It's not a study. California is reacting to IARC's classification of GaAs as a human carcinogen. IARC is a part of WHO (World Health Organization).
This classification is the highest danger level in the IARC hierarchy (Group 1 Human Carcinogen). There are only about 90 or so materials to receive this rating.
Mercury metal is not classified as a carcinogen at all. It's main danger is elsewhere such as Minamata disease.
I have come to think it is mass marketing and advertising that really makes people unhappy; the goal is to make people want some consumerish things - people go into debt and feel stressed from that; if they resist the advertising they feel stress from the fact that they are not conforming - at least from the image of conforming that modern advertising presents.
There was a study some years ago that showed the Amish were the happiest people in America. I'd bet the main reason is that they aree pretty much isolated from the attacks of advertisers on their psyche.
Obviously I am not getting through to the GPL fanbois here. Maybe shouting will help.
THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THE GPL LICENSE TERMS ARE TOO COMPLEX AND IMPACT THE ENTIRE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. A 15 PAGE DOCUMENT LIKE THE ONE THE ARTICLE REFERS TO IS *NOT* REALISTIC. ASSURING COMPLIANCE IS DIFFICULT AND OVER A MULTI-YEAR SDLC WITHIN A SIGNIFICANTLY SIZED ORGANIZATION LIKELY IMPOSSIBLE.
A lot of companies cannot realistically use 3rd party software under these conditions. Licenses like artistic, apache, BSD etc are fine. GPL is not.
And no, I don't care how many of you idiots try to shut me up by moderating my posts as 'troll'. People on Slashdot like to take great exception to any external agency tries to censor people, but they seem to embrace with great glee the opportunity to do it within their own community. What a bunch of hypocrites.
You want to know what is so bad about the GPL? Anything that takes 15 pages to explain how to be compliant and contains recommendations that you change your software development process as part of it is a significant problem. And did you notice those terms that copyright owners might impose? They could cripple a small company (and most software development companies are small).
And that is just GPLv2. GPLv3 and the patent bar makes it even worse. Companies often have to defend themselves from patent infringement suits by using countersuits, or at least threatening countersuits, and the GPLv3 is booby-trapped to prevent that. You could potentially destroy a company through this.
And what do you do with a GPL library? You have to release all of the code you link to it? That is a very poor trade off. The FSF is encouraging authors to release libraries under GPL. That makes them worthless for many commercial applications. Even LGPL is not so good because static linking makes it viral.
As to those who question my use of the term 'commercial'? Sorry that you don't like it but it is the common vernacular. Please suggest a different term rather than name calling and insults.
Sorry you don't like my telling it the way it is. I didn't expect to get a cheering reception but the facts are the facts.
GPL is DANGEROUS if you are selling software. I am sure if you ask Richard Stallman he will tell you it was done that way intentionally. His agenda to change the way the software industry is well known.
Exactly. The result is that I have been advising my employer to remove dependencies on GPL and LGPL software from all of our products. Either take a commercial license, find an alternative that has a more permissive licence or roll your own.
look at the history of Olympic and World Championship women's gymnastics victories since the first age limit was introduced in 1980 and you will see that the vast majority of medals went to older gymnasts and not to 14- and 16-year-olds. As it turns out, what matters is not the width of athlete's hips but skills and consistency in their performances. And consistency comes with psychological maturity.
How do you know any of the reported ages are correct? Age falsification is not new:
It is well known that the athletic performance of women undergoes significant changes. It affects not only gymnastics but also ice skating, running, other sports. It also affects injury rates. For example ACL injuries occur at a much higher frequency rate in females after menarche.
Here is a link to one of the many studies on this topic:
"Delayed menarche, menstrual irregularities, and low body fat are common in elite rhythmic gymnasts. Premenarcheal gymnasts train more often and for longer, and have a lower body mass index and less body fat, than menarcheal gymnasts. Prospective studies are needed to explore further these and other factors associated with delayed menarche and menstrual irregularities in female athletes."
There are physiological advantages as well. The less experience you have under this sort of pressure, the less likely you are to have built up a reaction to it.
This is why inexperienced troops were used during the first waves on D-Day.
You misunderstand the issue - being 14 is an advantage, not a disadvantage. The Chinese begin training their gymnasts at age 3, and their peak performance age is generally 12-14; not much older than when they start menstruating. Hips widen, BMI increases, etc. The physiological changes that occur after this age generally make it more difficult for female gymnasts to perform these acrobatics.
