If you're interested in losing fat, the simple answer is to stop putting on fat. The slightly longer answer is that your body adds fat when insulin is secreted by the pancreas, and to stop that secretion you can stop eating carbs (the trigger for insulin secretion).
See Sugar Busters, Atkins diet, or Protein Power at your local bookstore for more info.
This "article" is a bunch of hand-waving coupled with a lot of smoke and mirrors. No where in the article does it explain the reasoning behind the proposed waiving of DNA property rights. In fact, it does not explain at all what your "property rights" to your DNA entail.
It essentially says that PhRMA is lobbying to have a bill passed that enforces some rights while reduces others. The only opinion given is the author's own, no expert opinion is given. Even when the author gives his(?) opinion it is not supported by facts but by buzzwords (exploited, gold rush, Faustian bargain, individuality, etc.). As well informed as the author may be, there isn't any information conveyed that could lead any reader to form a logical conclusion. It is merely hype and bluster and (hate to say it) propaganda.
As written, this article is a complete waste of time.
My bad. For some reason I was reading CompactPCI and blending Compact Flash and PC-Card in my head.
Back to my other point, you could probably sell these things to other companies who are balking at the current retail firewall hardware. But really, that's neither here nor there...
Granted. However, it would seem that the minutes of the IETF that may contain information that could be construed as prior art. This is assuming, of course, that the IETF publicly released these documents.
Then the IETF is crying over spilled beer. If someone really did beat them to the punch, then they don't really have any good choices short of paying the fees or starting from scratch.
If the IETF has been working on this solution for so many months, they must have some evidence to show for it. Couldn't they just cite their own research as prior art and have Walid's patent tossed out?
And on another note, who exactly would pay the licensing fees that Walid is asking for?
Wouldn't it make more sense to charge based on square miles of kilometers (or whatever area measurement makes the most sense)? Finns and Canucks seem to be grossly overcharged compared to Nauruans.
If you're so interested in getting local, interesting, independent bands heard, why would you want to perpetuate the "myth" that Napster is a music-pirate's wet dream by playing this cat and mouse game with the RIAA?
I didn't read anywhere in the article that the RIAA is the sole gateway into this list. Your "Neighbor Gargling" MP3 would have just as much right to be put up on Napster as any song under the protection of the RIAA. If you did rename For whom the bell tolls to some other name, the RIAA can challenge the song in court. Posting a covered song would likely be challenged as well.
This isn't to say that that only the RIAA can challenge the list. Independant artists will also have the ability to do so, though with much more limited resources.
The RIAA is trying to get their members' copyrighted music off of Napster, and this is really the only way to do it. The RIAA doesn't care about indies. They care about their own artists. What's more likely is that Napster will become bare of music barred by the RIAA and filled with indies. Quite the opposite of what you suggest.
Sure, that's what Napster claimed in court. However, they are still serving as a means of distributing copyrighted music (only with mangled names). The RIAA is saying that if you want to distribute those songs, you'd better get the artists' permission first. Hence the opt-in scheme.
As for getting on the list, I didn't see anywhere in the article that the RIAA controls this list except by means of having it publicly available and challenging it when they notice an infringement on their copyrights. You will have that power too if you notice one of your songs being copied against your copyright. Not that your caterwauling is going to be in demand...
Dancin Santa
I know when you're sleeping, I know when you're awake...
Well, considering that the record companies (rather than the artists) are frequently the copyright holders of their artists' music, it stands to reason that copyright holders will have the final sayso in matters of Napster distribution.
Looks like you can still distribute your 3-hour gargling, man.
Obviously, no one has seen dark matter, but only attributed to it unexplainable effects. Being as dense as it supposedly is with such great gravitational attraction, how does it keep from folding in on itself like a black hole?
Your example is bogus because though the likelihood of hitting the number with the greatest representation is greater than hitting one of lesser representation, it is equally likely for a 3 digit binary number to be 100 or 101 (assuming that you encountered the first two digits in this order).
Flip a coin 3 times and record the results.
You're saying that if I show you the first as heads, then the second as tails that the odds of the third flip being heads is *higher* than it being tails? I don't buy it.
The odds of any child being male is 50%. Just because you encountered a female room first means very little when you consider that a house is not randomly laid out. "Take the first right" when "Take the first left" is correct could accidentally lead a guest to the girl's room.
Let's say that you had a 10 digit binary number. If the first number you reveal is a 0 and the second is a 1, are you saying that the third number that you reveal is more likely to be a 0?
