unwrap() is for prototyping; it's like a try/catch, but you just panic if something fails. Again, super handy for prototyping, but typically a mistake to use.
Use try!() if you're writing a lib, or match (ie case switch) on the values returned by the function. Ones that can fail will usually return values wrapped in one of two enums: Err(val) or Ok(val). aka a Result
The ones that can fail but don't return a Result will typicall return an Option... Same idea, data wrapped in one of two enums: None(), or Some(val)
... but is it cause and effect? Or effect and effect? Could the very high levels of cynical distrust be a result of some malady that eventually causes the dementia?
You can... But you'll find that you're almost instantly blacklisted by spam filters, unless you relay through a smart host and have your ISP setup a PTR record for your mail server. Here, have a handy link.
Err. no.. read first, then make notes during the lecture. If you go into the lecture having already PREPARED then you can ask about stuff that still isn't making sense to you, and take note of things that you will be able to recognise as important when discussed in the lecture.
This is the key right here.
That being said, most people find this way of learning to be too difficult and they don't keep it up for long. However, if you can manage it, then the amount you actually learn and retain will be HUGE.
Again, the LodSys example mentioned by an AC just a few posts up flies in the face of the "it only matters if you become successful" argument. Sadly... =(
In the case where companies with a large patent portfolio are actually spending billions in R&D, I'd say you have a massive point, and that any claims made by anti-patent folks that patents are stifling innovation would be extremely difficult to substantiate... and that those claims may not even have any basis in fact.
However, in the case of companies with a large patent portfolio that do little to no R&D (with companies whose sole business case is patent trolling being the most obvious case), I would think that the claims made by anti-patent folks would need no substantiation at all...
Right now, the most attractive market (or means of distribution) for a "software tycoon in training" is the smartphone market (specifically Android and iPhone, since their distribution methods have the lowest overhead for the actual software authors).
The LodSys bullshit has definitely left me feeling a little gun-shy...
The argument being made is that securing those rights (at least, using the current methods) doesn't actually promote that progress. So I suppose it could possibly be interpreted that the current system doesn't fulfill the intent of that portion of the constitution. Which might make the current process for obtaining a patent unconstitutional.
However, to claim that it makes patents themselves unconstitutional doesn't seem valid.... but, again, one could draw the conclusion (with a lot more evidence, I'd think) that progress in science and useful arts can't be promoted via granting parties exclusive rights to writings and discoveries at all... which would mean that the portion of the constitution that you quoted would have to be deemed as being sel-conflicting and therefore stricken from the constitution or amended... and while that claim might actually be true, I don't think getting it amended would be easier than revamping the patent system/process
There's always a benefit to war: The better we get at killing each other 1-on-1; The faster we'll be technologically-capable of finding other planets with...uh... other species to kill 1-on-1.
This move is designed to 'force heavy data users to pay more for mobile data.'
All I see is:
This move is designed to 'allow us to use bait-and-switch tactics to make a metric fuck-ton of money by screwing our customer base in ways we hope they won't notice overly much'
... and it has nothing to do with the complexity of the STRATEGY.... it's meant to give commanders an indication of the insanely-complex interrelations between various factors/actions. It's actually designed to represent the SITUATION in Afghanistan and to illustrate that simple notions of cause and effect aren't quite as simple as you'd like to believe. The slide is nothing more than a model of a very complex situation.... and it's actually a damned good one too.
Look at the top right of the dark blue portion, where it says "targeted strikes", if you start following some of the arrows, you see (as you should expect) that targeted strikes will have an effect on "Insurgent Damages and Casualties" and that such an effect will also have an effect on "Fear of ANSF/Coalition Repercussions", which will also have an effect on "Insurgent recruiting/manpower".
There's no description of strategy there, and if you sat down and tried to think about the repercussions of specific actions taken in an area filled with insurgents and a populace that is sometimes sympathetic and sometimes not sympathetic to both the coalition and insurgents, a lot of the interrelations would seem pretty obvious - ie. if you spend too much effort killing insurgents, you run the risk of increasing their ability to recruit, because the population will begin to fear and resent you.
Don't look at the slide as a whole... just look for an entry on the slide that represents an action, and follow the arrows which show what the effects of that action are.
Agreed. Toyota put in the time and effort into building production hybrid vehicles before any of the other automakers gave a rats ass about the technology. They spent the R&D money and the money to put out a product that saw very limited acceptance (the first prius). They've now learned a lot from that (again at a huge cost) and have gone through their "lessons learned" to develop more robust tech. For the other automakers to profit off that initial investment of time and money by Toyota, without having to pay licencing fees, would be wrong.
I'm typically not a fan of the patent system, but this is definitely one case where I support its application.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop
No. The only real question isn't if it'll be shown in theatres.
The only real question is: does Han fucking shoot first?
unwrap() is for prototyping; it's like a try/catch, but you just panic if something fails. Again, super handy for prototyping, but typically a mistake to use. Use try!() if you're writing a lib, or match (ie case switch) on the values returned by the function. Ones that can fail will usually return values wrapped in one of two enums: Err(val) or Ok(val). aka a Result The ones that can fail but don't return a Result will typicall return an Option... Same idea, data wrapped in one of two enums: None(), or Some(val)
... but is it cause and effect? Or effect and effect? Could the very high levels of cynical distrust be a result of some malady that eventually causes the dementia?
