tons of people were really excited about this and wanted it to be true. a whole lot of people tried to reproduce their results, so i think it's a bit disingenuous to say that they didn't want to succeed. i think it's also a misrepresentation to say that "they" were out to get P&F considering some people staked a good bit of money and reputation trying to reproduce the results.
some background. """
But whatever the findings of Pons, Fleischmann, and Jones, they were not the only actors in the cold fusion drama. Within days of the press conference, scientists around the world had taken up the challenge posed by the two teams, and attempted to replicate the experiment themselves (see the chronology in this finding aid). The normal tempo of even the most exciting scientific breakthrough was superheated by the daily attention from the media, as well as by newly universal forms of instantaneous communication, such as electronic bulletin boards, electronic mail, and faxes. For the first six weeks of the cold fusion saga, competing claims, counterclaims, and interpretations led to what many headline writers referred to as "fusion confusion." While some critics questioned details of the work of Pons and Fleischmann, other laboratories began to confirm some part of the results. Both critics and those attempting replications were frustrated by what they said was incomplete information released by the University of Utah; though Pons and Fleischmann often said they had provided enough information for any competent scientist to repeat the experiment, many researchers felt otherwise.
The first widely-publicized confirmation of heat production came on April 10 from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. On the same day, a team of researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta announced that they had detected neutrons in a cold fusion cell, confirming that fusion was occurring. (The Georgia Tech team publicly withdrew its claims within a few days; with less fanfare, the Texas A&M group later did the same.) By the end of April, a dozen laboratories from around the world had publicly announced partial confirmations of some aspect of cold fusion; at least 40 articles had been submitted to refereed journals on cold fusion.
it went like this. they announced discovery. then the majority of people couldn't reproduce results and their theory was unsupported.
ok pause there. everyone thought they were big dorks. why? i'm saying it wasn't because they were wrong (ie no one could reproduce the results), it was because they announced first, then peer review.
the parent of my post then asked, now that P&F might have be "right" should we say P&F are ok guys and did the right thing?
my answer is no. the reason they didn't do the right thing was because they skipped the peer review, which is still the case now.
no. P&F weren't reviled because they were wrong. they were reviled because they circumvented the whole publishing and peer review part of science and went directly to the 'make wild-ass claims to the press' part.
i think you're taking his comments out of context to make your inferences.
he states that both GPL and Java licenses are free in different senses, that they have different (not hidden) agendas, and that they have different 'catches' (re-release source for GPL, and compat testing for Java).
he has an opinion; it clearly isn't yours, but he seemed fair about it.
same here. it sounded like an article from the 1950's. "look those kooky women! they sure are dumb about important stuff like cars, but where would we be without them? washing dishes that's where ! LOL"
next time the BBC's normal reporter is in the shop and they get a loaner, they should try to get one from the current century.
> Why is "industry" so surprised? This is what > capitalism is supposed to be about; the > inefficient are driven to extinction and new, > more efficient players take their place. They > have to take the good with the bad and shouldn't > be allowed to legislate protection everytime the > wind blows their way.
well, it's a slippery slope: once you start taking the good, and then take the bad, and then you take them both and there you have, the facts of life, the facts of life.
especially when the world never seems, to be living up to your dreams and suddenly you're finding out the facts of life are all about you. yooouuuuuu.
that's why the industry is so surprised: it's obvious that it's going to happen, it just wasn't clear to them that it was eventually going to happen to *them*.
A protest under 37 CFR 1.291(a) must be submitted in writing, must specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed by application number or serial number and filing date, and must include a listing of all patents, publications, or other information relied on; a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; an English language translation of all relevant parts of any non-English language document; and be accompanied by a copy of each patent, publication, or other document relied on. Protestors are encouraged to use form PTO-1449 "Information Disclosure Statement" (or an equivalent form) when preparing a protest under 37 CFR 1.291, especially the listing enumerated under 37 CFR 1.291(b)(1). See MPEP 609. In addition, the protest and any accompanying papers must either (1) reflect that a copy of the same has been served upon the applicant or upon the applicant's attorney or agent of record; or (2) be filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.
the catalyst is aluminum oxide covered in rhodium and cerium oxide.
the ethanol vapor only needs to be heated slightly. the catalyzation causes energy to be released (heating it to 700C). the waste heat can then be used to heat the ethanol vapor.
