For something so benign looking its interesting that the graphic on the front page of actuality-systems is a jet dropping a missile of some sort.
It seems that this technology could do a lot more than just model tumors and flight patterns: it could choreograph a perfect fight.. Ender's game anyone??
--
Geek?
Stop and think of this claim for a moment. A change this volatile would kill not only humans, but most of the world's higher lifeforms. If conditions are really going down that fast, we should see the death of all cold-blooded creatures by the end of the century (because of the increase in temperature.) In the history of the Earth there has not been that abrupt of a change short of a major dinosaur-like catastrophe. Realistically, yes, temperatures will change, but they'll change slowly enough that even some humans will be able to adapt. (They might not remain "human" per say, but thats off topic)
Lastly, aren't we up for an ice age in a millenia or two?
Along with the lines of what others have said, Amazon's patent on One-Click checkout is completely and unquestionably valid.
From the patent office website:
A patent may be obtained for any new, useful, unobvious invention.
A patent generally cannot be obtained on the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas;
One-click ordering, by the standards of the patent office, is not an obvious invention.
Also, its new because no one yet had turned in a patent (yes this isn't fair, but no one remembers these days that Bell didn't invent the telephone), and its obviously useful since BN is fighting over it.
Thus, Amazon is guaranteed to win since they have a valid patent.
The main problem is that there comes a point where every IT worker learns enough English to realize what the management has been saying the entire time.
At that point, he leaves and makes millions of his own.
If anybody minds an end to hypocratic bipartisanship they should speak against all that is said in this article, say politics is not on a waning slope, and find some cute windows program that promises to make the internet safe for you and your entire family.
Really, does no one else notice that this year there are more 3rd parties actaully recieving press time and being put on the ballot? They aren't there because they paid their way in ala Forbes and Perot; they are there because they actually have unique, controversial ideas and therefore appeal to the growing number of intellectual and cynical people in America.
This change has got to be because of the increase in technology and resulting overall prosperity of the nation. 3rd parties dont need to spend the millions on TV ads to get their message across, and besides, for most intelligent people the internet has become the informational tool of choice. Check out some parties' websites and you will see that for example the Libertarians have a much cleaner site with more non-propaganda content than either of the major parties. This is true of several 3rd parties.
When all have equal access to information about the parties, it really will become more a matter of who has the better platform and ideas, and not who has the better press or most relatives in Washington.
In addition, your infringing use also
dilutes the distinctiveness of the idealab! web site and numerous logo
designs by trading upon the goodwill and reputation that the public
associates with these designs.
Looking at it from the perspective of idealab! its actually a viable concern that their own public image will suffer as a result of f*ckedcompany using a modification of their logo.
If you were an investor, would you really want to put in your hard earned money to a place who (if you've seen the f*cked company website) almost declares its own upsoming downfall?
I think in the spirit of simple mockery (i.e., mentioning idealab! in one of its lists of the doomed) using the name and maybe even the correct logo is ok, as long as it stays associated with the correct company and is not modified... but using the logo as they do f*ckedcompany is guilty of being a collective jerk.
Maybe the government should spend more money on NASA and less money on medicare for elderly millionares.
Maybe the problem isn't really financial in nature. As other posters have pointed out, for the government to spend the equivalent of a small country's gross domestic product on a single company towards the production of a better aircraft is simply ludicrous. Yes, when they are competing with private companies and hold an obvious monopoly NASA+Lockheed Martin are considered more a company than selfless government institution.
What are the chances that once the X-33 has been produced that any firm competing with Lockheed-Martin will have the capital to create a similar machine for the commercial turn space flight is sure to take at some point in the next 100 years?
All is gained by this is a little bit more PR for politicians in an election year. Look at me, I'm so smart, I like space, vote for me. And the cost is only a step towards an economy based on government profit.
'Nuff said.
I think all of these universities should be congratulated for for one not bowing to the capitalist nature of modern society and at least pretending to take a stand for freedom of access to information. Surely, they don't mind either the press or the ability to mention to incoming freshman that no, we don't block Napster, have a blast.
I'll be interested to see whether universities that aren't as well endowed as Harvard or the UC's will also refuse Napster and risk what corporate weight RIAA has.
The magician Gates: "Look at my X-Box.. do not take your eyes of the X-Box while I divert everyones attention away from the evil that is Microsoft and pretend I'm happy spiffy Nintendo... Lookitmeee its Gatesio!"
