Reading that first patent is quite interesting. They basically patented a system of on screen objects that you can select in order to handle call waiting functionality....which was a new invention compared to the old way of using the 1,2,3 and send keys, which was confusing for people (according to the patent).
Highlights the ludicrousness of patents. "Hey man, this is groundbreaking stuff here, making a menu system with simple text labels instead of making people remember which number to press at which time". Pretty much NOTHING new about the idea, just the specific application to cell phones..../LAME
The patent claims that before this awesome "invention" users had to hit either 1,2, or 3 on the keypad followed by the send button in order to manage the call waiting aspect of your phone. It also claims that you had to press a different number to control a given call waiting function (place on hold, hang up current call, combine calls into a three way call, etc) depending on what you were doing on the phone at the time, so this was confusing and cumbersome for users.
So this Sony employee "invented" a simple menu system (though the patent seems to cover any sort of system, aka apple's buttons which pop up on screen when you get a call waiting type of call) which lets you (via a scroll wheel and button, in the example) select "Hold" or "Disconnnect" or what have you by scrolling and clicking. In this way the user doesn't have to remember whether they should press 1, 2, or 3 and instead can just click on words to do what they want.
It's worthwhile to look at the images which contain samples of the menu system (as well as flow charts and block layouts of a typical GSM cell phone).
TLDR: This extremely generic/broad patent is for a simple system to handle call waiting on a cell phone. A system which is novel because it's easier to use than the old keypad based system in use at the time.
I think the slashdot editor read a little bit too much into this quote "It uses a GOTO instead of a more elegant loop." This doesn't mean it has no loop as stated here on slashdot.
This article is the least interesting thing in a long time. Sure it's sorta cool that one line makes a cool looking screen on your commodore, but to extrapolate the grand claims that the article and the book make is nuts!
Barely viable economically? You might want to look at how many houses are getting solar added every year. From experience I can tell you that it's thousands of homes per month and the pace is steadily increasing. When you consider solar on your home compared to the utility in your area over the next 20 years PV does a lot better than "barely viable economically".
(Yes what I'm talking about is happening because of government subsidies, but those subsidies are HIGHLY effective, and within not too many years won't be necessary.)
While I heartily agree, it can be done. I have often used a 0.35 Rotring Rapidograph, but it requires good paper (smooth) and holding the pen within about 20 degrees of vertical. Fortunately this wasn't hard for me to accomodate, and I loved it.
Copic pens are what I use. Definitely can't push hard with the disposables but the aluminum bodied ones are amazing.
Then again I get the sense that you want a different style of pen.
Correction, no one has used the Williams developed flywheel KERS system in F1. Every car to have run KERS to date has used a battery based system.
In any case, Porsche has demonstrated the flywheel based system and is going to use it in a production vehicle shortly.
Please stop underestimating the capability of engineers to DO THEIR JOBS......all the people on here talking about the safety need to go ahead and say out loud "i don't want to goto the 80th story of this building because, jeebus, I just don't know if they could make buildings that are that tall safe"...and then realize that your common sense is trumped by their engineering ability!
guess you haven't seen any of the rips of 3d movies....cough Jackass 3d cough.....
yeah the rip is kinda funky looking, but people are most definitely pirating it!
At nearly every stage of perception from the actual impingement of the environment on our perceptual apparatus all the way through to our actual experience of the worlds, there occurs some level of "processing" or rather transformation.
Point is, what you experience is very removed from the 'reality of the world' if you will. The most obvious visual examples relate to color processing or motion processing (i.e. how different shades of gray can appear the same, or how you can look at those spirals and see motion in your peripheral vision)...but this happens for all of the ways that we perceive and experience.
but how do we know if the methods of education have improved? currently tests are considered one of the most useful metrics of measuring the success of those methods. Unfortunately, as we all know, this has led to teachers "teaching the test" and little else.
Consequently, the solution, is to reduce the emphasis on the test and place more emphasis on the judgement of teachers.
You're going to have to present a stronger case than "if you read the paper that they publish, they talk about error margins."
Error margins are introduced because they do not have the computing power (nor models of sufficiently good quality) to compute every molecule in the atmosphere. Instead they have to divide the planet into a grid of cells, then model the cells as the smallest unit in the simulation. The processes that occur within these cells are only approximated and not actually computed, therefore there is some margin of error. This is typical practice for simulations and doesn't prevent them from being highly accurate.
Furthermore, scientific theories yield predictions, "which then turn out to be false" ALL THE TIME. In fact it too is standard practice for the field of science. Science never establishes certainty, it just hopes to paint the most accurate picture possible (nevermind the specifics of what accurate means (to save me from writing a philosophy of science essay to inform you some more)).
At the end of the day your argument that the simulations outstrip the predictory power of the data is refuted. Not only don't they exceed the data, but they've been increasing the quality of their data on a daily basis.
PS- you may be interested to note that some climate models have refuted existing data, which initially was taken as evidence against the model, until scientists figured out that the model was more accurate than the data! Turns out the weather balloons they were using were sensitive to atmospheric conditions which influenced the readings they generated. Sometimes models are more accurate than the data!