the rhodium is exteremely expensive as far as catalysts go.
as one united front, so that we can accomplish my goals:
(pick one) [ ] destroy microsoft [ ] create great software [ ] build the best IRC client *EVAR* [ ] bring computing to everyone [ ] beat up this one really annoying guy
and once we solve the overdependence on electricity, we can solve our overdependence on clean water, and air, and food, manufactured goods, raw materials, cheap labor, children in sweatshops, working poor, janitors, cars, fossil fuels, shoes, houses, silicon, land, ozone, the sun, and all that other stuff we are so dependent on.
because god knows, dying in the electricity apocalypse would suck, but i'd rather go there than in the sewage apocolypse.
when the government takes property in the manner you describe they are not excercising eminent domain. the government seizes property under other laws made by congress under the authority granted it in the consititution ('provide for common defense and general welfare'...'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,....')
whether the law is constitutional is another question.
in the US case the 5th amendment grants the government the power of eminent domain. this means that the government can take private property for public use and must provide the owner with just compensation when doing so.
philosophically it should be self-evident (one way or another depending on your leanings).
the government has no such right. the people determine the rights of the government. all rights not expressly given to the government are the people's and the institutions to which those people wish to grant rights.
government has no property it is not given by the people.
(this is true even in non democratic/republican forms of government. see Gandhi's writing on non-violent resistance for an interesting object lesson in this fact).
Slashdot Mirror
tons of people were really excited about this and wanted it to be true. a whole lot of people tried to reproduce their results, so i think it's a bit disingenuous to say that they didn't want to succeed. i think it's also a misrepresentation to say that "they" were out to get P&F considering some people staked a good bit of money and reputation trying to reproduce the results.
u rs es/CH215X/coldfusion.html
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Chemistry/Co
some background.
"""
But whatever the findings of Pons, Fleischmann, and Jones, they were not the only actors in the cold fusion drama. Within days of the press conference, scientists around the world had taken up the challenge posed by the two teams, and attempted to replicate the experiment themselves (see the chronology in this finding aid). The normal tempo of even the most exciting scientific breakthrough was superheated by the daily attention from the media, as well as by newly universal forms of instantaneous communication, such as electronic bulletin boards, electronic mail, and faxes. For the first six weeks of the cold fusion saga, competing claims, counterclaims, and interpretations led to what many headline writers referred to as "fusion confusion." While some critics questioned details of the work of Pons and Fleischmann, other laboratories began to confirm some part of the results. Both critics and those attempting replications were frustrated by what they said was incomplete information released by the University of Utah; though Pons and Fleischmann often said they had provided enough information for any competent scientist to repeat the experiment, many researchers felt otherwise.
The first widely-publicized confirmation of heat production came on April 10 from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. On the same day, a team of researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta announced that they had detected neutrons in a cold fusion cell, confirming that fusion was occurring. (The Georgia Tech team publicly withdrew its claims within a few days; with less fanfare, the Texas A&M group later did the same.) By the end of April, a dozen laboratories from around the world had publicly announced partial confirmations of some aspect of cold fusion; at least 40 articles had been submitted to refereed journals on cold fusion.
"""
uhhh grammar? i meant 'might have been vindicated'
*cough*
i'm not saying they were wrong.
it went like this. they announced discovery. then the majority of people couldn't reproduce results and their theory was unsupported.
ok pause there. everyone thought they were big dorks. why? i'm saying it wasn't because they were wrong (ie no one could reproduce the results), it was because they announced first, then peer review.
the parent of my post then asked, now that P&F might have be "right" should we say P&F are ok guys and did the right thing?
my answer is no. the reason they didn't do the right thing was because they skipped the peer review, which is still the case now.
no. P&F weren't reviled because they were wrong. they were reviled because they circumvented the whole publishing and peer review part of science and went directly to the 'make wild-ass claims to the press' part.
that said, being wrong didn't help them either.
i think you're taking his comments out of context to make your inferences.
he states that both GPL and Java licenses are free in different senses, that they have different (not hidden) agendas, and that they have different 'catches' (re-release source for GPL, and compat testing for Java).
he has an opinion; it clearly isn't yours, but he seemed fair about it.
cheers
do you mean paul tatara?
i loved his reviews too.
here's a story on him.
same here. it sounded like an article from the 1950's. "look those kooky women! they sure are dumb about important stuff like cars, but where would we be without them? washing dishes that's where ! LOL"
next time the BBC's normal reporter is in the shop and they get a loaner, they should try to get one from the current century.
