i.e., very little unless you are a major contributor,
Very little is not zero though. If 1000 people write to an MP/congressman about beekeepers subsidies or whatever, then generally this will be brought to his attention.
Mine didn't. Although I doubt I would have done if they had. I'm way to lazy, and I'd usually pick it up after a bit anyway. If I didn't I could always email.
As another person pointed out, the solved state is simply one arbitrary arrangement.
You could repaint each side in an unsolved state and get from there to any position within 20 moves, including the position that will be the second unsolved position should you remove the paint.
We're not all that smart. I'd come out of a lecture with adequate retention and zero understanding. It took me several hours of pondering and reflection for everything to sink in so it would be quite some time later before I have enough information to ask for clarification.
A game without DRM was illegally downloaded 9 times for each purchase. That's about all you can say. Whether those people would have bought it or not is another matter.
I think it's a little harsh. He had reasons for doing everything he did. His reasons weren't legally justified but I think the lying aspect was reasonable. He was not going to give the passwords to someone he felt didn't have authority in the presence of two other people who definitely did not have authority.
Alas, if the guy was a little more socially aware, he would have said he wasn't going to reveal the password for the above reasons, and hopefully the supervisor would have provided an alternative.
Like a lot of people I think the processes were faulty. Childs appears to have Aspergers or some related syndrome which means he'll tend to be pretty literal in following instructions. His manager should have realised.
It's way to cynical to believe that all anyone who ever gets into power wants to do is spy on the populace, especially considering the actual power most of the government has. The government is made up of people. People don't all have the same motive. The Government is not a hive mind.
And even if they do want to spy on us, there are plenty of other things that could be cut if it came down to it. Violating civil liberties is apparently pretty low on the agenda.
A big brother society is expensive, so the Conservatives don't like it. It's an infringement on civil liberties so the Lib Dems don't like it (nor to a lot of the more socially liberal conservatives), and it was introduced by Nu-Labour so neither party likes it.
Bizarre though it may seem, some people get into politics to improve society.
This was already restricted information. The rank and file had no right to it and presumably there are laws that state they should not access it.
The laws are still in effect and even if there's no intention to prosecute, they should be reminding soldiers of their duty to obey the law if there is a rumour going around that this does not apply.
Wikipedia tells me Hydrogen is not easily space storable. Other liquids aren't as effective. (Actuallly this is from the solar thermal article but presumably the issues are the same)
How does the weight of solar power compare with other means of providing energy? Take advantage of that big Fusion reactor we've got parked out there. Considering the vast difference in Isp and the distances involved, it can't be long until your lower fuel weight compensates for the increase power generaton weight.
Yes, British people speak like that. It's fairly typical for a British newspaper aimed at British people to use British terminology. We even speak with British accents don'cha know. It's not just something we do for the tourists.
I disagree strongly. I did have a terse response to send but I felt you deserved a properly thought out reply.
Nobody is patenting a computer program. They never have. They're not even patenting the maths behind it. For example here's a piece of mathematics.
m = c^d mod n; c = m^e mod n.
That's about all you need for the patented (now expired) RSA algorithm. But nobody patented the maths. The patent was on the application of this. It only applied if you were using this application in order to transmit a message in secret with the ability to reveal one half of the keys. If you find another application for those two calculations then you can apply for a completely new patent.
Nor do I see how it makes any difference that all computer programs are numbers. Many inventions are simply numbers. An ergonomic mouse can be created simply by numbers. You just need to apply an obvious well understood step of sending a file to a 3D printer. Microchips technology can be patented even though it can all be implemented 100% in software, an FPGA, or actual dedicated silicon using standard processes.
The inventive step is generating these "numbers". I've developed software. I've worked with people who have developed silicon. The processes I use are the same as the processes the electronics guys use. I imagine automotive engineers use essentially the same processes. Those technologies allow patents.
And quite honestly, I don't think it's relevant that your computer program will generate every work ever. The law works on real world situation, not a theoretical abstraction that would not produce anything tangible given all the energy and matter in the universe.
Software is more than just maths. It's maths plus an application to a real world problem. For example, computer vision systems - they'll use Bayesian statistics for all sorts of analysis tasks. Is Bayesian statistics patentable? Of course not. Is Bayesian statistics for classifying pixels patentable? Well, no, there's too much prior art but when it was, it was an application not a discovery. Applying an octree for optimisation is an invention. Using a different colour space is possibly an invention. Likewise, I can't patent the expansion in volume and increase in pressure when a liquid into a gas. That's just a law of nature. The people who found novel ways to convert that into motive power did invent something and rightfully earned a patent on it.
