I have a serious problem when someone thinks that music can be illegal.
In "The New Meriam-Webster Dictionary", (ISBN 0-87779-900-8) (Copyright date 1989) here are the definitions of words beginning with 'music' :
music. n. 1 : the science or art of combining tones into a composition having structure and continuity:/also/ : vocal or instrumental sounds having rythm, melody, or harmony. 2 : an agreeable sound 3 : the unpleasant consequences of one's actions (face the ~)
(1)musical adj 1 : of or relating to music or musicians 2 : having the pleasing tonal qualities of music 3 : having an interest in or a talent for music -- musically
(2)musical n : a film or theatrical production consisting of musical numbers and dialogue based on a unifying plot
musicale n : a usu. private social gathering featuring music
musician n : a composer, conductor, or performer of music -- musicianly adj -- musicianship n
musicology n : a study of music as a field of knowledge or research -- musicological adj -- musicologist n
Are the good folks dictating our language going to need to add the word 'legal' into each of those definitions? hm.
music. n. 1 : the science or art of combining tones into a composition having legal structure and continuity:/also/ : vocal or instrumental sounds having legal rythm, melody, or harmony. 2 : the science or art of combining tones into a composition having illegal structure and continuity:/also/ : vocal or instrumental sounds having illegal rythm, melody, or harmony. 3 : an agreeable legal sound 4: an agreeable illegal sound 4 : the unpleasant consequences of one's actions (face the ~)
(1)musical adj 1 : of or relating to legal music or musicians 2 : of or relating to illegal music or musicians 3 : having the pleasing tonal qualities of legal music 4: having the pleasing tonal qualities of illegal music 5 : having an interest in or a talent for legal music 6: having an interest in or a talent for illegal music -- musically
(2)musical n 1 : a legal film or theatrical production consisting of musical numbers and dialogue based on a unifying plot 2 : an illegal film or theatrical production consisting of musical numbers and dialog based on a unifying plot
musicale n 1 : a usu. private social gathering featuring legal music 2 : a usu. private social gathering featuring illegal music
musician n 1 : a composer, conductor, or performer of legal music 2 : a composer, conductor, or performer of illegal music -- musicianly adj -- musicianship n
musicology n 1 : a study of legal music as a field of knowledge or research 2 : a study of illegal music as a field of knowledge or research -- musicological adj -- musicologist n
My rewrite here/sounds/ rediculous, but consider this: At the direction this is going,/is/ it rediculous?
I personally think it would be much more entertaining, amazing, and useful if someone were to succeed in archiving all of the web-page content, links, information, and summaries, that make up the browsable portion of the Internet.
I'd be even neater if it could be maintained. Jeez...just think: The world's largest, most diverse information source...akin to Asimov's Encyclopedia Galactica. (never done)
I think that the fact that I own my own comments(except maybe for this one due to the copyright notice?) will allow me to attempt to patent my comments, so long as the fact that that comment was published publicly by me(while retaining ownership of the comment) is not counted against me as 'prior art'.
I wonder if that moron(Warman)'s telephone will be ringing off the hook, due to mention on/. .
If it does, is that a viable discription of the/. effect, or does the/. effect apply only to downed web servers?
I'd like to mention that it's a long-distance phone number. While cheaper than a toll-free number(for Warman), actually picking the thing up for any number of the calls he'll get is going to rocket his phone bill...Pursuing the patent is going to cost him more than the patent is worth.
I'm in a journalism class in at my high school, and we run the high school's paper. I did a poll last Friday on two issues: Presidencial race and school vouchers. (I can't seem to find a just-the-facts URL on the vouchers...could someone post a reply with a decent URL?)
Here's the article I wrote for the school paper:
GORE FREEFALLING
Presidential candidate Al Gore is falling behind in popularity, according to a poll taken Friday, October thirteenth. The poll consists of students, teachers, and the occasional administrator, chosen at random.
The pollees where asked two questions:
* Who would they vote for at that point, and
* Hypothetically, if you were able to vote against a candidate, who would you vote against?
When asked who they would vote for at that point, the students polled appeared staunchly Republican. Nine students favored voting for Republican candidate George W. Bush, while only one student favored voting against him. No students favored voting for Gore, while seven students favored voting against him. Four students said that they did not keep track.