You cannot defend the inequality in wealth and/or income distribution by saying that all boats have risen. Maybe poor people have it slightly better off, but at the expense of rich people have it ridiculously better off.
It's also a myth that income is proportional to productivity. The market, via the participants, does not work rationally, nor appropriately in a ton of situations. The invisible hand is no match for irrational behavior of the masses, especially behavior instigated though advertising.
You may have been able to argue better for the market in the past, but when you have one group, producers, actively manipulating consumers, through the application of psychology and focus groups, you're going to end up with insane wealth inequalities.
The simple fact is that no person, regardless of any factor, should be able to and/or need to make more than, say, a million per year. it's DESPICABLE that one person could want and justify having so much wealth at the DIRECT expense of others, regardless of whether those others "deserve" it or not.
Simply put your an idiot for believing that more than a small group of people choose to be poor. For every millionaire there are 10 people who work twice as hard and yet live in poverty.
wow d00d, never expected anyone to cite Somalia here, but you fucking rule for doing so. Somalia is insanity (done in the 'this is sparta voice').
And people need to be reminded that Somalia is ongoing:(
You may want to look into the area of semiotics, ecology, and philsophy of the self. While it may initially seem odd to speak of "intention" and "control" when talking about bacteria, or plants, etc. But there is definitely a way of understanding these things which makes sense of these terms. Basically, the guide (that control the) of evolution is a process which is in a relationship with the environment where each contributes and as time advances something is produced (change). Many of the processes, for example bacteria, work on what amounts to an information processing organization. The information are "affordances", which are relationships between an organism, loosely defined, and the environment as it relates to abilities of the organism. So, for instance, a snake has the ability to slither, and is situated in an environment such that at a given moment the snake is aware that (or concious of) it's ability to slither forward, and perhaps chooses to do so. At a simpler level, bacteria operate similarly. Taking in the information afforded by the environment, and making responses.
In any case, the area of ecology in philosophy and semiotic approaches to "the self" might interest you. Plenty of authors have said it far better than I can here!
Slashdot Mirror
Fastenal uses the exact same vending machine (minus all the photos of course!).
the buttons were at least half the reason why hp48g was the one!
You win! Eleven words to say what I said in volumes: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3314779&cid=42279293
Reading that first patent is quite interesting. They basically patented a system of on screen objects that you can select in order to handle call waiting functionality....which was a new invention compared to the old way of using the 1,2,3 and send keys, which was confusing for people (according to the patent).
.... /LAME
Highlights the ludicrousness of patents. "Hey man, this is groundbreaking stuff here, making a menu system with simple text labels instead of making people remember which number to press at which time". Pretty much NOTHING new about the idea, just the specific application to cell phones
The patent claims that before this awesome "invention" users had to hit either 1,2, or 3 on the keypad followed by the send button in order to manage the call waiting aspect of your phone. It also claims that you had to press a different number to control a given call waiting function (place on hold, hang up current call, combine calls into a three way call, etc) depending on what you were doing on the phone at the time, so this was confusing and cumbersome for users.
So this Sony employee "invented" a simple menu system (though the patent seems to cover any sort of system, aka apple's buttons which pop up on screen when you get a call waiting type of call) which lets you (via a scroll wheel and button, in the example) select "Hold" or "Disconnnect" or what have you by scrolling and clicking. In this way the user doesn't have to remember whether they should press 1, 2, or 3 and instead can just click on words to do what they want.
It's worthwhile to look at the images which contain samples of the menu system (as well as flow charts and block layouts of a typical GSM cell phone).
TLDR: This extremely generic/broad patent is for a simple system to handle call waiting on a cell phone. A system which is novel because it's easier to use than the old keypad based system in use at the time.
Consequently it's ridiculous.
A mere fraction of the annual defense budget :(
I think the slashdot editor read a little bit too much into this quote "It uses a GOTO instead of a more elegant loop." This doesn't mean it has no loop as stated here on slashdot.
This article is the least interesting thing in a long time. Sure it's sorta cool that one line makes a cool looking screen on your commodore, but to extrapolate the grand claims that the article and the book make is nuts!
Barely viable economically? You might want to look at how many houses are getting solar added every year. From experience I can tell you that it's thousands of homes per month and the pace is steadily increasing. When you consider solar on your home compared to the utility in your area over the next 20 years PV does a lot better than "barely viable economically". (Yes what I'm talking about is happening because of government subsidies, but those subsidies are HIGHLY effective, and within not too many years won't be necessary.)
While I heartily agree, it can be done. I have often used a 0.35 Rotring Rapidograph, but it requires good paper (smooth) and holding the pen within about 20 degrees of vertical. Fortunately this wasn't hard for me to accomodate, and I loved it.
I prefer Rotring because of the way the helix works (replaced with the cartridge, so no having to clean it).
Copic pens are what I use. Definitely can't push hard with the disposables but the aluminum bodied ones are amazing. Then again I get the sense that you want a different style of pen.
