Do you even KNOW what a PPC processor is? It is no great leap to go from 68k to PPC.. their cores are very similar, as are the compilers.
Not only that, but porting a WELL DESIGNED OS is not a terribly difficult task. Just because Microsoft is incapable of doing it doesn't make Apple that wonderful.
I can't be bothered to go through the effort of learning to properly fly a jet aircraft. Why don't they make airplanes easier to fly? I would love for my mentally challenged cousin (he has an I.Q. of 47) to feel the exhilaration of flying, but IT'S JUST TOO HARD!
What is up with the Lear Jet designers??? Can't they make the damn things easier for the average person to fly?
Re:It goes against reason, check your bible !
on
New Human Ancestor?
·
· Score: 2
AH FUCK. Moderate me (and my parent) down... I've been trolled.
Nice one dude.
Re:This confirms speculation that pre-humans have
on
New Human Ancestor?
·
· Score: 2
You forgot:
5) were not decended from monkeys were like smarter and stuff and we dont fling shit at eachto ther and like have sex all the time how can you believe in this evelotion stuff its dont make sense its an insult im way smarter than a monky or an ape.
Those are my FAVORITE posts.
Re:It goes against reason, check your bible !
on
New Human Ancestor?
·
· Score: 2
How did this completely content free post get moderated up?
Who said we were DECENDED from monkeys?
Genetic analysis says we have common ANCESTRY. You may as well throw out your belief in modern medicine, because there is absolutely NO doubt that we share a significant amount of genetic material.
And I'd REALLY like to see a palm-reader (or the Pope even) build a plane that flies. Which plane would you rather board, one powered by the Pope's faith it won't plummet to the earth, or some hair brained scientist's "unfounded" faith in the "religion" of aerodynamics?
Having said that, I can see why awarding the one-click patent to Amazon might rub people the wrong way. There isn't a substantially new discovery or technique in their claim. In fact, it looks more like the machinations of their IP attorneys.
The problem is exactly that. Patent battles have become (by and large) exactly that. Lengthy legal wrangling over patent portfolios. The patent system as it exists today neither 1) fosters innovation nor does it 2) rewards the innovator.
This, combined with the fact that many of us (although certainly not all) question the whole concept of intellectual property, brings us to the broad, sweeping conclusion that patents are bad, mmmmkay?
And a nice intellectual property discussion would be woefully incomplete without this gem (seeing as somebody inevitably brings up the constitutional heritage of patents/copyrights):
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
You are missing the point. Information wants to be free, but the government keeps granting corporations welfare concessions allowing them to 1) resell information and 2) prosecute anybody who has the same information and also wants to sell it.
If there were actual competition, I could re-wrap up the CDDB, and resell it for cheaper. Somebody else could do the same, until the cost approached zero (or very close to the actual cost of distribution).
However, corporations really hate this sort of thing and spend billions a year trying to convince you (and Congress) that they have a God-given right to make money on everything, whether they compete for it or not. Hence our history of hack upon hack to impede the free flow of information.
In the end, short of a police state, their efforts are futile, but in the meantime, we have to put up with a lot of stupidity.
The reward for coming up with a successful business practice is... drum roll... success. If you are RELYING on the fact that you have an artificial monopoly in your particular business niche, it simply means you can't compete.
the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent.
To bad your argument relies on this.. because a patent on a "one button starting" of a car sounds even more ludicrous than One-Click ordering.
Bottom line: the idea that anything at all is patentable is really a step backward. Time to ditch the whole system; it really is wholly broken.
Patent battles very rarely end up with the "innovator" winning. The more we allow this "patenting solves all common-good problems" meme to flourish, the more we are hindering REAL progress.
"16. The Government does not, however, accept the view - asserted by some respondents - that Open Source software is threatened by the existing extent of patentability. This seems to fly in the face of the facts, notably that during the last decade Open Source software has flourished."