When asked the same questions, four teachers favored Bush, while seven teachers favored Gore. When given the hypothetical situation of being able to vote against a candidate instead of for one, five teachers favored voting against Bush, while five teachers favored voting against Gore. One teacher favored voting for Ralph Nader, and two teachers favored voting against Pat Buchannon. Eight teachers were undecided, and two teachers haven't kept track of the elections.
Some better-natured students and teachers stated that they didn't veel comfortable 'voting against,' so they were instead asked who they adamantly did not want to see in the Oval Office. Those votes were counted in with the 'against' statistic.
(End of article)
A humerous side not: I chose to exclude two students' entrees: One of them voted both for and against Bob Dole, while the other voted both for and against Bill Clinton.
How many people reading this post absolutely/detest/ shows like 'Teletubbies', 'CareBears', 'Barney', 'pokemon', or 'PowerRangers'? Now, how many of those same people/do not/ allow thir children to watch them?
Also, how many people reading this post didn't have any problem with their kids watching "G.I. Joe" or "Transformers: Robots in Disguise" or 'The A-Team'?
Also, shows like M*A*S*H had violence occasionally...but not very often.
Anyone remember the televised going-ons in Vietnam? (I don't...I wasn't born till 1983.) How many of you watched them without having your parents bugging you? (Assuming that they knew you watched them.)
Anybody remember the shouts about D&D? (Again...I plead the age excuse.)
What about shows like 'E.R.', 'The Practice', or, most notably, 'COPS'?
Anybody here allow their kids to watch movies/TV shows with Chuck Norris in them? (Think about it.)
I'm pretty sure that a good number of you went to see 'The Matrix', and then allowed your kids to go ahead and see it.
Don't forget the plethora of James Bond movies--They combined all three of sex, gore and violence. I didn't notice Clinton giving speeches when 'Tomorrow Never Dies' or 'The World Is Not Enough'...
I don't remember the date, but, IIRC, the worst school-related mass-murder in Michigan occured when someone blew up an entire high school a _/long/_ time ago.
If my understanding is correct, children during the fifties were highly violent(though without weapons.), though nobody thought anything of it since 'boys will be boys.' That brings to mind the fact that a disturbingly large percentage of the American population has been diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Guess what...I was diagnosed with ADHD at the age of three, and wound up taking 20mg of methylphenidate(Ritalin) three times a day by the time I was seven.(And methylphenidate is considered a potent drug.) When I was fifteen, I was diagnosed as having 'Aspergers Syndrome' which isn't even a _subset_ of ADD. It's a branch off of PDD, as ADD is as well..
I'm not a conspiracy theorist....but there seems to be an awful lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, misleading, and down-right lying---all of which seems to be contributing to the 'decay' of 'society'.
There's a high probability that you'll see a huge number of historical exceptions--both recent and old--to the age-oriented generalizations.
This patent describes 'Prior Art', the form of expression synonymous with a grammatical equivalent of 'I did it first! So there!'
Patent's topic, as an item, must express some form of artistic(see O.E.D. definition # 2) utilitarial use in that it takes a form of input and gives a form of output equal-to that of all given input including which input may have been involved during the construction of the item. As an item, it may not be described as having occured from any other time than from the date at which/IT ITSELF/ was coinned in the form that it is described, at the time in which it was described in that manner.
While I entirely love AMD, here are a couple of thoughts that entered my mind while reading this thread:
Intel spends the energy on developing and implementing the instruction, and essentially produces an 'alpha'(no pun intended) processor...enter, FDIV 'n friends.
AMD maintains compatability, with an instruction set already defined...They never had to worry about developing their own instruction set(aside from RISC86, IIRC) because they knew that where Intel went, Microsoft(read: most of the victimized world.) would follow. (And don't get _anyone_ started on the connections, good or bad, between MS and Intel.)
Forgot to add the;ltBR;gt's...
but short of another drive system, there's little to use for acceleration, steering, etc.
I can't see how acceleration and steering could be useful in any case. If you come upon an unexpected obstruction, you'd have to be already moving pretty fast(since nearer objects to Earth would already be better-tracked than farther ones.)...probably too fast for any technology-that the world currently has-to detect and evade quickly enough.
Anybody interested in working up the math involved to see how long it takes to reach, say, 400 km/sec? That's a number I pulled out of the clouds, but I'm pretty sure that it would be durned difficult to sort out doppler effect and echo+ambient interference when moving at that speed...I would guess that the radar technologies we use currently would be fairly ineffective..
(On a side thought, could you apply doppler radar on a low enough wavelength so that the actual effects would be seen by the naked eye? Not that it would help much..)
