You seem like a tool. The 10 second thing was accurate for a long time, even if it was an average. What kind of tool interupts a speaker instead of asking a question at the end?
Because people are afraid of change. Not just Americans (clang_jangle if you're reading this, USian is still not a term). Most current metric countries had the metric system forced on them by the government, so they had no choice but to adapt. Until the US government makes a similar move (which it will eventually) the anachronistic imperial system is there to stay. Just as in the UK.
No. By failing to have Batman create Joker the classic and iconic co-dependent rivalry the two have was not present, and was a poorer movie because of it.
QuickPay is similar to what is in most other countries, with the exception of being specific to Chase bank. In Australia as an example, every bank has a BSB (a branch number) and an account number. If I wanted you to transfer money into my account, I give you both. There is no security risk, as you can not do anything with the account number by itself, at all. You can transfer money to me with that information from any bank, for free. Most countries have a similar system. Hence, checks have been obsolete for some time.
Oh, away from the internet? You can do exactly the same thing by phone banking, which is a bit more of a pain to use but works just as well, or you could go into a branch and setup the transfer. You can have a checkbook if you really want one, but you have to request it and would likely be charged for it as it just isnt used that much anymore.
Yes, it can. It's exactly the same issues as being able to be persecuted for having sex with a child, even if you do so in a country where it may be legal. If your government makes a law that you can't do something in a different country, then you can't do that. You know, like spending money in Cuba.
She hasn't overstepped her bounds. If he breaks a US court order that specifies him from doing something outside of the US, then he will be accountable when he returns to the US.
It's people like you that are holding back progress. Abortions are a good thing. Are you really telling me society should not foot the bill to help women abort rape babies, or when the pregnancy may seriously endanger the life of the pregnant woman? Abortion is not just about changing your mind later on, and you need to realize that. In an ideal world, you wouldn't even have a say.
Batman is the more realistic of the lot due to actually training himself for over a decade in all the skills he is a master in. No one compares, to the extent he has trained his mind. Someone significantly weaker than his superpowered counterparts and can regularly beat them with ease. Making is not just physical objects, but look at what else he has made. He single handle changed Gotham and inspired a new generation of heroes.
Anyway enough mancrushing..., lets look at the competitors.
Lex Luthor
- A genius top be sure, but not so much a maker. He is much better at manipulating people....his powersuits and such don't often accomplish their goals....
Tony Stark (Ironman)
- A drunk with access to nice toys. That's it.
Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic)
- Impressive, but always just makes whats needed in the nick of time, doesn't compare to Batman.
Querl Dox (Brainiac 5)
- Access to 1000 years of technological progress, and should be disregarded.
Ted Kord (Blue Beetle) - Like Cyborg, benefitted from Technology, didn't really engineer it.
Victor Stone (Cyborg)
- Not really an engineer, someone who benefited from advanced technology.
Phineas Mason (The Terrible Tinkerer)
- No Idea
Jonathan Silvercloud Forge (Also called: The Maker, Genesis)
- No Idea.
Michael Holt (Mister Terrific)
- No Idea
Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias)
- Not really an engineer at all...nothing he made was particular impressive...unless you count the whole squid plan....
Angela “Angie” Spica (Engineer)
- No Idea
Paul Norbert Ebersol (The Fixer)
- No Idea
Victor von Doom (Doctor Doom)
- Relies on powers and political power more than engineering anything, at the most at reed's level.
Chrome did not invent the majority of those features. It's main innovations are in security, per process tabs and plugins, and significantly slimming down the user interface.
Of course, this seems to be at the cost of have even basic configurability, a decent extensions framework and an extreme lack of configurability. I'm aware I mentioned configurability twice, but that's because it's extremely jarring to see such a great browser technically that doesn't let you customize it in the slightest.
If I have a device running honeycomb and request the source, don't google have to release it to me immediately? Not 1 year from now or when they decide it's ok?
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.
The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.
It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.
Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.
A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant.
A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.
As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.
It doesn't even solve any problems, is inferior to the standard convention, so why use it?
The US is the only country in North America with the word America in it's name. Thus, it becomes clear as to which people 'Americans' refers.
Mexico is the United States of Mexico. Does USian refer to people from Mexico, or the USA?
The only argument for USian is that using American would cause confusion if talking about people from the continent. Luckily, aside from this little thing called context, we also have the clear and easy to understand terms 'North American' and 'People from the Americas'.
USian does not solve anything and creates additional problems. It's an idiotic term used by idiots. Give up, and be at peace with being an American (as stated on your passport).
Not everybody in society has the means to afford their own healthcare. Any decent society should look after people with at least basic health care. You may not like something that benefits everyone, but then that's probably just due to ignorance.
You've been fooled by hollywood. A sociopath has trouble expressing emotion and feeling empathy. This does not mean all sociopaths are hellbent on seeking power and manipulating anyone they can to acquire it. They are not rockstar vatican assassins capable of mimicking any normal emotion to further their own goals. Do some research and stop watching CSI.
