1. The OP writer never claimed to be a scientist. 2. Why criticise a person with an agenda? Why is an 'agenda' something bad? Doesn't the article go against Krauss' own agenda anyway? 2. You don't need to be a "scientist" to have the right to analyze scientific knowledge. Journalists do it all the time.
Since proof in science can only be found in mathematics, should we please burn this article for it contains nothing but sophistry? Just to point out: "make a case for" isn't equal to "prove".
In principle it does. I checked this publication with a bit of awe because I'm currently developing a device system which can be pretty much described with this paper. You can use packet radio for sure, or other technology in order to send the signals. There are different things to take into account: how many of these will there be? Will they be deployed close to each other? Are you expecting 2 or 3 receivers to analyze 1000 signals of the same kind simultaneously? What kind of information will be send over the radio signal? In our case, we also came up with the p2p mesh network (reaccion.net) based on our idea of limited options for communications and the creation of a visualization platform to upload information to the cloud.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Now, call it what you want, but the quid of the matter here is that the denial of statements that may contradict our worldview is based on faith in the set of facts that we already believe in. Theists do it, non theists do it.
I've seen an awesome example of how to setup an amazing computer lab where children can learn programming and robotics. There's a fairly small town called San José Villanueva near San Salvador, so if you want more info I can hook you up with the people responsible.
Maybe overhead, but you also have to take into account the return for the investment in the equipment and the buildings, especially if they have to do heavy remodelings often.
So in that case it's not a 'copyright' issue, but an unfair competition issue for misleading the public. It would fall into the category of 'intellectual property' but it's not copyright per se.
This sounds more like an industrial design, and there is a specific type of IP design to protect a shape for a product. There is no need for an open source hardware project to be completely novel, so what he should just do is release the blueprints of his guitar under a GPL license. This is what most people are doing nowadays. Now, if you *really* wish to create something novel, you should then engage a community of luthiers and enthusiasts to develop your design even further.
Adding to this comment, we can also say that if a whole market structure rests upon the big guys' intellectual property, the business model will not be sustainable for the small businesses.
The title makes it sound as if the Occupy Wall Street was replicated around the world. The truth is, the US started after everyone had done something like that. We had our movement of "Indignados" in El Salvador about two months ago, so it's not as if the United States started with it, so it looks as if the editor didn't know about what was happening in the world by the time the movement started in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he claims transformation as in "adding a personal message in the art" or something intangible.
So you're saying basically logical fallacies aren't valid in the case of science?
Isn't Krauss being ridiculous here?
1. The OP writer never claimed to be a scientist.
2. Why criticise a person with an agenda? Why is an 'agenda' something bad? Doesn't the article go against Krauss' own agenda anyway?
2. You don't need to be a "scientist" to have the right to analyze scientific knowledge. Journalists do it all the time.
Go cry in a corner, Krauss.
Since proof in science can only be found in mathematics, should we please burn this article for it contains nothing but sophistry? Just to point out: "make a case for" isn't equal to "prove".
Nice try, Slashdot.
Could this be expanded and be taken as a mathematical refutation of postmodernism?
In principle it does. I checked this publication with a bit of awe because I'm currently developing a device system which can be pretty much described with this paper. You can use packet radio for sure, or other technology in order to send the signals. There are different things to take into account: how many of these will there be? Will they be deployed close to each other? Are you expecting 2 or 3 receivers to analyze 1000 signals of the same kind simultaneously? What kind of information will be send over the radio signal? In our case, we also came up with the p2p mesh network (reaccion.net) based on our idea of limited options for communications and the creation of a visualization platform to upload information to the cloud.
Wasn't Richard Lewontin who said:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Now, call it what you want, but the quid of the matter here is that the denial of statements that may contradict our worldview is based on faith in the set of facts that we already believe in. Theists do it, non theists do it.
Vista, AND Windows Me.
I've seen an awesome example of how to setup an amazing computer lab where children can learn programming and robotics. There's a fairly small town called San José Villanueva near San Salvador, so if you want more info I can hook you up with the people responsible.
Because it's free market!
I hope he caries his katana with him at all times!
Last time I checked, people were still having sex. Our species is safe for now.
Still, the author should be able to claim damages to his moral rights. I think he has a case.
Maybe overhead, but you also have to take into account the return for the investment in the equipment and the buildings, especially if they have to do heavy remodelings often.
So in that case it's not a 'copyright' issue, but an unfair competition issue for misleading the public. It would fall into the category of 'intellectual property' but it's not copyright per se.
This sounds more like an industrial design, and there is a specific type of IP design to protect a shape for a product. There is no need for an open source hardware project to be completely novel, so what he should just do is release the blueprints of his guitar under a GPL license. This is what most people are doing nowadays. Now, if you *really* wish to create something novel, you should then engage a community of luthiers and enthusiasts to develop your design even further.
I might if you place a nail between the hammer and the disk.
Well, as long as there is oxygen around, things should combust.
Adding to this comment, we can also say that if a whole market structure rests upon the big guys' intellectual property, the business model will not be sustainable for the small businesses.
The title makes it sound as if the Occupy Wall Street was replicated around the world. The truth is, the US started after everyone had done something like that. We had our movement of "Indignados" in El Salvador about two months ago, so it's not as if the United States started with it, so it looks as if the editor didn't know about what was happening in the world by the time the movement started in the US.
It's not rocket science. If one method doesn't work, you try the other.
Isn't it too descriptive to be a trademark to begin with?
Oh come on. I remember Microsoft's Bing doing some toasting> of their own on Google/a.
Most of the involvement of the US is well known in all countries. The only thing people can have now is unofficial confirmation of it.
Copyright pending? Does that term actually exist? I thought you had the copyright over something the moment you create it.