(Another thought..why hasn't anyone every tried doppler on Jupiter? It would be neat to see what the Great Red Spot's like on the inside..)
but short of another drive system, there's little to use for acceleration, steering, etc.
I can't see how acceleration and steering could be useful in any case. If you come upon an unexpected ubstruction, you'd have to be already moving pretty fast(since nearer objects to Earth would already be better-tracked than farther ones.)...probably too fast for any technology-that the world currently has-to detect and evade quickly enough.
Anybody interested in working up the math involved to see how long it takes to reach, say, 400 km/sec? That's a number I pulled out of the clouds, but I'm pretty sure that it would be durned difficult to sort out doppler effect and echo+ambient interference when moving at that speed...I would guess that the radar technologies we use currently would be fairly ineffective..
(On a side thought, could you apply doppler radar on a low enough wavelength so that the actual effects would be seen by the naked eye? Not that it would help much..) (Another thought..why hasn't anyone every tried doppler on Jupiter? It would be neat to see what the Great Red Spot's like on the inside..)
Science fiction has indeed tended to preceed then-current technologies...and science fiction also tends to get people interested in one specific field or another.
One very easy(but not often noticed) case of science-fiction -> science fact:
Waterbeds.
In Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land, Michael was placed on a bed for his safety on the return trip to Earth. Heinlein did a good enough job describing how the bed worked that somebody went out and started making/selling the things.
While Microsoft as a whole is dumb, and Gates has an IQ indeterminably below average, both have a huge reservoir of resources not tied up by red tape and politics.
Knowledge is power. You can 'buy' people with knowledge.
While MS has made an obvious (Bushian-slip) of itself to the public, it's nearing its final chances./Someone/ with a voice inside MS must realize that, so there's easy potential for MS to make some unbelievably ingenious dodges during the appeals.
I don't know weather new evidence is legal or not during an appeal, but I'm pretty sure that MS will figure out some way or another to bring additional information to trustworthiness.
:(
(Hmm. I don't want to vote for Bush, Nader, or Gore. Why in heck isn't there an option to vote/against/ candidates?)
First off, I'm sorry for not reading all of the/. posts on this article, but THIS JUST PISSES ME OFF!
Whatever happened to the 'common practice' clause adhered to by the US Patent Office? They screwed Arthur C. Clark out of an extremely lucrative patent. I don't remember any of the dates, but here are the details:
Arthur C. Clark applied to the U.S. Patent Office for a patent on geostationary orbit. The patent office rejected the application on the basis of infeasibility(or was it impracticality?). Within a few years, the first geostationary satellites went up, and Clark again applied for the patent. This time, the application was rejected on the basis of 'common practice.'
I'm sorry to add to the simple sheer in opinions, but I'm certain that other people can see where I'm getting at.
If I understand the application correctly, 'common practice' is just a buzz term essentially meaning that a patent described by the application already exists, but that it's held by the public. (or humanity...whichever you like.)
For online publishing, 'common practice' is certainly existant, whether or not only specific companies have developed the technology beforehand. For Clark, he was the only developer to apply for the patent at the time when the system he described was not in use.
To put it simply, there's something majorly screwed up...
This'll probably break my running record of only score "one" posts, but...
Schmoo!
My step-father was Fire Control on a Navy battleship in the seventies, (Good way to stay out of Vietnam, I guess.) and he described to me the computer equipment they had on board:
Magnetic-core memory...Loop of iron that could be assigned a binary value, but would lose that value as soon as that address was read...
Schmoo memory...The equivalent of ROM. The loop of iron had another, permanent magnet attached to it, to restore its magnetic state as soon as the data was read.
The RAM banks consisted of a fine network of wires basically(from what I gather) providing a coordinate system of access to the memory...however, this network was so complex that the manufacturing process had to be done by hand and suffered a 99% fail rate.
The 'computers' they used were progrogrammable, although they were basically a huge tree of electromechanical relays..gosh, there's just too much for me to remember to type.
Now, how much of this is exadgeration (sp) I don't know...
I keep seeing this recurring theme that the purpose of continued classification is probably due to the technology..
Has it occured to anyone else but me that perhaps these things remain classified in order to prevent the deduction of the methods they used to get those technologies? Perhaps they have some procedure that allows them to perform research somewhat more efficiently than anyone else, and that procedure is what they're keeping secret..