The normal electrolysis of water efficiencies usually reported includes the losses that go into generation of electricity. If you don't have that step (like with a solar cell that is generating electricity) the efficiency is pretty good (50-80%).
The employer could easily fire you for conducting the prior art search in the first place.
A lot of lawyers will recommend against doing such a search because if you find a patent that you are infringing you then become liable for triple damages because you are knowingly infringing on the patent.
A lawyer may well advise the company NOT to do a prior art search for that reason. If you go and do one contrary to legal advice you could get into some pretty severe trouble, including definitely getting fired.
Patent portfolios are a valuable asset in the modern business world.
They can be EXTREMELY valuable to a small company. My employer is being basically pushed out of business because they do not have the $3 million needed to defend against an infringement suit by a competing company - not much different in size, but with some investment capital backing.
The end result is that our competitor may end up owning the niche we are both operating in.
I am pretty annoyed by this, for the obvious reasons, plus the very poor management of the company I work for - having essentially no retained earnings or access to capital is extraordinarily bad management.
A standard employment contract can be very explicit and direct on the matter of signing over your patent rights to your employer.
And don't think that being willing to give up your job would end the matter. If you refuse your employer could assert their rights over your invention in court, and potentially sue you personally to force compliance with this contract.
This is a case where you are clearly not going to win.
Slashdot Mirror
We're sorry, but the Democratic Convention video web site isn't compatible with your operating system and/or browser.
Phew. That's a relief.
It's not a study. California is reacting to IARC's classification of GaAs as a human carcinogen. IARC is a part of WHO (World Health Organization).
This classification is the highest danger level in the IARC hierarchy (Group 1 Human Carcinogen). There are only about 90 or so materials to receive this rating.
Mercury metal is not classified as a carcinogen at all. It's main danger is elsewhere such as Minamata disease.
I have come to think it is mass marketing and advertising that really makes people unhappy; the goal is to make people want some consumerish things - people go into debt and feel stressed from that; if they resist the advertising they feel stress from the fact that they are not conforming - at least from the image of conforming that modern advertising presents.
There was a study some years ago that showed the Amish were the happiest people in America. I'd bet the main reason is that they aree pretty much isolated from the attacks of advertisers on their psyche.
Obviously I am not getting through to the GPL fanbois here. Maybe shouting will help.
THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THE GPL LICENSE TERMS ARE TOO COMPLEX AND IMPACT THE ENTIRE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. A 15 PAGE DOCUMENT LIKE THE ONE THE ARTICLE REFERS TO IS *NOT* REALISTIC. ASSURING COMPLIANCE IS DIFFICULT AND OVER A MULTI-YEAR SDLC WITHIN A SIGNIFICANTLY SIZED ORGANIZATION LIKELY IMPOSSIBLE.
A lot of companies cannot realistically use 3rd party software under these conditions. Licenses like artistic, apache, BSD etc are fine. GPL is not.
And no, I don't care how many of you idiots try to shut me up by moderating my posts as 'troll'. People on Slashdot like to take great exception to any external agency tries to censor people, but they seem to embrace with great glee the opportunity to do it within their own community. What a bunch of hypocrites.
You want to know what is so bad about the GPL? Anything that takes 15 pages to explain how to be compliant and contains recommendations that you change your software development process as part of it is a significant problem. And did you notice those terms that copyright owners might impose? They could cripple a small company (and most software development companies are small).
And that is just GPLv2. GPLv3 and the patent bar makes it even worse. Companies often have to defend themselves from patent infringement suits by using countersuits, or at least threatening countersuits, and the GPLv3 is booby-trapped to prevent that. You could potentially destroy a company through this.
And what do you do with a GPL library? You have to release all of the code you link to it? That is a very poor trade off. The FSF is encouraging authors to release libraries under GPL. That makes them worthless for many commercial applications. Even LGPL is not so good because static linking makes it viral.
As to those who question my use of the term 'commercial'? Sorry that you don't like it but it is the common vernacular. Please suggest a different term rather than name calling and insults.
Sorry you don't like my telling it the way it is. I didn't expect to get a cheering reception but the facts are the facts.
GPL is DANGEROUS if you are selling software. I am sure if you ask Richard Stallman he will tell you it was done that way intentionally. His agenda to change the way the software industry is well known.
Now all I need is artificial intelligence and plastic personality to go.
Exactly. The result is that I have been advising my employer to remove dependencies on GPL and LGPL software from all of our products. Either take a commercial license, find an alternative that has a more permissive licence or roll your own.
You probably also want a user interface that does what you mean, not what you said.