Excuse me, but I find this blatantly stupid. I see NO positive causal link between the two - in the absence of proving no negative correlation, how can you POSSIBLY that OSS would have flourished LESS if patents simply didn't exist?
This is like saying that seatbelts cause more fatal accidents. After all, there has been an increase in the number of seatbelts in the US. Similarly, the number of fatalities has increased as well.
Who ever wrote this little piece of FUD needs a sharp thwack with a clue stick.
I'm happy to say I rode the internet wave by actually paying attention to the difference between hype and reality. Guess what? I'm in a position to retire before 40.
Too many people made too many poor decisions, and are now blaming their short-sightedness on others. Wake up and smell the coffee, and take responsibility for the things you do.
The odds that there is NO life on this planet is zero.
The odds that there IS life on this planet is 1.
If there are N planets in this universe, and a percentage of them have life on them, the odds that you exist on one of the planets with life is 1.
This is a statistical FACT regardless of what the percentage is. It doesn't matter how many planets there are. There may ONLY be one planet with life. Even if that were true, the odds are exactly 1 that you are living on it.
Your (sad) statistical analysis is analogous to rolling a 100 sided die, then claiming that because you rolled, say, a 43, that ONLY a miracle could have caused it. After all, the odds of you rolling a 43 are 1/100 right?
If you go the evolution route then what's to stop life from evolving on Mars or anywhere else. If there's enough random chance for it to happen here then why not everywhere? I personally don't buy this because there's not enough particles in the universe to allow that much random chance, but if you belive it's possible for life to evolve here then it seems logical to assume that it could evolve anywhere.
Care to back this unfortunate bit of psuedo-science with some actual numbers? Do you have any REAL grasp as to how easy it its to get a bunch of complex proteins to form in a nice warm bath of hydrocarbons and water and a bit of electricity? Do you have any real grasp of exactly HOW large the universe is? Do you have any real grasp of exactly how OLD the universe is? How about the Earth.
Oh wait, I forgot. Earth is only 6000 years old. Gosh, you're right! There is NO way life could develop in the span of 6000 years!
Since the moderators are seemingly out to lunch, I will blow a bit of auto-karma to quote this guy's post.
1) Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific method.
2) Shaking bar magnets can result in chains, but it's unlikely. A lower energy config is clumping. (Try the experiment in 2D. Get a bunch of little bar magnets, put 'em in a shoebox, and shake. See what you get. Clumps?:-)
3) Experiments are also a healthy part of the scientific method.
Re:This could be bad news for manned space travel.
on
Life On Mars: ALH84001
·
· Score: 3
Unless we invent a time machine this won't be a problem.
Where in the article were you led to believe that there is CURRENTLY life on Mars?
Or perhaps it was a different article than I read.
The one I read indicated the rock was 3.9 billion years old.
The annoying thing is that people are "morally outraged" when they discover a spy. Sure, punish him (as a deterrent to others, and an example) but pretending that YOU are always on the ethical right is the height of hubris. There are other countries (not just Russia). They are filled with people who think THEY are ethically "right".
Who the FUCK do you think you are to exlaim moral outrage?
Plus, whoever moderated the parent as "offtopic" should be rounded up and shot along with this spy...
Agreed. I see a lot of people are saying that various things that Allchin said implies that Microsoft wants to outlaw open source. But since nowhere does it say that in the article
[emphasis mine]
imply (m-pl)
v. tr. implied, implying, implies.
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at infer.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.
Note definition #2.
You have managed to define "imply". Congratulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you even KNOW what a PPC processor is? It is no great leap to go from 68k to PPC.. their cores are very similar, as are the compilers.
Not only that, but porting a WELL DESIGNED OS is not a terribly difficult task. Just because Microsoft is incapable of doing it doesn't make Apple that wonderful.
I can't be bothered to go through the effort of learning to properly fly a jet aircraft. Why don't they make airplanes easier to fly? I would love for my mentally challenged cousin (he has an I.Q. of 47) to feel the exhilaration of flying, but IT'S JUST TOO HARD!
