First, someone posted that the president was an accessible citizen until one got shot, and then another. Next, someone said something a long the lines of if another gets shot, and I said one was.
Jackson was accosted, the assailant attempted to fire two rounds, and both misfired, never even leaving the gun. Lincoln was the first shot and killed, Garfield was the second (both within the scope of the original parent's thread). McKinley was third (which is where I picked up) to be killed, and neither Roosevelt I counted, as the former continued his speech after being moderately injured by the bullet (which was slowed by a manuscript he was holding), and the latter was never hit. Ford was never shot either, the first attempt stopped by secret service before a shot was fired, and the second was deflected by a bystander. Teddy Roosevelt would be the only one I would concede, as he was the only one actually shot.
Yes, I'd think they were nuts, however they're still allowed to do it. As the poster was saying, this goes even further, what the hell right do you have to tell someone not to sketch you or take notes about you while you're on their property.
Bob Slydell: The Netscape developers. Bill Lumbergh: Who're they? Bob Porter: You know, squirrely looking guys, mumble a lot. Bill Lumbergh: Oh, yeah. Bob Slydell: Yeah, we can't actually find a record of them being current employees here. Bob Porter: I looked into it more deeply and I found that apparently what happened is that they were laid off five years ago and no one ever told them, but through some kind of glitch in the payroll department, they still get paychecks. Bob Slydell: So we just went a ahead and fixed the glitch. Bill Lumbergh: Great. Dom Portwood: So um, the Netscape developers have been let go? Bob Slydell: Well just a second there, professor. We uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So they won't be receiving paychecks anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally. Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.
No. Not at all. It wasn't a troll-baiting (which is what it aimed for), no one figured that what he was saying was true. If you can't pass off half-truths in troll, then at least be blindingly blatant about it.
See comment above yours for good trolling tactics. Re-trolling is tops in my book.
You obviously were not looking at the survey, and instead probably at your own asshole. That's what the whole damn thing was sorted by, you can also sort by other factors.
This wasn't even a good troll. You need to go back to the Troll Academy.
For this discipline set, my wild guess is that the ordinary skill level is likely emulatable by a recently-graduated BS degree holder in computer science who has also taken some elective courses in ethics or who has studied some ethics texts.
I thought you had to at least show proof of concept or *some* kind of proof that you might make the effort at *some* point to try to implement what you're trying to patent. I thought the whole point of the patent office was to protect inventors, but at the same time prevent people from collecting royalties by saying "Hey, I thought time travel might be a good idea 10 years ago, pay up."
I haven't read the article yet (of the comments I've read, most people seem to agree there's not much to it), but the inventor here seems to be saying that he's not going to do any work in the field of his patent, but if someone would like to develop it, he'd gladly accept royalties.
Am I missing something in regards to patent law, or in regards to this guy's intentions?
Firstly, he said he worked for a radio station, not ran a Shoutcast stream. Secondly, I too worked for an independent (college) radio station, and can corroborate that YES, YOU DO have to record the title, artist, and time whenever you broadcast something. This is not a problem of organization, this is official FCC rules.
Your argument is exactly like me never recording any purchases, and when the IRS audits you, saying, "Well come on over and check out my place, I couldn't logically have any expenditures besides what's in my house!". It's a matter of law, not of file structures.
..is when (partially relating to your statement) SCO realized that GPL restrictions held them to indemnify Linux users/vendors, and the internal comment from Chris Sontag had something to do with not pursuing lawsuits against Linux vendor because they "do not want to destroy Linux".
Did anyone notice this little line? "More than 1,500 people in the US, UK, China and Japan took part in the survey"
With a population of well over 6 Billion, I wouldn't call a survey of less than 400 people per country in 4 countries "people". How was it distributed across the countries (i.e. were 6-700 in China)? Where were the surveys taken? With a selection of only 0.000025% of the worldwide population, I wouldn't even call 100% of the people being mystified odd.
I'll grant you that mayhaps they were conducting these surveys at your BestBuys, computer shows, and the like, but with so little background data, and so small a survey, I wouldn't put too much stock in their findings.
Hah. Alright, I concede. I do still heartily disagree with the original poster that his definition of biotechnology is flawed in its scope. Is the actual object in question biotechnology? No, in truth, you're both right on that count. However, you must concur that simply because a product does not alter the biological state of a being does not preclude it from being 'biotechnology'. That was the point which I felt was more solid, but it is quite moot and far off from the original point of 'is this biotech?' by itself. To be frank, you called my bullshit.
"For you and most/. reader" Hey, thanks for the petty classification.