> Why is "industry" so surprised? This is what
> capitalism is supposed to be about; the
> inefficient are driven to extinction and new,
> more efficient players take their place. They
> have to take the good with the bad and shouldn't
> be allowed to legislate protection everytime the > wind blows their way.
well, it's a slippery slope: once you start
taking the good, and then take the bad,
and then you take them both and there you have, the facts
of life, the facts of life.
especially when the world never seems, to be living up to your
dreams and
suddenly you're
finding out the facts of life are all about you.
yooouuuuuu.
that's why the industry is so surprised:
it's obvious that it's going to happen, it just
wasn't clear to them that it was eventually going
to happen to *them*.
and again:
although reading it again it appears what they are patenting is their own little way of presenting the pager to the user...basically the gui.
dumb/trival but probably enough for a patent.
yay for replying to myself!
from uspto's website:
A protest under 37 CFR 1.291(a) must be submitted in writing, must specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed by application number or serial number and filing date, and must include a listing of all patents, publications, or other information relied on; a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; an English language translation of all relevant parts of any non-English language document; and be accompanied by a copy of each patent, publication, or other document relied on. Protestors are encouraged to use form PTO-1449 "Information Disclosure Statement" (or an equivalent form) when preparing a protest under 37 CFR 1.291, especially the listing enumerated under 37 CFR 1.291(b)(1). See MPEP 609. In addition, the protest and any accompanying papers must either (1) reflect that a copy of the same has been served upon the applicant or upon the applicant's attorney or agent of record; or (2) be filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.
who wants to do it?!
here is some information on how to protest it. i mean here btw
i'm reading through it now to see how to tell the pto formally.
the catalyst is aluminum oxide covered in rhodium and cerium oxide.
the ethanol vapor only needs to be heated slightly. the catalyzation causes energy to be released (heating it to 700C). the waste heat can then be used to heat the ethanol vapor.
the rhodium is exteremely expensive as far as catalysts go.
because you're dumb?
(if ever i saw a +5 informative post, this is it)
uhhh, maybe a little blood. i can always use a faster processor
as one united front, so that we can accomplish my goals:
(pick one)
[ ] destroy microsoft
[ ] create great software
[ ] build the best IRC client *EVAR*
[ ] bring computing to everyone
[ ] beat up this one really annoying guy
and once we solve the overdependence on electricity, we can solve our overdependence on clean water, and air, and food, manufactured goods, raw materials, cheap labor, children in sweatshops, working poor, janitors, cars, fossil fuels, shoes, houses, silicon, land, ozone, the sun, and all that other stuff we are so dependent on.
because god knows, dying in the electricity apocalypse would suck, but i'd rather go there than in the sewage apocolypse.
thank you, good night.
the submitter said that not micheal.
go go gadget kneejerking!
i wonder if Hallmark has a card for this?
"Sorry you're getting harassed by some dumb company's legal department."
maybe with a picture of a cute little kid being abused or something.
i believe the original AOP implementation was in a LISP dialect. (check out the paper on cisteseer).
Pseudoscience.
any suggestions on what the image icon should be?
what isn't true, the 5th amendment?
....')
when the government takes property in the manner you describe they are not excercising eminent domain. the government seizes property under other laws made by congress under the authority granted it in the consititution ('provide for common defense and general welfare'...'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
whether the law is constitutional is another question.
both.
in the US case the 5th amendment grants the government the power of eminent domain. this means that the government can take private property for public use and must provide the owner with just compensation when doing so.
philosophically it should be self-evident (one way or another depending on your leanings).
the government has no such right. the people determine the rights of the government. all rights not expressly given to the government are the people's and the institutions to which those people wish to grant rights.
government has no property it is not given by the people.
(this is true even in non democratic/republican forms of government. see Gandhi's writing on non-violent resistance for an interesting object lesson in this fact).
everything doesn't need to be object oriented these days...mostly just the object oriented stuff needs to be object oriented.
openAL++ is an object oriented wrapper around openAL so clearly it needs to be object oriented. the rest of the audience can just use plain openAL.
and what about those that feel OO is mostly hype etc?
just to add something on topic...has anyone played with openAL any or seen any projects making use of it ?
Ximian isn't a fork of gnome. They just package it for the end user.