Slashdot Mirror
For something so benign looking its interesting that the graphic on the front page of actuality-systems is a jet dropping a missile of some sort.
It seems that this technology could do a lot more than just model tumors and flight patterns: it could choreograph a perfect fight.. Ender's game anyone??
-- Geek?
Slashback has puppy dog eyes regarding CueCat?
Oh dear...
Stop and think of this claim for a moment. A change this volatile would kill not only humans, but most of the world's higher lifeforms. If conditions are really going down that fast, we should see the death of all cold-blooded creatures by the end of the century (because of the increase in temperature.) In the history of the Earth there has not been that abrupt of a change short of a major dinosaur-like catastrophe.
Realistically, yes, temperatures will change, but they'll change slowly enough that even some humans will be able to adapt. (They might not remain "human" per say, but thats off topic)
Lastly, aren't we up for an ice age in a millenia or two?
-guinan
Along with the lines of what others have said, Amazon's patent on One-Click checkout is completely and unquestionably valid.
From the patent office website:
A patent may be obtained for any new, useful, unobvious invention.
A patent generally cannot be obtained on the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas;
One-click ordering, by the standards of the patent office, is not an obvious invention.
Also, its new because no one yet had turned in a patent (yes this isn't fair, but no one remembers these days that Bell didn't invent the telephone), and its obviously useful since BN is fighting over it.
Thus, Amazon is guaranteed to win since they have a valid patent.
The main problem is that there comes a point where every IT worker learns enough English to realize what the management has been saying the entire time.
At that point, he leaves and makes millions of his own.
If anybody minds an end to hypocratic bipartisanship they should speak against all that is said in this article, say politics is not on a waning slope, and find some cute windows program that promises to make the internet safe for you and your entire family.
Really, does no one else notice that this year there are more 3rd parties actaully recieving press time and being put on the ballot? They aren't there because they paid their way in ala Forbes and Perot; they are there because they actually have unique, controversial ideas and therefore appeal to the growing number of intellectual and cynical people in America.
This change has got to be because of the increase in technology and resulting overall prosperity of the nation. 3rd parties dont need to spend the millions on TV ads to get their message across, and besides, for most intelligent people the internet has become the informational tool of choice. Check out some parties' websites and you will see that for example the Libertarians have a much cleaner site with more non-propaganda content than either of the major parties. This is true of several 3rd parties.
When all have equal access to information about the parties, it really will become more a matter of who has the better platform and ideas, and not who has the better press or most relatives in Washington.
From the idealab! letter:
In addition, your infringing use also dilutes the distinctiveness of the idealab! web site and numerous logo designs by trading upon the goodwill and reputation that the public associates with these designs.
Looking at it from the perspective of idealab! its actually a viable concern that their own public image will suffer as a result of f*ckedcompany using a modification of their logo.
If you were an investor, would you really want to put in your hard earned money to a place who (if you've seen the f*cked company website) almost declares its own upsoming downfall?
I think in the spirit of simple mockery (i.e., mentioning idealab! in one of its lists of the doomed) using the name and maybe even the correct logo is ok, as long as it stays associated with the correct company and is not modified... but using the logo as they do f*ckedcompany is guilty of being a collective jerk.
Maybe the government should spend more money on NASA and less money on medicare for elderly millionares. Maybe the problem isn't really financial in nature. As other posters have pointed out, for the government to spend the equivalent of a small country's gross domestic product on a single company towards the production of a better aircraft is simply ludicrous. Yes, when they are competing with private companies and hold an obvious monopoly NASA+Lockheed Martin are considered more a company than selfless government institution. What are the chances that once the X-33 has been produced that any firm competing with Lockheed-Martin will have the capital to create a similar machine for the commercial turn space flight is sure to take at some point in the next 100 years? All is gained by this is a little bit more PR for politicians in an election year. Look at me, I'm so smart, I like space, vote for me. And the cost is only a step towards an economy based on government profit. 'Nuff said.
I think all of these universities should be congratulated for for one not bowing to the capitalist nature of modern society and at least pretending to take a stand for freedom of access to information. Surely, they don't mind either the press or the ability to mention to incoming freshman that no, we don't block Napster, have a blast. I'll be interested to see whether universities that aren't as well endowed as Harvard or the UC's will also refuse Napster and risk what corporate weight RIAA has.
The magician Gates: "Look at my X-Box.. do not take your eyes of the X-Box while I divert everyones attention away from the evil that is Microsoft and pretend I'm happy spiffy Nintendo... Lookitmeee its Gatesio!"