Regardless, it all comes down to how you view 'use a bio process to work'. As I'm sure you've read, the instrument relies on the disordered state of cancerous cells, which resonate to a certain frequency. Is that using a 'bio process to work'? Debatable, but I'd say so. You also seem to be missing the point of their definition, which not only describes exactly the type of products which you described, but also products which work the other way (i.e. products derived from biological processes). Nowhere in their terse [but lucid] definition do I see the necessity of changing the biological state of a living being.
Also, to your 'go to any biotech company web site' statement, does that mean that's all the field encompasses? I'm not trying to tell you that some (or hell most, I'm not going to pretend I know) companies don't use the term Biotechnology instead of some other, more accurate term, or even that companies/products exist out there that fall under the scope of Biotech, but not inside of transgenics. As an analogy perhaps more relevant to Slashdot, think of the field of computing: many models of computation exist out there, but outside of a few universities, computers of the Von Neumann type, and x86-compatible in particular make up the vast majority of everything produced today. Does that mean that computing doesn't also encompass other models like the data flow model? It does not.
You're only making things worse. You misquoted (perhaps intentionally) to further your definition in hopes that no one would find the Dupont site. The actual line you're quoting, sans elipsis, states, "Transgenics (often referred to as biotechnology) is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to enhance or protect an organism."
They are clearly talking about the field of transgenics, which is what you called 'biotechnology', they were merely stating that it is often called biotechnology, but with the implication that biotech refers to a much larger spectrum.
Even further, if you would have followed the link to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)'s glossary, you would have found that they describe biotechnology as, "Biotechnology - The use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products." under which the product in question would surely fall.
Slashdot Mirror
He must have insmod'ed Windows, he was only up for about 14 minutes.
"Not everybody has to like the same stuff you like."
Very true, however, the original poster is *quite* correct here.
Have you seen the list?
Wham?
I'm beginning to think they really *are* herding us towards greener pastures.
Wow, that's really cool how you did the research to scrounge up every comment in every piece of American code. Who does your data infrastructure?
Looks like someone slept through this thread.
First, someone posted that the president was an accessible citizen until one got shot, and then another. Next, someone said something a long the lines of if another gets shot, and I said one was.
Jackson was accosted, the assailant attempted to fire two rounds, and both misfired, never even leaving the gun. Lincoln was the first shot and killed, Garfield was the second (both within the scope of the original parent's thread). McKinley was third (which is where I picked up) to be killed, and neither Roosevelt I counted, as the former continued his speech after being moderately injured by the bullet (which was slowed by a manuscript he was holding), and the latter was never hit. Ford was never shot either, the first attempt stopped by secret service before a shot was fired, and the second was deflected by a bystander. Teddy Roosevelt would be the only one I would concede, as he was the only one actually shot.
http://www.usatrivia.com/pasnatt.html
Yes, I'd think they were nuts, however they're still allowed to do it. As the poster was saying, this goes even further, what the hell right do you have to tell someone not to sketch you or take notes about you while you're on their property.
Actually, one did. First was McKinley, then Kennedy, then Reagan. The only difference being that Reagan survived.
Bob Slydell: The Netscape developers.
Bill Lumbergh: Who're they?
Bob Porter: You know, squirrely looking guys, mumble a lot.
Bill Lumbergh: Oh, yeah.
Bob Slydell: Yeah, we can't actually find a record of them being current employees here.
Bob Porter: I looked into it more deeply and I found that apparently what happened is that they were laid off five years ago and no one ever told them, but through some kind of glitch in the payroll department, they still get paychecks.
Bob Slydell: So we just went a ahead and fixed the glitch.
Bill Lumbergh: Great.
Dom Portwood: So um, the Netscape developers have been let go?
Bob Slydell: Well just a second there, professor. We uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So they won't be receiving paychecks anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally.
Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.
(fucking candians, taking all of our jobs)
Candians? Are those natives of Candyland©?
'Mozilla is slow and ugly.'
You call yourself a Mac user?
Camino (Chimera/Navigator/et al.) was sickeningly fast, even in 10.1.x. I saw great speed gains between that and IE 5.
Firebird is a bit slower, but very skinnable, combatting that 'Moz is ugly' retort that's so quick to roll off the tongue.
And while we're on the topic of UGLY, let's look at that 'brushed metal' theme...
if you use a keyboard regularly, why do you type 'tpe'?
No. Not at all. It wasn't a troll-baiting (which is what it aimed for), no one figured that what he was saying was true. If you can't pass off half-truths in troll, then at least be blindingly blatant about it.
See comment above yours for good trolling tactics. Re-trolling is tops in my book.