Available as a set at Dick Blick These are no Sakura pens, these things are made for professionals!
guess you were lucky
hahaha
Yes, and all criminals are logical like Spock. I still lean towards this guy being framed but, as you say, only time will tell
It's not out of his ass. Try the Wikipedia disambiguation page which states:
Foreign Intelligence Service - a term used by an Intelligence Service/Intelligence Agency to describe their (foreign) counterparts.
Correction, no one has used the Williams developed flywheel KERS system in F1. Every car to have run KERS to date has used a battery based system.
In any case, Porsche has demonstrated the flywheel based system and is going to use it in a production vehicle shortly.
Please stop underestimating the capability of engineers to DO THEIR JOBS......all the people on here talking about the safety need to go ahead and say out loud "i don't want to goto the 80th story of this building because, jeebus, I just don't know if they could make buildings that are that tall safe"...and then realize that your common sense is trumped by their engineering ability!
guess you haven't seen any of the rips of 3d movies....cough Jackass 3d cough..... yeah the rip is kinda funky looking, but people are most definitely pirating it!
At nearly every stage of perception from the actual impingement of the environment on our perceptual apparatus all the way through to our actual experience of the worlds, there occurs some level of "processing" or rather transformation.
:)
Point is, what you experience is very removed from the 'reality of the world' if you will. The most obvious visual examples relate to color processing or motion processing (i.e. how different shades of gray can appear the same, or how you can look at those spirals and see motion in your peripheral vision)...but this happens for all of the ways that we perceive and experience.
Yay for philosphy
but how do we know if the methods of education have improved? currently tests are considered one of the most useful metrics of measuring the success of those methods. Unfortunately, as we all know, this has led to teachers "teaching the test" and little else.
Consequently, the solution, is to reduce the emphasis on the test and place more emphasis on the judgement of teachers.
You're going to have to present a stronger case than "if you read the paper that they publish, they talk about error margins."
Error margins are introduced because they do not have the computing power (nor models of sufficiently good quality) to compute every molecule in the atmosphere. Instead they have to divide the planet into a grid of cells, then model the cells as the smallest unit in the simulation. The processes that occur within these cells are only approximated and not actually computed, therefore there is some margin of error. This is typical practice for simulations and doesn't prevent them from being highly accurate.
Furthermore, scientific theories yield predictions, "which then turn out to be false" ALL THE TIME. In fact it too is standard practice for the field of science. Science never establishes certainty, it just hopes to paint the most accurate picture possible (nevermind the specifics of what accurate means (to save me from writing a philosophy of science essay to inform you some more)).
At the end of the day your argument that the simulations outstrip the predictory power of the data is refuted. Not only don't they exceed the data, but they've been increasing the quality of their data on a daily basis.
PS- you may be interested to note that some climate models have refuted existing data, which initially was taken as evidence against the model, until scientists figured out that the model was more accurate than the data! Turns out the weather balloons they were using were sensitive to atmospheric conditions which influenced the readings they generated. Sometimes models are more accurate than the data!
nah, that'd be government meddling in the private market. regulation forces people out of business!
:(
/end of sarcasm
yeah it's going to be very useless when I use my iPod touch while waiting for hours in line :(
You cannot defend the inequality in wealth and/or income distribution by saying that all boats have risen. Maybe poor people have it slightly better off, but at the expense of rich people have it ridiculously better off.
It's also a myth that income is proportional to productivity. The market, via the participants, does not work rationally, nor appropriately in a ton of situations. The invisible hand is no match for irrational behavior of the masses, especially behavior instigated though advertising.
You may have been able to argue better for the market in the past, but when you have one group, producers, actively manipulating consumers, through the application of psychology and focus groups, you're going to end up with insane wealth inequalities.
The simple fact is that no person, regardless of any factor, should be able to and/or need to make more than, say, a million per year. it's DESPICABLE that one person could want and justify having so much wealth at the DIRECT expense of others, regardless of whether those others "deserve" it or not.
Simply put your an idiot for believing that more than a small group of people choose to be poor. For every millionaire there are 10 people who work twice as hard and yet live in poverty.
wow d00d, never expected anyone to cite Somalia here, but you fucking rule for doing so. Somalia is insanity (done in the 'this is sparta voice'). And people need to be reminded that Somalia is ongoing :(
You may want to look into the area of semiotics, ecology, and philsophy of the self. While it may initially seem odd to speak of "intention" and "control" when talking about bacteria, or plants, etc. But there is definitely a way of understanding these things which makes sense of these terms. Basically, the guide (that control the) of evolution is a process which is in a relationship with the environment where each contributes and as time advances something is produced (change). Many of the processes, for example bacteria, work on what amounts to an information processing organization. The information are "affordances", which are relationships between an organism, loosely defined, and the environment as it relates to abilities of the organism. So, for instance, a snake has the ability to slither, and is situated in an environment such that at a given moment the snake is aware that (or concious of) it's ability to slither forward, and perhaps chooses to do so. At a simpler level, bacteria operate similarly. Taking in the information afforded by the environment, and making responses.
In any case, the area of ecology in philosophy and semiotic approaches to "the self" might interest you. Plenty of authors have said it far better than I can here!