I don't think software should be patentable, but this is not because of some inherent moral belief about whether it's an invention or not. It's simply about practicality. I think laws should do more good than harm. Free software is good. Effective competition between proprietary software vendors is good. The ability to bar others from improving your invention is not good. The incentive generated to invent new software is minor (software companies will demonstrably innovate without patents, and copyright law still gives several months of lead time, which is plenty of competitive advantage).
Perhaps, but it's a little vague and nebulous a term since it covers more than copright, trademarks, and patents. I quite like intellectual monopoly, but fear that's a little biased towards the anti-copyright argument.
Yes, you're correct (As far as I know). The problem is that if you improve on something you still usually need to licence the original patent upon which you have improved unless your improvements make it a completely different invention.
It's about balance. Patent protection provides an incentive to produce something new, but makes it a lot harder to improve an existing invention since you need to patent holders approval to actually produce the improved invention.
Looking at the evidence, it seems very few companies make money licencing patented software, and usuallly simply use their patents protectively, using a patent sharing agreement which effectively bars small players from the market. Without patents it seems quite clear that innovation in software would not be harmed since there is still an incentive to innovate since the short time to market of software still gives the innovator a competitive edge.
Presumably this would just be a tramline. Flush with the roadway so won't get hit. No idea how to deal with debris but trams manage so this will as well.
Slashdot Mirror
i.e., very little unless you are a major contributor,
Very little is not zero though. If 1000 people write to an MP/congressman about beekeepers subsidies or whatever, then generally this will be brought to his attention.
Mine didn't. Although I doubt I would have done if they had. I'm way to lazy, and I'd usually pick it up after a bit anyway. If I didn't I could always email.
As another person pointed out, the solved state is simply one arbitrary arrangement.
You could repaint each side in an unsolved state and get from there to any position within 20 moves, including the position that will be the second unsolved position should you remove the paint.
Less of a problem. Bandwidth is cheap. Non-paying customers take up valuable table-space.
We're not all that smart. I'd come out of a lecture with adequate retention and zero understanding. It took me several hours of pondering and reflection for everything to sink in so it would be quite some time later before I have enough information to ask for clarification.
This is the guy who completely failed to predict the effect the internet would have on society... In 1995.
And he's a college dropout.
He a businessman. He's damn good at that. If he wants to suggest marketing strategies I'm all ears.
You can take whatever you want as long as I suffer no identifiable loss from it.
A game without DRM was illegally downloaded 9 times for each purchase. That's about all you can say. Whether those people would have bought it or not is another matter.
I think it's a little harsh. He had reasons for doing everything he did. His reasons weren't legally justified but I think the lying aspect was reasonable. He was not going to give the passwords to someone he felt didn't have authority in the presence of two other people who definitely did not have authority.
Alas, if the guy was a little more socially aware, he would have said he wasn't going to reveal the password for the above reasons, and hopefully the supervisor would have provided an alternative.
Like a lot of people I think the processes were faulty. Childs appears to have Aspergers or some related syndrome which means he'll tend to be pretty literal in following instructions. His manager should have realised.
Why can't it be both?
It's way to cynical to believe that all anyone who ever gets into power wants to do is spy on the populace, especially considering the actual power most of the government has. The government is made up of people. People don't all have the same motive. The Government is not a hive mind.
And even if they do want to spy on us, there are plenty of other things that could be cut if it came down to it. Violating civil liberties is apparently pretty low on the agenda.
A big brother society is expensive, so the Conservatives don't like it. It's an infringement on civil liberties so the Lib Dems don't like it (nor to a lot of the more socially liberal conservatives), and it was introduced by Nu-Labour so neither party likes it.
Bizarre though it may seem, some people get into politics to improve society.
This was already restricted information. The rank and file had no right to it and presumably there are laws that state they should not access it.
The laws are still in effect and even if there's no intention to prosecute, they should be reminding soldiers of their duty to obey the law if there is a rumour going around that this does not apply.
Yes, but VASIMR makes much more efficient use of that reaction mass. The faster you kick it out, the more thrust you get.
So a kilogram of nuclear thermal propellant will give 15kNs of thrust, a kg of VASIMR propellant will give 50kNs.