Personally, I think this may be a case where correlation of declassified data is more of a security risk than the actual data itself..
I'd be perfectly happy to do that, except for one thing:
I have a fairly common disability that inhibits the accuracy of motor control in my hands...In other words, I can type a heck of a lot faster than I can write.
I dunno...But I certainly wouldn't mind increasing my 'geek' appearance by checking my stocks during econ class...
But then again, I'm also the only guy at my 1700-student high-school that wants to end up with a job in the dark recesses of some university with money, time, and research at my disposal...
I suppose I'll get some people pissed at me for not reading/. 24/7, but just the same: Thanks!
I rarely have time to read/., even though I simply love to...i.e., there's no way for me to make time.
When I/do/ get the chance to read/., I don't have time to browse through the archives to figure out what I've missed. I usually end up reading headlines from my windowmaker menu.
What's the big deal, people? Even though it's not exactly 'hard news', it's still something I would have missed had it not occured. I suppose that it might be a good idea to have something like a 'resonate posts' system in order for people like me to get a chance to read this stuff...Discussions could continue, as well. Yippee.
I'm in two high-school classes related to this situation: Economics and Journalism. While my Journalism class teaches me that this was something of a dumb mistake, I still appreciate what happened since it ought to have a big impact on Sony's stock. (In my Econ class, a good portion of our grade goes towards simulating working the stock market.) How would I have had the chance to find this out, otherwise. If the stock market has anything to do with 'luck-of-the-draw', it has to do with random factors indirectly connected, such as what's happened here.
(Was that offtopic?)
In the mean time, I'm going to look at this product, since it might be interesting to use one for things such as a way to take notes in class(audio, text, and video...my old BW Quickcams still work. What better way to draw a diagram that photograph the blackboard?), and coding when I find time.
Hmm..This was my first post to/. in about two years...wonder what'll happen?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a serious problem when someone thinks that music can be illegal.
/also/ : vocal or instrumental sounds having rythm, melody, or harmony. 2 : an agreeable sound 3 : the unpleasant consequences of one's actions (face the ~)
/also/ : vocal or instrumental sounds having legal rythm, melody, or harmony. 2 : the science or art of combining tones into a composition having illegal structure and continuity: /also/ : vocal or instrumental sounds having illegal rythm, melody, or harmony. 3 : an agreeable legal sound 4: an agreeable illegal sound 4 : the unpleasant consequences of one's actions (face the ~)
/sounds/ rediculous, but consider this: At the direction this is going, /is/ it rediculous?
In "The New Meriam-Webster Dictionary", (ISBN 0-87779-900-8) (Copyright date 1989) here are the definitions of words beginning with 'music' :
music. n. 1 : the science or art of combining tones into a composition having structure and continuity:
(1)musical adj 1 : of or relating to music or musicians 2 : having the pleasing tonal qualities of music 3 : having an interest in or a talent for music -- musically
(2)musical n : a film or theatrical production consisting of musical numbers and dialogue based on a unifying plot
musicale n : a usu. private social gathering featuring music
musician n : a composer, conductor, or performer of music -- musicianly adj -- musicianship n
musicology n : a study of music as a field of knowledge or research -- musicological adj -- musicologist n
Are the good folks dictating our language going to need to add the word 'legal' into each of those definitions? hm.
music. n. 1 : the science or art of combining tones into a composition having legal structure and continuity:
(1)musical adj 1 : of or relating to legal music or musicians 2 : of or relating to illegal music or musicians 3 : having the pleasing tonal qualities of legal music 4: having the pleasing tonal qualities of illegal music 5 : having an interest in or a talent for legal music 6: having an interest in or a talent for illegal music -- musically
(2)musical n 1 : a legal film or theatrical production consisting of musical numbers and dialogue based on a unifying plot 2 : an illegal film or theatrical production consisting of musical numbers and dialog based on a unifying plot
musicale n 1 : a usu. private social gathering featuring legal music 2 : a usu. private social gathering featuring illegal music
musician n 1 : a composer, conductor, or performer of legal music 2 : a composer, conductor, or performer of illegal music -- musicianly adj -- musicianship n
musicology n 1 : a study of legal music as a field of knowledge or research 2 : a study of illegal music as a field of knowledge or research -- musicological adj -- musicologist n
My rewrite here
I personally think it would be much more entertaining, amazing, and useful if someone were to succeed in archiving all of the web-page content, links, information, and summaries, that make up the browsable portion of the Internet.