The book is simply a journey of a marine. It has no depth andisn't a smart read, except for the odd sentence or two where a controversial idea is made. The movie explores many of the themes brushed upon in the book in further detail through satire.
Sorry, it is common sense, and you obviously don't understand how citations work if you're asking for one for an opinion. An opinion for which a logical argument can be made and inferred from the available evidence
Slashdot Mirror
Or, not everybody who posts here bothers to have an account. The hating on AC thing is retarded.
You seem like a tool. The 10 second thing was accurate for a long time, even if it was an average. What kind of tool interupts a speaker instead of asking a question at the end?
That quote is from CSI, Antitrust was actually not to bad....
USian simply creates a different set of problems, and more of them. American is a better term, for a great many reasons. Deal with it.
Because people are afraid of change. Not just Americans (clang_jangle if you're reading this, USian is still not a term). Most current metric countries had the metric system forced on them by the government, so they had no choice but to adapt. Until the US government makes a similar move (which it will eventually) the anachronistic imperial system is there to stay. Just as in the UK.
No. By failing to have Batman create Joker the classic and iconic co-dependent rivalry the two have was not present, and was a poorer movie because of it.
Oh, away from the internet? You can do exactly the same thing by phone banking, which is a bit more of a pain to use but works just as well, or you could go into a branch and setup the transfer. You can have a checkbook if you really want one, but you have to request it and would likely be charged for it as it just isnt used that much anymore.
In Australia, NZ the UK and Germany it is free.
The rest of the world moved past checks about 10 years ago. We just transfer money between accounts securely, conveniently and relatively speedily.
Yes, it can. It's exactly the same issues as being able to be persecuted for having sex with a child, even if you do so in a country where it may be legal. If your government makes a law that you can't do something in a different country, then you can't do that. You know, like spending money in Cuba.
She hasn't overstepped her bounds. If he breaks a US court order that specifies him from doing something outside of the US, then he will be accountable when he returns to the US.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's people like you that are holding back progress. Abortions are a good thing. Are you really telling me society should not foot the bill to help women abort rape babies, or when the pregnancy may seriously endanger the life of the pregnant woman? Abortion is not just about changing your mind later on, and you need to realize that. In an ideal world, you wouldn't even have a say.
Anyway enough mancrushing..., lets look at the competitors.
- A genius top be sure, but not so much a maker. He is much better at manipulating people....his powersuits and such don't often accomplish their goals....
- A drunk with access to nice toys. That's it.
- Impressive, but always just makes whats needed in the nick of time, doesn't compare to Batman.
- Access to 1000 years of technological progress, and should be disregarded.
- Not really an engineer, someone who benefited from advanced technology.
- No Idea
- No Idea.
- No Idea
- Not really an engineer at all...nothing he made was particular impressive...unless you count the whole squid plan....
- No Idea
- No Idea
- Relies on powers and political power more than engineering anything, at the most at reed's level.
Batman wins.
Of course, this seems to be at the cost of have even basic configurability, a decent extensions framework and an extreme lack of configurability. I'm aware I mentioned configurability twice, but that's because it's extremely jarring to see such a great browser technically that doesn't let you customize it in the slightest.
If I have a device running honeycomb and request the source, don't google have to release it to me immediately? Not 1 year from now or when they decide it's ok?
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.
The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.
It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.
Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.
A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant. A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.
As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.
Jesus Christ Slashdot. You're meant to be a news site.
It doesn't even solve any problems, is inferior to the standard convention, so why use it?
The US is the only country in North America with the word America in it's name. Thus, it becomes clear as to which people 'Americans' refers.
Mexico is the United States of Mexico. Does USian refer to people from Mexico, or the USA?
The only argument for USian is that using American would cause confusion if talking about people from the continent. Luckily, aside from this little thing called context, we also have the clear and easy to understand terms 'North American' and 'People from the Americas'.
USian does not solve anything and creates additional problems. It's an idiotic term used by idiots. Give up, and be at peace with being an American (as stated on your passport).
Good boy.
Not everybody in society has the means to afford their own healthcare. Any decent society should look after people with at least basic health care. You may not like something that benefits everyone, but then that's probably just due to ignorance.
I say this as a non-american.
You've been fooled by hollywood. A sociopath has trouble expressing emotion and feeling empathy. This does not mean all sociopaths are hellbent on seeking power and manipulating anyone they can to acquire it. They are not rockstar vatican assassins capable of mimicking any normal emotion to further their own goals. Do some research and stop watching CSI.
The book is simply a journey of a marine. It has no depth andisn't a smart read, except for the odd sentence or two where a controversial idea is made. The movie explores many of the themes brushed upon in the book in further detail through satire.
Sorry, it is common sense, and you obviously don't understand how citations work if you're asking for one for an opinion. An opinion for which a logical argument can be made and inferred from the available evidence
Prove it.