant similarities (vasoconstriction, adenosine affects, dopamine manipulation).
Now, had you said Caffeine Free Coke, you'd be correct. There is nothing known to be physically addictive in CFC.
Yes, actually. On a Diebold ATM. I was the sap who got no receipt, after which the ATM started flashing "THIS MACHINE IS NOT CURRENTLY GIVING RECEIPTS" on the initial screen.
Good lord... it was intended to be a joke, not a serious complaint; the draft instigators are mainly Democrats, though I've heard Republican support as well, but the point was to make someone smile.
The way people around here approach political humor, I might as well be making Beggin' Strips jokes, not comparing Republicans to pigs (an altogether too accurate comparison, though most Democratic politicians also bear an unfortunately porcine visage as well.)
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas I would never use either of the features you want, but could definitely use a component modeling synth, a new ring modulator, and some of the other more effect/processing functions.
Each to their own; fluff is as the user sees it.
You should have patented it in January of 2000. If the criteria for grant is "idea", then patent when you have an idea, whether or not you think it will have value. If the criteria is implementation, well, if someone else implements it before you independently and first, too damn bad.
I still see no issue with my assertion. The issue is with your behavior.
Wrong, by the way. According to the patent lawyers I work with, you shouldn't read *current* patents. Any expired patent is fair game.
First off, the knowledge isn't yours. Knowledge doesn't belong to anyone (yes, this is true in a patent system, in fact more so than in a non-patent system). The knowledge is intentionally made available to all in a patent system; no one owns the knowledge, or equally validly, everyone owns the knowledge equally giving no one any more or less rights to use it than anyone else. A patent is a license to exploit that knowledge.
Second, let's say you do own the knowledge. You don't have a right to do whatever you want with your property; you don't have a right to build a 400 foot tower on your 1/4 acre lot. You don't have a right to shoot your dog, even if it is your dog. You don't have a right to obstruct travel over a legally obtained easement on your property. There are all sorts of things you can't do with your property; why would knowledge be any different?
Finally, knowledge can, in fact, be lost. You want an example? I worked up a new technique for attacking a certain problem on my way home from work tonight (for the purpose of this demonstration, the technique is not important, nor is the truth of my former statement - take it as a given). I did not communicate this new knowledge to anyone. If I had a heart attack right now, that knowledge is *lost*. Gone. If no one else ever thinks of the same approach to the same problem, its gone forever.
Government granted monopolies can, in fact, be good for everyone. The current system is abusive, but that doesn't change the fact that a patent system can have significant benefits.
Markets would crumble and turn to monopolies ruled by gigantic megacorporations spreading like a cancer throughout the economy.
Wait.
You're saying anti-trust laws *prevent* this?
You are talking out of your asscrack, and anyone who modded you up should be ashamed.
Patents are *slavery*? Patents are designed to encourage sharing knowledge; without the limited license provided by a patent, people would just try to keep trade secrets. You aren't prevented from using your knowledge; use it all you want. But you may have to obtain a license from the patent-holder in order to obtain the legal right to make money off of their idea, even if you independently developed the knowledge, because the system is designed to promote the greater good, not your specific good.
The problem with this patent is not with the patent system, it's with the patent. Patents are supposed to be on novel techniques used to accomplish something new; from the overview, there's no new technique, just the item to be accomplished (this is also why software patents are universally bad - they almost never include the new technique, even if there is one, because they aren't forced to include example source code).
By definition, if you can't make value from it it isn't a good idea. There's nothing wrong with patenting some technology you've developed, even if you can't make it work on the business end - so long as the technology fits the real definition for a patent, i.e. an innovation non-obvious to someone skilled in the field.
(I use the term value rather than money to avoid being accused of being a capitalist pig - but if an idea has no value, it isn't a good idea, now matter how clever of a hack it is - UNIX ON GBA PEOPLE, I LOOK AT YOU!)
Because Microsoft has very good lawyers, and it's probably a safe assumption that you aren't. Not meaning that to be offensive, but I'm assuming you aren't a corporate patent lawyer (I could be wrong, of course); those guys get paid a lot of money for a reason.
You have Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2, one of which is definitely better than Perfect Dark was (and I very much liked Perfect Dark, don't get me wrong) and one of which likely will be. The Monkey Ball games as well. Pikmin. Eternal Darkness.
Gamecube is hardly worthless; it may not have as wide of a library of games as a PS2, but it does have some damn good ones.
All PowerBooks running OS X, yes. But, "sleep when the lid shuts" != "can't be run with lid closed". Stick an Apple keyboard on there and use the wake key and it'll wake up.
That said, the G4 ones need to run open for heat reasons. G3 powerbooks, on the other hand, can be run closed without overheating. Any photographers out there wanna buy my Pismo?
You can be dependent on or addicted to a non-recreational drug.
Not all drugs are psychoactive, and neurochemical dependence requires that the drug cause changes in neurochemistry/neurophysiology that last beyond the drugs active period.
Physical dependence is when the body adapts to the presence of a chemical such that it can't function without it. Physically dependent drugs (heroin, alcohol) produce gross physiological effects during withdrawal, as the body re-adapts to operating without the drug present.
Neurochemical dependence is produced by drugs that mainly operate by affecting the way the body handles neurotransmitters, and produce lasting effects on neurochemistry, effects that last after the active drug has dissipated - e.g., drugs like coke. They don't produce gross physiological effects during withdrawal, but they do have lasting effects on neurophysiology and can cause mental effects with physiological causes during withdrawal. Pot *probably* fits into this profile for extremely heavy users, but I don't do drug research for a living so I could be wrong, and all of this is just research done when a friend was addicted.