You obviously were not looking at the survey, and instead probably at your own asshole. That's what the whole damn thing was sorted by, you can also sort by other factors.
This wasn't even a good troll. You need to go back to the Troll Academy.
For this discipline set, my wild guess is that the ordinary skill level is likely emulatable by a recently-graduated BS degree holder in computer science who has also taken some elective courses in ethics or who has studied some ethics texts.
:D
Sweet! That's me in a year!
I thought you had to at least show proof of concept or *some* kind of proof that you might make the effort at *some* point to try to implement what you're trying to patent. I thought the whole point of the patent office was to protect inventors, but at the same time prevent people from collecting royalties by saying "Hey, I thought time travel might be a good idea 10 years ago, pay up."
I haven't read the article yet (of the comments I've read, most people seem to agree there's not much to it), but the inventor here seems to be saying that he's not going to do any work in the field of his patent, but if someone would like to develop it, he'd gladly accept royalties.
Am I missing something in regards to patent law, or in regards to this guy's intentions?
Firstly, he said he worked for a radio station, not ran a Shoutcast stream. Secondly, I too worked for an independent (college) radio station, and can corroborate that YES, YOU DO have to record the title, artist, and time whenever you broadcast something. This is not a problem of organization, this is official FCC rules.
Your argument is exactly like me never recording any purchases, and when the IRS audits you, saying, "Well come on over and check out my place, I couldn't logically have any expenditures besides what's in my house!". It's a matter of law, not of file structures.
..is when (partially relating to your statement) SCO realized that GPL restrictions held them to indemnify Linux users/vendors, and the internal comment from Chris Sontag had something to do with not pursuing lawsuits against Linux vendor because they "do not want to destroy Linux".
Did anyone notice this little line?
"More than 1,500 people in the US, UK, China and Japan took part in the survey"
With a population of well over 6 Billion, I wouldn't call a survey of less than 400 people per country in 4 countries "people". How was it distributed across the countries (i.e. were 6-700 in China)? Where were the surveys taken? With a selection of only 0.000025% of the worldwide population, I wouldn't even call 100% of the people being mystified odd.
I'll grant you that mayhaps they were conducting these surveys at your BestBuys, computer shows, and the like, but with so little background data, and so small a survey, I wouldn't put too much stock in their findings.
Hah. Alright, I concede. I do still heartily disagree with the original poster that his definition of biotechnology is flawed in its scope. Is the actual object in question biotechnology? No, in truth, you're both right on that count. However, you must concur that simply because a product does not alter the biological state of a being does not preclude it from being 'biotechnology'. That was the point which I felt was more solid, but it is quite moot and far off from the original point of 'is this biotech?' by itself. To be frank, you called my bullshit.
"For you and most /. reader" Hey, thanks for the petty classification.
Regardless, it all comes down to how you view 'use a bio process to work'. As I'm sure you've read, the instrument relies on the disordered state of cancerous cells, which resonate to a certain frequency. Is that using a 'bio process to work'? Debatable, but I'd say so. You also seem to be missing the point of their definition, which not only describes exactly the type of products which you described, but also products which work the other way (i.e. products derived from biological processes). Nowhere in their terse [but lucid] definition do I see the necessity of changing the biological state of a living being.
Also, to your 'go to any biotech company web site' statement, does that mean that's all the field encompasses? I'm not trying to tell you that some (or hell most, I'm not going to pretend I know) companies don't use the term Biotechnology instead of some other, more accurate term, or even that companies/products exist out there that fall under the scope of Biotech, but not inside of transgenics. As an analogy perhaps more relevant to Slashdot, think of the field of computing: many models of computation exist out there, but outside of a few universities, computers of the Von Neumann type, and x86-compatible in particular make up the vast majority of everything produced today. Does that mean that computing doesn't also encompass other models like the data flow model? It does not.
You're only making things worse. You misquoted (perhaps intentionally) to further your definition in hopes that no one would find the Dupont site. The actual line you're quoting, sans elipsis, states, "Transgenics (often referred to as biotechnology) is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to enhance or protect an organism."
They are clearly talking about the field of transgenics, which is what you called 'biotechnology', they were merely stating that it is often called biotechnology, but with the implication that biotech refers to a much larger spectrum.
Even further, if you would have followed the link to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)'s glossary, you would have found that they describe biotechnology as, "Biotechnology -
The use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products." under which the product in question would surely fall.
The only cool part of that article is the space-age 3D blueprint of what SPAM looks like behind the scenes.
Incorrigable! They're the SCO of the processed meat industry!
Ugh, I'd rather not share their sources, MILF or not.
The Chevrolet Corvair.
Didn't they just deregulate how many stations one company can own?