You can... But you'll find that you're almost instantly blacklisted by spam filters, unless you relay through a smart host and have your ISP setup a PTR record for your mail server. Here, have a handy link.
semantics
Err. no.. read first, then make notes during the lecture. If you go into the lecture having already PREPARED then you can ask about stuff that still isn't making sense to you, and take note of things that you will be able to recognise as important when discussed in the lecture.
This is the key right here.
That being said, most people find this way of learning to be too difficult and they don't keep it up for long. However, if you can manage it, then the amount you actually learn and retain will be HUGE.
He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed.
Too bad... fuck 'em.
Our uteruses would fly out of our bodies as they were accelerated to that speed
Won't someone please think of the uteruses!!
Change and progress in academia!? ... Preposterous!!...
Again, the LodSys example mentioned by an AC just a few posts up flies in the face of the "it only matters if you become successful" argument. Sadly... =(
In the case where companies with a large patent portfolio are actually spending billions in R&D, I'd say you have a massive point, and that any claims made by anti-patent folks that patents are stifling innovation would be extremely difficult to substantiate... and that those claims may not even have any basis in fact.
However, in the case of companies with a large patent portfolio that do little to no R&D (with companies whose sole business case is patent trolling being the most obvious case), I would think that the claims made by anti-patent folks would need no substantiation at all...
Exactly.
Right now, the most attractive market (or means of distribution) for a "software tycoon in training" is the smartphone market (specifically Android and iPhone, since their distribution methods have the lowest overhead for the actual software authors).
The LodSys bullshit has definitely left me feeling a little gun-shy...
I don't think so.
The argument being made is that securing those rights (at least, using the current methods) doesn't actually promote that progress. So I suppose it could possibly be interpreted that the current system doesn't fulfill the intent of that portion of the constitution. Which might make the current process for obtaining a patent unconstitutional.
However, to claim that it makes patents themselves unconstitutional doesn't seem valid.... but, again, one could draw the conclusion (with a lot more evidence, I'd think) that progress in science and useful arts can't be promoted via granting parties exclusive rights to writings and discoveries at all... which would mean that the portion of the constitution that you quoted would have to be deemed as being sel-conflicting and therefore stricken from the constitution or amended... and while that claim might actually be true, I don't think getting it amended would be easier than revamping the patent system/process
I guess I should say "Oh Patent trolls" and not just "Oh Patents"
They're definitely a contributing factor as to why I'm still in academia, rather than trying to start a software shop with my CS degrees.
There's always a benefit to war: The better we get at killing each other 1-on-1; The faster we'll be technologically-capable of finding other planets with...uh... other species to kill 1-on-1.
... the global warming naysayers are going to have a field day with this one...
... the rapture.
This move is designed to 'force heavy data users to pay more for mobile data.'
All I see is:
This move is designed to 'allow us to use bait-and-switch tactics to make a metric fuck-ton of money by screwing our customer base in ways we hope they won't notice overly much'
Maybe I'm just jaded ...
... is the defrost setting any good?
...
That'll teach me to open multiple stories in multiple tabs and wander away halfway through reading them >.<
"You just can not sell it in their store."
Can you sell it in some other store?
yup
... and it has nothing to do with the complexity of the STRATEGY.... it's meant to give commanders an indication of the insanely-complex interrelations between various factors/actions. It's actually designed to represent the SITUATION in Afghanistan and to illustrate that simple notions of cause and effect aren't quite as simple as you'd like to believe. The slide is nothing more than a model of a very complex situation.... and it's actually a damned good one too.
Check out the larger version of the picture and take a look at some of the headings.
Look at the top right of the dark blue portion, where it says "targeted strikes", if you start following some of the arrows, you see (as you should expect) that targeted strikes will have an effect on "Insurgent Damages and Casualties" and that such an effect will also have an effect on "Fear of ANSF/Coalition Repercussions", which will also have an effect on "Insurgent recruiting/manpower".
There's no description of strategy there, and if you sat down and tried to think about the repercussions of specific actions taken in an area filled with insurgents and a populace that is sometimes sympathetic and sometimes not sympathetic to both the coalition and insurgents, a lot of the interrelations would seem pretty obvious - ie. if you spend too much effort killing insurgents, you run the risk of increasing their ability to recruit, because the population will begin to fear and resent you.
Don't look at the slide as a whole... just look for an entry on the slide that represents an action, and follow the arrows which show what the effects of that action are.
Agreed. Toyota put in the time and effort into building production hybrid vehicles before any of the other automakers gave a rats ass about the technology. They spent the R&D money and the money to put out a product that saw very limited acceptance (the first prius). They've now learned a lot from that (again at a huge cost) and have gone through their "lessons learned" to develop more robust tech. For the other automakers to profit off that initial investment of time and money by Toyota, without having to pay licencing fees, would be wrong.
I'm typically not a fan of the patent system, but this is definitely one case where I support its application.