Here is an article regarding cannibalization of CD sales by DVDs for your entertainment:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/03/cd_no_dvd.html
It is NOT outlets like iTunes OR piracy OR music quality that is depressing CD sales.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070209/082603.shtml
iTunes is just ONE retailer of music that accounts for 75% of online sales. There are MANY CD retailers.
CD sales still account for the vast majority of music sales:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444575607043728-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQyNDE1Wj.html
Now mod my VERY insightful original posting back up.
mp3's still only account for 15% of music sales.
They really aren't that strong a competitor to CD's.
The real competitor for consumer's money is the DVD.
The iPod spells doom for the pop music CD. All the other music genres are doing fine on CD.
I'm not particularly a fan of web apps, but I sure can understand why the IT guys love not having to install all these apps on their client machines.
look at the history of Olympic and World Championship women's gymnastics victories since the first age limit was introduced in 1980 and you will see that the vast majority of medals went to older gymnasts and not to 14- and 16-year-olds. As it turns out, what matters is not the width of athlete's hips but skills and consistency in their performances. And consistency comes with psychological maturity.
How do you know any of the reported ages are correct? Age falsification is not new:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_controversies_in_gymnastics
Here is another article on the topic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-francis/female-gymnastics-is-alwa_b_119067.html
It is well known that the athletic performance of women undergoes significant changes. It affects not only gymnastics but also ice skating, running, other sports. It also affects injury rates. For example ACL injuries occur at a much higher frequency rate in females after menarche.
Here is a link to one of the many studies on this topic:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/6/490
"Delayed menarche, menstrual irregularities, and low body fat are common in elite rhythmic gymnasts. Premenarcheal gymnasts train more often and for longer, and have a lower body mass index and less body fat, than menarcheal gymnasts. Prospective studies are needed to explore further these and other factors associated with delayed menarche and menstrual irregularities in female athletes."
There are physiological advantages as well. The less experience you have under this sort of pressure, the less likely you are to have built up a reaction to it.
This is why inexperienced troops were used during the first waves on D-Day.
Suppose somebody gets hurt? Are you ready to handle a big personal liability lawsuit?
I would NOT do what you are describing.
You misunderstand the issue - being 14 is an advantage, not a disadvantage. The Chinese begin training their gymnasts at age 3, and their peak performance age is generally 12-14; not much older than when they start menstruating. Hips widen, BMI increases, etc. The physiological changes that occur after this age generally make it more difficult for female gymnasts to perform these acrobatics.
Solar Cell efficiency = 20%. Electrolysis = 50%, overall = 10%
Photosynthesis = 6%
Solar Cell wins!
DUH!!!
The normal electrolysis of water efficiencies usually reported includes the losses that go into generation of electricity. If you don't have that step (like with a solar cell that is generating electricity) the efficiency is pretty good (50-80%).
Why not just put in a solar panel? 3x the efficiency of the best plants and none of those messy chemicals, plus much better applicability.
How can you demonstrate that you have fixed the reported bug if you can't recreate it in the first place?
That is why I stated you have to log the process inputs.
In any case reproducing the bug can really be a severe challenge because of the non-deterministic nature of modern software.
You don't think that the inventor is going to be able to submit the patent without review by the company lawyers, do you?
The best hope I think is that the patent process is fairly expensive, and there are maintenance fees required to keep the patent active.
Play up the costs to your boss. He may loose interest when he finds out a patent is going to cost $20,000 or more over its lifetime.
The employer could easily fire you for conducting the prior art search in the first place.
A lot of lawyers will recommend against doing such a search because if you find a patent that you are infringing you then become liable for triple damages because you are knowingly infringing on the patent.
A lawyer may well advise the company NOT to do a prior art search for that reason. If you go and do one contrary to legal advice you could get into some pretty severe trouble, including definitely getting fired.
Patent portfolios are a valuable asset in the modern business world.
They can be EXTREMELY valuable to a small company. My employer is being basically pushed out of business because they do not have the $3 million needed to defend against an infringement suit by a competing company - not much different in size, but with some investment capital backing.
The end result is that our competitor may end up owning the niche we are both operating in.
I am pretty annoyed by this, for the obvious reasons, plus the very poor management of the company I work for - having essentially no retained earnings or access to capital is extraordinarily bad management.
It depends on your employment contract.
A standard employment contract can be very explicit and direct on the matter of signing over your patent rights to your employer.
And don't think that being willing to give up your job would end the matter. If you refuse your employer could assert their rights over your invention in court, and potentially sue you personally to force compliance with this contract.
This is a case where you are clearly not going to win.