What is up with the Lear Jet designers??? Can't they make the damn things easier for the average person to fly?
AH FUCK. Moderate me (and my parent) down... I've been trolled.
Nice one dude.
You forgot:
5) were not decended from monkeys were like smarter and stuff and we dont fling shit at eachto ther and like have sex all the time how can you believe in this evelotion stuff its dont make sense its an insult im way smarter than a monky or an ape.
Those are my FAVORITE posts.
How did this completely content free post get moderated up?
Who said we were DECENDED from monkeys?
Genetic analysis says we have common ANCESTRY. You may as well throw out your belief in modern medicine, because there is absolutely NO doubt that we share a significant amount of genetic material.
And I'd REALLY like to see a palm-reader (or the Pope even) build a plane that flies. Which plane would you rather board, one powered by the Pope's faith it won't plummet to the earth, or some hair brained scientist's "unfounded" faith in the "religion" of aerodynamics?
Having said that, I can see why awarding the one-click patent to Amazon might rub people the wrong way. There isn't a substantially new discovery or technique in their claim. In fact, it looks more like the machinations of their IP attorneys.
The problem is exactly that. Patent battles have become (by and large) exactly that. Lengthy legal wrangling over patent portfolios. The patent system as it exists today neither 1) fosters innovation nor does it 2) rewards the innovator.
This, combined with the fact that many of us (although certainly not all) question the whole concept of intellectual property, brings us to the broad, sweeping conclusion that patents are bad, mmmmkay?
And a nice intellectual property discussion would be woefully incomplete without this gem (seeing as somebody inevitably brings up the constitutional heritage of patents/copyrights):
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
You are missing the point. Information wants to be free, but the government keeps granting corporations welfare concessions allowing them to 1) resell information and 2) prosecute anybody who has the same information and also wants to sell it.
If there were actual competition, I could re-wrap up the CDDB, and resell it for cheaper. Somebody else could do the same, until the cost approached zero (or very close to the actual cost of distribution).
However, corporations really hate this sort of thing and spend billions a year trying to convince you (and Congress) that they have a God-given right to make money on everything, whether they compete for it or not. Hence our history of hack upon hack to impede the free flow of information.
In the end, short of a police state, their efforts are futile, but in the meantime, we have to put up with a lot of stupidity.
"Why is this moderated troll?"
Because
1) it is a troll.
2) trolling is all this guy is good for. Look at his pathetic posting history.
The reward for coming up with a successful business practice is ... drum roll... success. If you are RELYING on the fact that you have an artificial monopoly in your particular business niche, it simply means you can't compete.
the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent.
To bad your argument relies on this.. because a patent on a "one button starting" of a car sounds even more ludicrous than One-Click ordering.
Bottom line: the idea that anything at all is patentable is really a step backward. Time to ditch the whole system; it really is wholly broken.
Patent battles very rarely end up with the "innovator" winning. The more we allow this "patenting solves all common-good problems" meme to flourish, the more we are hindering REAL progress.
In case you STILL haven't figured out how this statement is simply stupid, I have a few case studies for you to research.
1) LZW
2) RSA
3) Frauenhofer
Any of those sound familiar? If not, don't bother responding.
Somebody needs a lesson in causality. That statement is wrong in SO many ways, it makes my head hurt that people are buying it.
First, prove a causal link. THEN prove that the link is positive and not negative. You will be hard pressed to prove the first, let alone the second.
"16. The Government does not, however, accept the view - asserted by some respondents - that Open Source software is threatened by the existing extent of patentability. This seems to fly in the face of the facts, notably that during the last decade Open Source software has flourished."
Excuse me, but I find this blatantly stupid. I see NO positive causal link between the two - in the absence of proving no negative correlation, how can you POSSIBLY that OSS would have flourished LESS if patents simply didn't exist?
This is like saying that seatbelts cause more fatal accidents. After all, there has been an increase in the number of seatbelts in the US. Similarly, the number of fatalities has increased as well.
