As far as total sales, I'm not sure about the statistics for specific manufacturers, but Mashable and CNN have some interesting numbers on Android vs iOS market share.
No, I think you mistook his meaning. If you have an Idea, I can copy it. If you use your Idea to make something, I can use that same Idea to make something too. If my use of the Idea isn't a copy of your product/implementation of the Idea, it's not a copy of what you did.
Intellectual Property shouldn't exist (no claim has been made about actual property). You shouldn't be able to lay exclusive claim to an Idea.
No, you missed his point, I do believe. What he's saying is that if someone else had the Idea, you shouldn't be able to patent the Idea and prevent other people from making money by using that Idea.
Make money? Sure you can make money. Go right ahead. But enough with this bullhucky about "I had the idea of a more or less rectangular device that has curves on it" that Apple has pulled in the last few months. Because that, my friend, is complete and utter idiocy.
Personally, I use a Subversion repo provided by my web host. I've cut my restart time after a full wipe and reinstall from 2-3 hours down to less than one. My documents and personal file structure is completely contained in the repo, so all I have to do is start the download, and then go install all my programs while my documents recreate themselves locally.
You're making more than $40/hr and you are going back to school because it bugs you leaving something undone? You're the right sort of IT person. The sort of person who knows a job isn't done until it's DONE.
This. More IT people need to be like this. Myself included, at times, although I tend to be too detail and completion oriented....drives people nuts when I won't just move on with a project that is "good enough", simply because I know we could have done better, and a few more hours/days/weeks could make it really shine.
As do I, and I couldn't be happier. Only thing that weirded me out was the fact that they had Win7 32bit running on 64bit hardware. Easily fixed, currently running my copy of Win7 Pro, Xubuntu, and Backtrack5. Looking at maybe giving it an SSD and a RAM upgrade in the near future if it keeps meeting my needs.
I see your "creationist nonsense" and raise you a "both sides are biased".
I could care less who believes what...as long as both (or all three, or however many) sided are realistic about the problems that their own pet theory has. (and, you know, stops being jerks to anyone who has a different opinion than they do...)
For example, evolutionists ignore the issues with the dating methods that they use, and creationists assume that their bible can be used to prove something. Both sides need to get their crap together, stop ignoring the scientific method, and just do science. (article deals specifically with evolution, but all the principles apply to creationists)
The problem is...a lot of the principles of Evolution don't always meet the standards either. Take a look at the disconnect between mutation as presented by the chapter on Evolution in a biology textbook and how mutation is presented in a genetics textbook.
Well...what about how evolution is about order (like cell structure, limbs, eyesight, intellegence, digestive systems, etc) coming from chaos (random chemicals, randomly in the right place, at the right time, millions of times over millions/billions of years)? The concept of entropy is that there is a measurable tendency from order to disorder in isolated systems. Evolution would require entropy to be fundamentally broken (or to have been broken at some point in the past) for it to work.
evidence of billions of years of random mutations and natural selection.
This bit kinda shows your ignorance of the actual processes behind micro-evolution and genetics (the very things that *might* make it possible for life to be as varied as it is without a "designer")
Macro-evolution (the kind that is supposed to make a human from an ape) isn't provable, at least not yet. The forces of nature (presence or lack of a specific food or predator) don't change the DNA of the individual animal at all. They only limit the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals. Take a look at the "Positive Mutations" section of this article for a bit more on this. Mutations aren't all they're cracked up to be, once you take a look at it from the genetics standpoint.
I could care less if you think there is evidence for ID, or any other alternate explanation for that matter....as long as people who believe in the hypothesis of Evolution are realistic about the problems with what is being proposed in their own theory of how things came to be.
Your citations assume that we don't know what intelligent design is, why it's bullshit, or how it was found to be nothing more than creationism in Dover vs. Kitzmiller. We're very familiar with intelligent design and its origins. It's still bullshit and there's still no evidence for it.
(unrelated note, PiCraft sounds neat! I may check it out soon.:)
Eh, that bit was just responding to exactly what I quoted, where he stated there was no evidence. Evidence exists, the decision of whether or not it's valid remains up to you. (and a court decision on something can have exactly squat to do with reality, take the case of kim.com). I wasn't meaning that ID is the only "evidence" out there, I could just have easily pulled from druidic traditions or some research about how evolution is statistically impossible.