Purely psychological dependence is mainly produced by drugs that have high tolerance/very little lasting effect, drugs like LSD or mushrooms. The only danger here is that you become psychologically needy; this is also the mechanism of dependence for things like gambling or sex.
Addiction is defined as dependence (any of the three) where harm is caused by the dependence. Thus, you can be physically dependent on a drug (a painkiller during pain management, for example) without being addicted. Addiction is not normally prefixed with the type.
At least most feminists can properly spell the word "blame".
1) You have no idea what a feminist is.
2) You're a chauvinist prick.
3) Good point.
4) I can't wait for you to get sued.
5) Arguable. Ignored.
6) It isn't. You fighting for paternity leave? Because my balls will be right behind you if you are. Somehow, I don't think you are.
ie that the US will have a right to overrule the democratic wishes or the Iraqis when they finally get a vote
It has nothing to do with the right to do so, and everything to do with the ability.
Ecstasy is not believed to cause physical dependence (heroin, alcohol, and nicotine are good examples of chemicals that cause physical dependence - coke is a weird case, which I'm not going to go into right now). However, it does have some potential for psychological addiction, and possibly neurochemical dependence (cocaine is mainly a neurochemical drug).
If you want, I'll go into detail on the differences between physical, neurochemical, and psychological dependence, but I'm going to sleep now.
Part of the point is that correlation is weak, and most likely has very little to do with the drug and a lot to do with the circumstance (i.e. the vast majority of people who try smoking cigarettes don't go on to do coke; a somewhat larger number of marijuana users go on to coke because marijuana is illegal and that illegality causes the 'gateway effect', not any inherent property of marijuana)
Basically, the problem is that causality of pot leading to harder drugs has not been proven to be causally linked to *the drug*; it can only be linked to drug+circumstances. Many people (I count myself here) believe that if the drug was unlinked from the circumstance; if smoking pot no longer required dealing with sketch-ass dealers and was no longer demonized, there would be little to no gateway effect present.
DMCA.
Wikipedia, NIDA, the National Cancer Institute, American Society of Addiction Medicine, and the Merck Manual all seem to like my assessment of the term as deprecated.
Get over it, the term is obsolete.
The kind the US has.
Good lord... back when was 1/0.66/1 (normalized) we got bitched at for expecting unrealistic numbers from the girls in our lives....
Now its 1/.9/1 and we're still getting bitched at!
Make up your minds, would you?
Physical addiction is actually a deprecated term; the correct term is physical dependence, used to refer to a physical state of adaptation to the substance, the absence of which produces withdrawal syndrome. Addiction is defined as repeated use of a substance despite it causing harm to the user or those around the user. (NIH-provided information, from NIDA).
The definition for physical dependency is defined as producing certain characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Caffeine causes withdrawal symptoms (I suffer from them if I don't drink caffeine for about a day, specifically lethargy and headaches), and as such is considered physically addictive.
Cocaine, on the other hand, does not cause these characteristic symptoms, despite the fact that it does cause physiology-related changes in the body. Merck states it as "physical dependence has not been confirmed" which might be the best way of putting it. The changes noted from cocaine use strongly resemble those of amphetamine use (prolonged use causes something similar to amphetamine psychosis) and withdrawal does cause physical effects (EEG abnormalities and disturbed sleep patterns). I suspect cocaine will be classified as causing physical dependence sometime in the near future, even if it isn't always classed as such right now. Cocaine does produce physical changes which result in reinforcing behavior, which is why its hard to classify.
The real problem is using physical addiction as a defining line; the OP probably meant it to be used as a distinction between drugs that cause addiction in otherwise non-addictive individuals (tobacco, heroin, etc.) and drugs that generally do not (pot, LSD, mushrooms). Cocaine is acknowledge to be a member of the first group, as it causes addiction even in people who are not generally susceptible to addictive behavior.
Unemployment rate doesn't count people who've stopped looking, and the people for whom benefits have run out. You really think nationwide unemployment is at 5.4%?
Also, there's a well-known effect in the household index, which is that lots of people don't like to admit to being out of work and will instead say "I'm self-employed".
That's arguable.
Both coke (white powder) and coke (black liquid) are generally considered physically addictive. Cocaine is not 'traditionally' physically addicting, but there are physical effects (specifically, how it changes your response to your neurotransmitters) that lead to a physical component to addiction in its case. The usual definition for physical addiction relies on tolerance, not physiological changes; the problem is that cocaine's physiological changes result in differences in the non-high physiology, not in how the drug itself operates; as a result, an equivalent dose of coke early in the addiction compared to later will produce the same high, but lower low. I'd call it physically addictive based on this.
Coke (black liquid) has caffeine, which is physically addictive.
Ironically, the physical effects of cocaine and caffeine share some significant similarities (vasoconstriction, adenosine affects, dopamine manipulation).
Now, had you said Caffeine Free Coke, you'd be correct. There is nothing known to be physically addictive in CFC.
Yes, actually. On a Diebold ATM. I was the sap who got no receipt, after which the ATM started flashing "THIS MACHINE IS NOT CURRENTLY GIVING RECEIPTS" on the initial screen.
Good lord... it was intended to be a joke, not a serious complaint; the draft instigators are mainly Democrats, though I've heard Republican support as well, but the point was to make someone smile.
The way people around here approach political humor, I might as well be making Beggin' Strips jokes, not comparing Republicans to pigs (an altogether too accurate comparison, though most Democratic politicians also bear an unfortunately porcine visage as well.)