Who ever wrote this little piece of FUD needs a sharp thwack with a clue stick.
I'm happy to say I rode the internet wave by actually paying attention to the difference between hype and reality. Guess what? I'm in a position to retire before 40.
Too many people made too many poor decisions, and are now blaming their short-sightedness on others. Wake up and smell the coffee, and take responsibility for the things you do.
Net result: Nobody makes any new music (commercially), since there's no money in it.
Fine. Works for me.
I'd rather listen to music that people make for the love of music itself anyway.
I can live without 99.9999999% of the rest of the garbage.
You are in DIRE need of a statistics class.
The odds that there is NO life on this planet is zero.
The odds that there IS life on this planet is 1.
If there are N planets in this universe, and a percentage of them have life on them, the odds that you exist on one of the planets with life is 1.
This is a statistical FACT regardless of what the percentage is. It doesn't matter how many planets there are. There may ONLY be one planet with life. Even if that were true, the odds are exactly 1 that you are living on it.
Your (sad) statistical analysis is analogous to rolling a 100 sided die, then claiming that because you rolled, say, a 43, that ONLY a miracle could have caused it. After all, the odds of you rolling a 43 are 1/100 right?
Dig?
If you go the evolution route then what's to stop life from evolving on Mars or anywhere else. If there's enough random chance for it to happen here then why not everywhere? I personally don't buy this because there's not enough particles in the universe to allow that much random chance, but if you belive it's possible for life to evolve here then it seems logical to assume that it could evolve anywhere.
Care to back this unfortunate bit of psuedo-science with some actual numbers? Do you have any REAL grasp as to how easy it its to get a bunch of complex proteins to form in a nice warm bath of hydrocarbons and water and a bit of electricity? Do you have any real grasp of exactly HOW large the universe is? Do you have any real grasp of exactly how OLD the universe is? How about the Earth.
Oh wait, I forgot. Earth is only 6000 years old. Gosh, you're right! There is NO way life could develop in the span of 6000 years!
chortle
As usual, religion is very resistant to any criticsm. I doubt very much anybody's faith is going to be terribly shaken.
Start with the concept of an omnescient, omnipotent being, and anything that follows is pretty much impervious to logic.
The faithful, of course, see this as a feature, not a bug, however.
You may as well try to explain nuclear physics to a tree sloth.
As somebody already pointed out in a different thread, mixing a box of magnets will form clumps, not chains.
;)
Try it.
Then post your results
Since the moderators are seemingly out to lunch, I will blow a bit of auto-karma to quote this guy's post.
:-)
1) Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific method.
2) Shaking bar magnets can result in chains, but it's unlikely. A lower energy config is clumping. (Try the experiment in 2D. Get a bunch of little bar magnets, put 'em in a shoebox, and shake. See what you get. Clumps?
3) Experiments are also a healthy part of the scientific method.
Unless we invent a time machine this won't be a problem.
Where in the article were you led to believe that there is CURRENTLY life on Mars?
Or perhaps it was a different article than I read.
The one I read indicated the rock was 3.9 billion years old.
Did you even bother to read this before sitting down at your keyboard and wasting all our time?
The annoying thing is that people are "morally outraged" when they discover a spy. Sure, punish him (as a deterrent to others, and an example) but pretending that YOU are always on the ethical right is the height of hubris. There are other countries (not just Russia). They are filled with people who think THEY are ethically "right".
Who the FUCK do you think you are to exlaim moral outrage?
Plus, whoever moderated the parent as "offtopic" should be rounded up and shot along with this spy...
Is there a way to moderate a post as "stupid" or "ignorant"?
Agreed. I see a lot of people are saying that various things that Allchin said implies that Microsoft wants to outlaw open source. But since nowhere does it say that in the article
[emphasis mine]
imply (m-pl)
v. tr. implied, implying, implies.
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at infer.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.
Note definition #2.
You have managed to define "imply". Congratulations.