I'd be even neater if it could be maintained. Jeez...just think: The world's largest, most diverse information source...akin to Asimov's Encyclopedia Galactica. (never done)
Notice that:
***
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2000
OSDN.
***
I think that the fact that I own my own comments(except maybe for this one due to the copyright notice?) will allow me to attempt to patent my comments, so long as the fact that that comment was published publicly by me(while retaining ownership of the comment) is not counted against me as 'prior art'.
Hmm...
Nahh...Just $.33 extra cash you have to pay for the phone...Radio Shack ought to be paying you to take them, instead.
I wonder if that moron(Warman)'s telephone will be ringing off the hook, due to mention on /. .
/. effect, or does the /. effect apply only to downed web servers?
If it does, is that a viable discription of the
I'd like to mention that it's a long-distance phone number. While cheaper than a toll-free number(for Warman), actually picking the thing up for any number of the calls he'll get is going to rocket his phone bill...Pursuing the patent is going to cost him more than the patent is worth.
I wonder if he has a fax machine?
I'm in a journalism class in at my high school, and we run the high school's paper. I did a poll last Friday on two issues: Presidencial race and school vouchers. (I can't seem to find a just-the-facts URL on the vouchers...could someone post a reply with a decent URL?)
Here's the article I wrote for the school paper:
GORE FREEFALLING
Presidential candidate Al Gore is falling behind in popularity, according to a poll taken Friday, October thirteenth. The poll consists of students, teachers, and the occasional administrator, chosen at random.
The pollees where asked two questions:
* Who would they vote for at that point, and
* Hypothetically, if you were able to vote against a candidate, who would you vote against?
When asked who they would vote for at that point, the students polled appeared staunchly Republican. Nine students favored voting for Republican candidate George W. Bush, while only one student favored voting against him. No students favored voting for Gore, while seven students favored voting against him. Four students said that they did not keep track.
When asked the same questions, four teachers favored Bush, while seven teachers favored Gore. When given the hypothetical situation of being able to vote against a candidate instead of for one, five teachers favored voting against Bush, while five teachers favored voting against Gore. One teacher favored voting for Ralph Nader, and two teachers favored voting against Pat Buchannon. Eight teachers were undecided, and two teachers haven't kept track of the elections.
Some better-natured students and teachers stated that they didn't veel comfortable 'voting against,' so they were instead asked who they adamantly did not want to see in the Oval Office. Those votes were counted in with the 'against' statistic.
(End of article)
A humerous side not: I chose to exclude two students' entrees: One of them voted both for and against Bob Dole, while the other voted both for and against Bill Clinton.
(shrug)
How many people reading this post absolutely /detest/ shows like 'Teletubbies', 'CareBears', 'Barney', 'pokemon', or 'PowerRangers'? Now, how many of those same people /do not/ allow thir children to watch them?
Also, how many people reading this post didn't have any problem with their kids watching "G.I. Joe" or "Transformers: Robots in Disguise" or 'The A-Team'?
Also, shows like M*A*S*H had violence occasionally...but not very often.
Anyone remember the televised going-ons in Vietnam? (I don't...I wasn't born till 1983.) How many of you watched them without having your parents bugging you? (Assuming that they knew you watched them.)
Anybody remember the shouts about D&D? (Again...I plead the age excuse.)
What about shows like 'E.R.', 'The Practice', or, most notably, 'COPS'?
Anybody here allow their kids to watch movies/TV shows with Chuck Norris in them? (Think about it.)
I'm pretty sure that a good number of you went to see 'The Matrix', and then allowed your kids to go ahead and see it.
Don't forget the plethora of James Bond movies--They combined all three of sex, gore and violence. I didn't notice Clinton giving speeches when 'Tomorrow Never Dies' or 'The World Is Not Enough'...
I don't remember the date, but, IIRC, the worst school-related mass-murder in Michigan occured when someone blew up an entire high school a _/long/_ time ago.
If my understanding is correct, children during the fifties were highly violent(though without weapons.), though nobody thought anything of it since 'boys will be boys.' That brings to mind the fact that a disturbingly large percentage of the American population has been diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Guess what...I was diagnosed with ADHD at the age of three, and wound up taking 20mg of methylphenidate(Ritalin) three times a day by the time I was seven.(And methylphenidate is considered a potent drug.) When I was fifteen, I was diagnosed as having 'Aspergers Syndrome' which isn't even a _subset_ of ADD. It's a branch off of PDD, as ADD is as well..