Wikipedia tells me Hydrogen is not easily space storable. Other liquids aren't as effective. (Actuallly this is from the solar thermal article but presumably the issues are the same)
How does the weight of solar power compare with other means of providing energy? Take advantage of that big Fusion reactor we've got parked out there. Considering the vast difference in Isp and the distances involved, it can't be long until your lower fuel weight compensates for the increase power generaton weight.
You read too fast. It was Churchill's bodyguard's grandson.
And he didn't hear it directly from his grandfather. Nor is there any confirmation that the grandfather actually served in that capacity.
Is this more or less accurate than "A Bloke in a Pub told Me"?
Yes, British people speak like that. It's fairly typical for a British newspaper aimed at British people to use British terminology. We even speak with British accents don'cha know. It's not just something we do for the tourists.
I disagree strongly. I did have a terse response to send but I felt you deserved a properly thought out reply.
Nobody is patenting a computer program. They never have. They're not even patenting the maths behind it. For example here's a piece of mathematics.
m = c^d mod n; c = m^e mod n.
That's about all you need for the patented (now expired) RSA algorithm. But nobody patented the maths. The patent was on the application of this. It only applied if you were using this application in order to transmit a message in secret with the ability to reveal one half of the keys. If you find another application for those two calculations then you can apply for a completely new patent.
Nor do I see how it makes any difference that all computer programs are numbers. Many inventions are simply numbers. An ergonomic mouse can be created simply by numbers. You just need to apply an obvious well understood step of sending a file to a 3D printer. Microchips technology can be patented even though it can all be implemented 100% in software, an FPGA, or actual dedicated silicon using standard processes.
The inventive step is generating these "numbers". I've developed software. I've worked with people who have developed silicon. The processes I use are the same as the processes the electronics guys use. I imagine automotive engineers use essentially the same processes. Those technologies allow patents.
And quite honestly, I don't think it's relevant that your computer program will generate every work ever. The law works on real world situation, not a theoretical abstraction that would not produce anything tangible given all the energy and matter in the universe.
Software is more than just maths. It's maths plus an application to a real world problem. For example, computer vision systems - they'll use Bayesian statistics for all sorts of analysis tasks. Is Bayesian statistics patentable? Of course not. Is Bayesian statistics for classifying pixels patentable? Well, no, there's too much prior art but when it was, it was an application not a discovery. Applying an octree for optimisation is an invention. Using a different colour space is possibly an invention. Likewise, I can't patent the expansion in volume and increase in pressure when a liquid into a gas. That's just a law of nature. The people who found novel ways to convert that into motive power did invent something and rightfully earned a patent on it.
I don't think software should be patentable, but this is not because of some inherent moral belief about whether it's an invention or not. It's simply about practicality. I think laws should do more good than harm. Free software is good. Effective competition between proprietary software vendors is good. The ability to bar others from improving your invention is not good. The incentive generated to invent new software is minor (software companies will demonstrably innovate without patents, and copyright law still gives several months of lead time, which is plenty of competitive advantage).
Perhaps, but it's a little vague and nebulous a term since it covers more than copright, trademarks, and patents. I quite like intellectual monopoly, but fear that's a little biased towards the anti-copyright argument.
Yes, you're correct (As far as I know). The problem is that if you improve on something you still usually need to licence the original patent upon which you have improved unless your improvements make it a completely different invention.
It's more a convenient piece of terminology to describe property like rights to intangible ideas.
Although it should be noted, this is just a metahor. Just because we call it "property" doesn't automatically make it so.
It's about balance. Patent protection provides an incentive to produce something new, but makes it a lot harder to improve an existing invention since you need to patent holders approval to actually produce the improved invention.
Looking at the evidence, it seems very few companies make money licencing patented software, and usuallly simply use their patents protectively, using a patent sharing agreement which effectively bars small players from the market. Without patents it seems quite clear that innovation in software would not be harmed since there is still an incentive to innovate since the short time to market of software still gives the innovator a competitive edge.
No idea wat thread you were rading, but it looks like he accepted that point some time ago, and was just pointing out they are actually available.
I'd expect people to notice there's not a lot of visibility or any form of road marking or traffic control and so take extra care.
Presumably this would just be a tramline. Flush with the roadway so won't get hit. No idea how to deal with debris but trams manage so this will as well.