Why do they always focus on eye candy? The browser is in a need of some serious overhaul for memory usage, memory leakage, crashes, threading, multi core and some serious basic core fixes.
It is obvious if you grow GMO plants outside they will eventually spread no matter how many precautions you take, this is just simple nature and evolution.
No the "all you can eat" specifies one person, if you distribute plates to other persons you are breaking that. Unlimited data plan doesn't specify that.
No you are mixing up software and hardware. Hardware should be patentable but software should not be. If you can reduce something to math then it is math and software can always be reduced to math. If your device is a combination of hardware and software then the hardware should be patentable but not the software. You can of course own a copyright on the software that you made but that is a different matter.
It really is very simple: There is no genuine software/algorithmic invention because that is all math. You may stumble upon a great algorithm but it is still math.
The problem with this utopian ideas is that he forgets that someone has to design and create these robots, and then there have to be people who will fix and manage the robots. You could argue that you could have fix robots that fix the other robots, but who will then fix the fix robots? The only thing that will change is that people will stop doing certain jobs and instead do the jobs that enable the other jobs to be automated.
As a another poster responded this is a very simple identity function. If you are looking for an example how a more complex software would be expressed here is an actual software patent that is expressed as mathematical formula: Patent 5,893,120 reduced to mathematical formulae
No because what you are patenting is math, the principles behind any artificial intelligence algorithm it is just math. Imagine if Pythagoras had been able to patent the Pythagorean theorem and other formulas. Human civilization would be centuries behind.
Mexico is a bad example, it is obvious the ban isn't enforced at all because all the criminals have weapons, and the reason is of course that the government and police are massively corrupt and are part of the criminal gangs themselves.
But how do the scientist know that they and the subject are not in a virtual world? Even if they would find out that you use less brain power since you are living in a virtual world they would have no way of comparing it with the real world since they themselves are in the virtual world and hence their measurement of normal brain power would equal that of the virtual world.
No pointers are complicated in any large size software project. Because they point to memory which you have to handle allocating and freeing yourself when not needed and not being referenced. When you have pointers to pointers to pointers then deciding what code has the responsibility of handling freeing what pointer memory which is not always handled by the same code it becomes easy to make a mistake. Garbage collected programming solves all these low level tedius memory handling automatically.
Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?/quote>
What does this matter at all? Something that isn't banned is legal, but if it is banned then it illegal.
BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!
I am not talking about specific individuals, I am talking about guns in general. And no your killer hammer primary purpose is not to kill people because it was designed to bang nails not to kill people. This isn't such a hard concept to grasp.
You really don't get my point. Is it possible to ban all chemicals and cars, because there is a possibility that they are used for bombs. No because they are useful for other purposes than killing. Guns have no other purpose than to kill people. You might argue that you need one for hunting, sure, but then you don't need to own anything more than a shotgun with a maximum of 3 shells.
Here is the problem with current gun legislation: When you want to own a car you need to get a drivers license and you need to pass a test, you need to have your car centrally registered with the government, your car needs to have an identifiable registration number, you need to have the car regularly inspected, when you sell your car to another individual he needs to have a drivers license to use it and you need to fill out a transfer of ownership to that person. Why is this? It is partly because a car is a dangerous thing to use, and you can kill people with it.
The same things needs to be in place for gun ownership.
You don't get it do you? IED would do a lot of damage and that is why they are illegal. By your logic we should just allow any regular citizen to own IED, RPGs, Tanks, Missiles and WMDs because it is just the people and not what they use.
It's not about breaking the law it is about easy access.
Yes people are going to continue to kill people, but not as much because guns make it extremely easy to kill people unlike anything else. Mexico is not useful to compare to because the police and the government themselves are corrupt and working for the drug cartels and so the gun ban isn't being enforced. Britain has one of the lowest gun related murder for exactly that reason.
No you are totally missing the point. Bombs are dangerous and therefore you can't buy one in the supermarket. So easy access to bombs is not available unlike guns. You could make a bomb yes, but that is a lot harder than buying one. So by limiting access to guns you also limit the usage of guns to kill people.
Of course you can legislate guns. Bombs are illegal hence they are legislated just as guns should be. People can of course kill people with other tools beside guns like knives, hammers etc but knives and a hammer primary purpose is not to kill people and you can't kill multiple people with them in a short period of time. Guns primary purpose is to kill people.
So that they can hide behind civilians, and when possible, make sure that civilians are killed in the fights they start.
So they civilians are just to blame themselves by getting killed by the US army? You have some strange ideas.
The problem is first of all that the USA invaded Iraq on false pretenses, so they are the aggressors and the invading force in all of this and so it no wonder they where fought against.
Slashdot Mirror
First they came for the terrorists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the criminals,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a criminal.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Why do they always focus on eye candy? The browser is in a need of some serious overhaul for memory usage, memory leakage, crashes, threading, multi core and some serious basic core fixes.
Install lejos (Java for Lego Mindstorm) and you have a much better programming language instead of the crappy language RCX code language included.