I'm not a conspiracy theorist....but there seems to be an awful lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, misleading, and down-right lying---all of which seems to be contributing to the 'decay' of 'society'.
There's a high probability that you'll see a huge number of historical exceptions--both recent and old--to the age-oriented generalizations.
This patent describes 'Prior Art', the form of expression synonymous with a grammatical equivalent of 'I did it first! So there!'
/IT ITSELF/ was coinned in the form that it is described, at the time in which it was described in that manner.
Patent's topic, as an item, must express some form of artistic(see O.E.D. definition # 2) utilitarial use in that it takes a form of input and gives a form of output equal-to that of all given input including which input may have been involved during the construction of the item. As an item, it may not be described as having occured from any other time than from the date at which
While I entirely love AMD, here are a couple of thoughts that entered my mind while reading this thread:
Intel spends the energy on developing and implementing the instruction, and essentially produces an 'alpha'(no pun intended) processor...enter, FDIV 'n friends.
AMD maintains compatability, with an instruction set already defined...They never had to worry about developing their own instruction set(aside from RISC86, IIRC) because they knew that where Intel went, Microsoft(read: most of the victimized world.) would follow. (And don't get _anyone_ started on the connections, good or bad, between MS and Intel.)
Mike
whooops!
;ltBR;gt's...
but short of another drive system, there's little to use for acceleration, steering, etc.
Forgot to add the
I can't see how acceleration and steering could be useful in any case. If you come upon an unexpected obstruction, you'd have to be already moving pretty fast(since nearer objects to Earth would already be better-tracked than farther ones.)...probably too fast for any technology-that the world currently has-to detect and evade quickly enough.
Anybody interested in working up the math involved to see how long it takes to reach, say, 400 km/sec? That's a number I pulled out of the clouds, but I'm pretty sure that it would be durned difficult to sort out doppler effect and echo+ambient interference when moving at that speed...I would guess that the radar technologies we use currently would be fairly ineffective..
(On a side thought, could you apply doppler radar on a low enough wavelength so that the actual effects would be seen by the naked eye? Not that it would help much..)
(Another thought..why hasn't anyone every tried doppler on Jupiter? It would be neat to see what the Great Red Spot's like on the inside..)
but short of another drive system, there's little to use for acceleration, steering, etc. I can't see how acceleration and steering could be useful in any case. If you come upon an unexpected ubstruction, you'd have to be already moving pretty fast(since nearer objects to Earth would already be better-tracked than farther ones.)...probably too fast for any technology-that the world currently has-to detect and evade quickly enough. Anybody interested in working up the math involved to see how long it takes to reach, say, 400 km/sec? That's a number I pulled out of the clouds, but I'm pretty sure that it would be durned difficult to sort out doppler effect and echo+ambient interference when moving at that speed...I would guess that the radar technologies we use currently would be fairly ineffective.. (On a side thought, could you apply doppler radar on a low enough wavelength so that the actual effects would be seen by the naked eye? Not that it would help much..) (Another thought..why hasn't anyone every tried doppler on Jupiter? It would be neat to see what the Great Red Spot's like on the inside..)
Science fiction has indeed tended to preceed then-current technologies...and science fiction also tends to get people interested in one specific field or another.
:)
One very easy(but not often noticed) case of science-fiction -> science fact:
Waterbeds.
In Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land, Michael was placed on a bed for his safety on the return trip to Earth. Heinlein did a good enough job describing how the bed worked that somebody went out and started making/selling the things.
I know I like mine.
I would assume that you can tack against the wind...seafaring bipeds did this often only a few short hundred years ago...
I'm not awake enough to figure out the geometry involved, though.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree...
/Someone/ with a voice inside MS must realize that, so there's easy potential for MS to make some unbelievably ingenious dodges during the appeals.
/against/ candidates?)
While Microsoft as a whole is dumb, and Gates has an IQ indeterminably below average, both have a huge reservoir of resources not tied up by red tape and politics.
Knowledge is power. You can 'buy' people with knowledge.
While MS has made an obvious (Bushian-slip) of itself to the public, it's nearing its final chances.
I don't know weather new evidence is legal or not during an appeal, but I'm pretty sure that MS will figure out some way or another to bring additional information to trustworthiness.
:(
(Hmm. I don't want to vote for Bush, Nader, or Gore. Why in heck isn't there an option to vote
First off, I'm sorry for not reading all of the /. posts on this article, but THIS JUST PISSES ME OFF!