And as for PiCraft...good to hear you're planning on taking a look. I'm the owner/admin/sysadmin, my ign is the same as my username here (jakimfett). (and I normally tell people to keep political and religious opinions out of ingame chat, so no worries that you're going to get proselytized)
That's not "micro-evolution", that's overeating. That has nothing to do with genetics, which is what evolution is about.
Overeating results in those with weight related health issues to die off sooner...resulting in a species that has a genetic code which is overall more "resistant" to the effects of overeating...sound familiar?
This page does a decent job of defining micro-evolution.
Depends on what type of evolution you're talking about. For example, micro-evolution (the provable, observable kind) involves things like people in the USA growing fatter over time because of excessive access to food, or the famous different beak sizes of Galapagos finches.
Macro-evolution (the kind that is supposed to make a human from an ape) isn't quite so provable. The forces of nature (presence or lack of a specific food or predator) don't change the DNA of the individual animal at all. They only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals.
Only reason I bring this up is because the article you linked to relies heavily on mutation and natural selection (i.e. the slower/less aware prey escaped the predator, causing only positive mutations to be carried forward). If you feel like reading some research supporting the other end of it (that mutations aren't all they're cracked up to be), take a look at this article.
The concept of entropy is that there is a measurable tendency from order to disorder in isolated systems. Evolution would require entropy to be fundamentally broken (or to have been broken at some point in the past) for it to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Christians? Nah. It's the "Church" that is killing it for me. So many people locked into their hypocrytical ways...
As far as total sales, I'm not sure about the statistics for specific manufacturers, but Mashable and CNN have some interesting numbers on Android vs iOS market share.
No, I think you mistook his meaning. If you have an Idea, I can copy it. If you use your Idea to make something, I can use that same Idea to make something too. If my use of the Idea isn't a copy of your product/implementation of the Idea, it's not a copy of what you did.
Intellectual Property shouldn't exist (no claim has been made about actual property). You shouldn't be able to lay exclusive claim to an Idea.
No, you missed his point, I do believe. What he's saying is that if someone else had the Idea, you shouldn't be able to patent the Idea and prevent other people from making money by using that Idea.
Make money? Sure you can make money. Go right ahead. But enough with this bullhucky about "I had the idea of a more or less rectangular device that has curves on it" that Apple has pulled in the last few months. Because that, my friend, is complete and utter idiocy.
This is brilliant, and I will be searching for a way to insert this into everyday conversation.
I laughed. I hated myself for it, but I laughed.
Personally, I use a Subversion repo provided by my web host. I've cut my restart time after a full wipe and reinstall from 2-3 hours down to less than one. My documents and personal file structure is completely contained in the repo, so all I have to do is start the download, and then go install all my programs while my documents recreate themselves locally.
Woz, If you have played Minecraft, what is your opinion on how it will change the gaming industry?
You're making more than $40/hr and you are going back to school because it bugs you leaving something undone? You're the right sort of IT person. The sort of person who knows a job isn't done until it's DONE.
This. More IT people need to be like this. Myself included, at times, although I tend to be too detail and completion oriented....drives people nuts when I won't just move on with a project that is "good enough", simply because I know we could have done better, and a few more hours/days/weeks could make it really shine.
I believe I must quote you, my good sir/madam. This is funny, and causes me to lol.
Oh man...this is techie porn, right here. Time machine+win updates+one click installs=awesome.
As do I, and I couldn't be happier. Only thing that weirded me out was the fact that they had Win7 32bit running on 64bit hardware. Easily fixed, currently running my copy of Win7 Pro, Xubuntu, and Backtrack5. Looking at maybe giving it an SSD and a RAM upgrade in the near future if it keeps meeting my needs.
Looks like I need to step up the pace on my darknet project...
We can only hope...
I see your "creationist nonsense" and raise you a "both sides are biased".
I could care less who believes what...as long as both (or all three, or however many) sided are realistic about the problems that their own pet theory has. (and, you know, stops being jerks to anyone who has a different opinion than they do...)