It is obvious if you grow GMO plants outside they will eventually spread no matter how many precautions you take, this is just simple nature and evolution.
The problem is that the sushi buffet doesn't allow walrus pets to dine, but other than that it shouldn't matter.
No the "all you can eat" specifies one person, if you distribute plates to other persons you are breaking that. Unlimited data plan doesn't specify that.
So they accept small changes. But what do you call a lot of small changes? A big change. And what do you call a lot of big changes? Evolution.
No you are mixing up software and hardware. Hardware should be patentable but software should not be. If you can reduce something to math then it is math and software can always be reduced to math. If your device is a combination of hardware and software then the hardware should be patentable but not the software. You can of course own a copyright on the software that you made but that is a different matter.
It really is very simple: There is no genuine software/algorithmic invention because that is all math. You may stumble upon a great algorithm but it is still math.
The problem with this utopian ideas is that he forgets that someone has to design and create these robots, and then there have to be people who will fix and manage the robots. You could argue that you could have fix robots that fix the other robots, but who will then fix the fix robots? The only thing that will change is that people will stop doing certain jobs and instead do the jobs that enable the other jobs to be automated.
As a another poster responded this is a very simple identity function. If you are looking for an example how a more complex software would be expressed here is an actual software patent that is expressed as mathematical formula: Patent 5,893,120 reduced to mathematical formulae
No because what you are patenting is math, the principles behind any artificial intelligence algorithm it is just math. Imagine if Pythagoras had been able to patent the Pythagorean theorem and other formulas. Human civilization would be centuries behind.
It really is simple. Software is mathematics because all software can be expressed as mathematical formulas, therefore it can't be patented.
No the reason is that prohibition doesn't work for things that you can get addicted to. Alcohol and drugs are also victim less crimes.
Mexico is a bad example, it is obvious the ban isn't enforced at all because all the criminals have weapons, and the reason is of course that the government and police are massively corrupt and are part of the criminal gangs themselves.
But how do the scientist know that they and the subject are not in a virtual world? Even if they would find out that you use less brain power since you are living in a virtual world they would have no way of comparing it with the real world since they themselves are in the virtual world and hence their measurement of normal brain power would equal that of the virtual world.
Of course it should be rejected, you don't include something that doesn't work because it is impossible.
No pointers are complicated in any large size software project. Because they point to memory which you have to handle allocating and freeing yourself when not needed and not being referenced. When you have pointers to pointers to pointers then deciding what code has the responsibility of handling freeing what pointer memory which is not always handled by the same code it becomes easy to make a mistake. Garbage collected programming solves all these low level tedius memory handling automatically.
Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?/quote>
What does this matter at all? Something that isn't banned is legal, but if it is banned then it illegal.
BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!
I am not talking about specific individuals, I am talking about guns in general. And no your killer hammer primary purpose is not to kill people because it was designed to bang nails not to kill people. This isn't such a hard concept to grasp.
You are using the slippery slope argument, which is bullshit. Heavily regulating guns doesn't increase bomb makers.
You really don't get my point. Is it possible to ban all chemicals and cars, because there is a possibility that they are used for bombs. No because they are useful for other purposes than killing. Guns have no other purpose than to kill people. You might argue that you need one for hunting, sure, but then you don't need to own anything more than a shotgun with a maximum of 3 shells.
Here is the problem with current gun legislation: When you want to own a car you need to get a drivers license and you need to pass a test, you need to have your car centrally registered with the government, your car needs to have an identifiable registration number, you need to have the car regularly inspected, when you sell your car to another individual he needs to have a drivers license to use it and you need to fill out a transfer of ownership to that person. Why is this? It is partly because a car is a dangerous thing to use, and you can kill people with it.
The same things needs to be in place for gun ownership.
You don't get it do you? IED would do a lot of damage and that is why they are illegal. By your logic we should just allow any regular citizen to own IED, RPGs, Tanks, Missiles and WMDs because it is just the people and not what they use.
It's not about breaking the law it is about easy access.
Yes people are going to continue to kill people, but not as much because guns make it extremely easy to kill people unlike anything else. Mexico is not useful to compare to because the police and the government themselves are corrupt and working for the drug cartels and so the gun ban isn't being enforced. Britain has one of the lowest gun related murder for exactly that reason.
No you are totally missing the point. Bombs are dangerous and therefore you can't buy one in the supermarket. So easy access to bombs is not available unlike guns. You could make a bomb yes, but that is a lot harder than buying one. So by limiting access to guns you also limit the usage of guns to kill people.
Of course you can legislate guns. Bombs are illegal hence they are legislated just as guns should be. People can of course kill people with other tools beside guns like knives, hammers etc but knives and a hammer primary purpose is not to kill people and you can't kill multiple people with them in a short period of time. Guns primary purpose is to kill people.
So that they can hide behind civilians, and when possible, make sure that civilians are killed in the fights they start.
So they civilians are just to blame themselves by getting killed by the US army? You have some strange ideas.
The problem is first of all that the USA invaded Iraq on false pretenses, so they are the aggressors and the invading force in all of this and so it no wonder they where fought against.