Whatever happened to the 'common practice' clause adhered to by the US Patent Office? They screwed Arthur C. Clark out of an extremely lucrative patent. I don't remember any of the dates, but here are the details:
Arthur C. Clark applied to the U.S. Patent Office for a patent on geostationary orbit. The patent office rejected the application on the basis of infeasibility(or was it impracticality?). Within a few years, the first geostationary satellites went up, and Clark again applied for the patent. This time, the application was rejected on the basis of 'common practice.'
I'm sorry to add to the simple sheer in opinions, but I'm certain that other people can see where I'm getting at.
If I understand the application correctly, 'common practice' is just a buzz term essentially meaning that a patent described by the application already exists, but that it's held by the public. (or humanity...whichever you like.)
For online publishing, 'common practice' is certainly existant, whether or not only specific companies have developed the technology beforehand. For Clark, he was the only developer to apply for the patent at the time when the system he described was not in use.
To put it simply, there's something majorly screwed up...
This'll probably break my running record of only score "one" posts, but...
Schmoo!
My step-father was Fire Control on a Navy battleship in the seventies, (Good way to stay out of Vietnam, I guess.) and he described to me the computer equipment they had on board:
Magnetic-core memory...Loop of iron that could be assigned a binary value, but would lose that value as soon as that address was read...
Schmoo memory...The equivalent of ROM. The loop of iron had another, permanent magnet attached to it, to restore its magnetic state as soon as the data was read.
The RAM banks consisted of a fine network of wires basically(from what I gather) providing a coordinate system of access to the memory...however, this network was so complex that the manufacturing process had to be done by hand and suffered a 99% fail rate.
The 'computers' they used were progrogrammable, although they were basically a huge tree of electromechanical relays..gosh, there's just too much for me to remember to type.
Now, how much of this is exadgeration (sp) I don't know...
I keep seeing this recurring theme that the purpose of continued classification is probably due to the technology..
Has it occured to anyone else but me that perhaps these things remain classified in order to prevent the deduction of the methods they used to get those technologies? Perhaps they have some procedure that allows them to perform research somewhat more efficiently than anyone else, and that procedure is what they're keeping secret..
Personally, I think this may be a case where correlation of declassified data is more of a security risk than the actual data itself..
If I remember correctly from my 8th-grade Algebra book, Pascal had actually built an adding machine...
Not sure, though. Anyone have any thoughts on other mathematical geniuses whose extensions on 1+1 overshadowed inventiveness paralleled recently?
I'd be perfectly happy to do that, except for one thing:
:)
I have a fairly common disability that inhibits the accuracy of motor control in my hands...In other words, I can type a heck of a lot faster than I can write.
I'd make a great sketch-pad, though.
In regards to #2:
I dunno...But I certainly wouldn't mind increasing my 'geek' appearance by checking my stocks during econ class...
But then again, I'm also the only guy at my 1700-student high-school that wants to end up with a job in the dark recesses of some university with money, time, and research at my disposal...
Sig?
I suppose I'll get some people pissed at me for not reading /. 24/7, but just the same: Thanks!
/., even though I simply love to...i.e., there's no way for me to make time.
/do/ get the chance to read /., I don't have time to browse through the archives to figure out what I've missed. I usually end up reading headlines from my windowmaker menu.
/. in about two years...wonder what'll happen?
I rarely have time to read
When I
What's the big deal, people? Even though it's not exactly 'hard news', it's still something I would have missed had it not occured. I suppose that it might be a good idea to have something like a 'resonate posts' system in order for people like me to get a chance to read this stuff...Discussions could continue, as well. Yippee.
I'm in two high-school classes related to this situation: Economics and Journalism. While my Journalism class teaches me that this was something of a dumb mistake, I still appreciate what happened since it ought to have a big impact on Sony's stock. (In my Econ class, a good portion of our grade goes towards simulating working the stock market.) How would I have had the chance to find this out, otherwise. If the stock market has anything to do with 'luck-of-the-draw', it has to do with random factors indirectly connected, such as what's happened here.
(Was that offtopic?)
In the mean time, I'm going to look at this product, since it might be interesting to use one for things such as a way to take notes in class(audio, text, and video...my old BW Quickcams still work. What better way to draw a diagram that photograph the blackboard?), and coding when I find time.
Hmm..This was my first post to