For example, evolutionists ignore the issues with the dating methods that they use, and creationists assume that their bible can be used to prove something. Both sides need to get their crap together, stop ignoring the scientific method, and just do science. (article deals specifically with evolution, but all the principles apply to creationists)
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html#Different Dating Methods Agree
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=6841
The problem is...a lot of the principles of Evolution don't always meet the standards either. Take a look at the disconnect between mutation as presented by the chapter on Evolution in a biology textbook and how mutation is presented in a genetics textbook.
entropy has nothing to do with evolution.
Well...what about how evolution is about order (like cell structure, limbs, eyesight, intellegence, digestive systems, etc) coming from chaos (random chemicals, randomly in the right place, at the right time, millions of times over millions/billions of years)? The concept of entropy is that there is a measurable tendency from order to disorder in isolated systems. Evolution would require entropy to be fundamentally broken (or to have been broken at some point in the past) for it to work.
evidence of billions of years of random mutations and natural selection.
This bit kinda shows your ignorance of the actual processes behind micro-evolution and genetics (the very things that *might* make it possible for life to be as varied as it is without a "designer")
Macro-evolution (the kind that is supposed to make a human from an ape) isn't provable, at least not yet. The forces of nature (presence or lack of a specific food or predator) don't change the DNA of the individual animal at all. They only limit the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals. Take a look at the "Positive Mutations" section of this article for a bit more on this. Mutations aren't all they're cracked up to be, once you take a look at it from the genetics standpoint.
I could care less if you think there is evidence for ID, or any other alternate explanation for that matter....as long as people who believe in the hypothesis of Evolution are realistic about the problems with what is being proposed in their own theory of how things came to be.
Aigh! Ya just might have something here, mate!
Your citations assume that we don't know what intelligent design is, why it's bullshit, or how it was found to be nothing more than creationism in Dover vs. Kitzmiller. We're very familiar with intelligent design and its origins. It's still bullshit and there's still no evidence for it.
(unrelated note, PiCraft sounds neat! I may check it out soon. :)
Eh, that bit was just responding to exactly what I quoted, where he stated there was no evidence. Evidence exists, the decision of whether or not it's valid remains up to you. (and a court decision on something can have exactly squat to do with reality, take the case of kim.com). I wasn't meaning that ID is the only "evidence" out there, I could just have easily pulled from druidic traditions or some research about how evolution is statistically impossible.
And as for PiCraft...good to hear you're planning on taking a look. I'm the owner/admin/sysadmin, my ign is the same as my username here (jakimfett). (and I normally tell people to keep political and religious opinions out of ingame chat, so no worries that you're going to get proselytized)
That's not "micro-evolution", that's overeating. That has nothing to do with genetics, which is what evolution is about.
Overeating results in those with weight related health issues to die off sooner...resulting in a species that has a genetic code which is overall more "resistant" to the effects of overeating...sound familiar?
This page does a decent job of defining micro-evolution.
Ah, clarification...he didn't say that he was smart enough to actually *listen* to the "Googlers"...just that they are smart people.
There is no such thing as micro-evolution. The term is only used by creationists.
Wikipedia and Berkeley University disagree with you.
And the Corona SDK makes programmers use ONLY LUA! It's a conspiracy! Igor, get me my tinfoil hat!
Depends on what type of evolution you're talking about. For example, micro-evolution (the provable, observable kind) involves things like people in the USA growing fatter over time because of excessive access to food, or the famous different beak sizes of Galapagos finches.
Macro-evolution (the kind that is supposed to make a human from an ape) isn't quite so provable. The forces of nature (presence or lack of a specific food or predator) don't change the DNA of the individual animal at all. They only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals.
Only reason I bring this up is because the article you linked to relies heavily on mutation and natural selection (i.e. the slower/less aware prey escaped the predator, causing only positive mutations to be carried forward). If you feel like reading some research supporting the other end of it (that mutations aren't all they're cracked up to be), take a look at this article.
The concept of entropy is that there is a measurable tendency from order to disorder in isolated systems. Evolution would require entropy to be fundamentally broken (or to have been broken at some point in the past) for it to work.