You have a non-zero binary number of 3 digits. You read in from left to right. The first number you encounter is a 1. The second number is a 0. What are the odds that the value of this binary number having the value 5?
Your rule does not hold up in truly random environments. It's attraction is in semi-random environments like process lists and splay trees where it is likely that a certain process will be hit more often than another. Transmeta would know all about this.:-)
Aren't most web users interested in finding web resources?
I'd have to say no. Yes, you and I are interested in finding things on the web. We use search engines to find these things. The average web user (I'll use my mom as an example) can't tell the difference between Internet Explorer, Earthlink, Yahoo!, Hotmail, and the Internet. For her, these things are all equivalent. She is interested in "going" to places on the web, but she is pretty much restricted to those places that she can link to from Yahoo! or hear from her friends.
I believe that the majority of users are just like her. As a result, web communities are able form at places like The Motley Fool and the message board at Yahoo!. Users find a little place they like to frequent, put it in their favorites (because they don't know how to make it their startup page) and never venture very far. For these people (the majority of users) a semantic web would be completely useless.
Probably the best you could do is simulate one using a search engine that constantly sought and categorized pages intelligently.
This is more what people are suggesting; by defining and publishing terms (and making them machine parseable), equivalences between ontologies can be identified and applied automatically, along with other machine reasoning.
How long will this classification take and how long would any information be good? Joe Blow over at Geocities just put up his Britney Spears page. One day he may find Bjork his muse. He sure isn't going to inform some search engine of his updates. How long before the search engine comes back around to check his page out? Anything can be outdated by the time you find it in a search engine, which is not so different a situation than exists now, but no one is trying to put any handcuffs on web publishers now.
This move by EA does *not* prove that 3d is unnecessary for a fun game. Rather it is the collection of really good games that are technologically primitive compared to current machine capabilities.
This is a big mistake for EA. By relying on improvements to a game that is now displayed spine-out at Babbages, they have effectively given up on attracting new gamers. They have fallen for the lie that game improvements will re-ignite software sales in an industry where new games move off the shelves faster than old.
UO came out so long ago I can't imagine the player base is large enough to sink more capital into. They would have been better off releasing a new game to attract both old and new players. As a result of this game scrapping, I don't think they can expect to see huge increases in the UO gaming population.
Apparently, these device makers believe that they can spit out any old piece of hardware, make it internet-ready, and expect people to snap it up like hotcakes. No one is asking "What can it do?"
I already have a web-surfing appliance. I already have a phone. I can already access information from the web through my PDA. What in the world would entice me to buy something that I've already got?
e-books? heads-up kitchen internet appliance? enhanced washing machine?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're interested in losing fat, the simple answer is to stop putting on fat. The slightly longer answer is that your body adds fat when insulin is secreted by the pancreas, and to stop that secretion you can stop eating carbs (the trigger for insulin secretion).
See Sugar Busters, Atkins diet, or Protein Power at your local bookstore for more info.
Dancin Santa
For a book that can be understood by the layman, check out the various works of Michio Kaku.
Dancin Santa
This "article" is a bunch of hand-waving coupled with a lot of smoke and mirrors. No where in the article does it explain the reasoning behind the proposed waiving of DNA property rights. In fact, it does not explain at all what your "property rights" to your DNA entail.
It essentially says that PhRMA is lobbying to have a bill passed that enforces some rights while reduces others. The only opinion given is the author's own, no expert opinion is given. Even when the author gives his(?) opinion it is not supported by facts but by buzzwords (exploited, gold rush, Faustian bargain, individuality, etc.). As well informed as the author may be, there isn't any information conveyed that could lead any reader to form a logical conclusion. It is merely hype and bluster and (hate to say it) propaganda.
As written, this article is a complete waste of time.
Much like this comment.
Dancin Santa
This
or
That
Dancin Santa
My bad. For some reason I was reading CompactPCI and blending Compact Flash and PC-Card in my head.
Back to my other point, you could probably sell these things to other companies who are balking at the current retail firewall hardware. But really, that's neither here nor there...
Dancin Santa
Granted. However, it would seem that the minutes of the IETF that may contain information that could be construed as prior art. This is assuming, of course, that the IETF publicly released these documents.
Dancin Santa
Then the IETF is crying over spilled beer. If someone really did beat them to the punch, then they don't really have any good choices short of paying the fees or starting from scratch.
Dancin Santa
If the IETF has been working on this solution for so many months, they must have some evidence to show for it. Couldn't they just cite their own research as prior art and have Walid's patent tossed out?
And on another note, who exactly would pay the licensing fees that Walid is asking for?
Dancin Santa
Wouldn't it make more sense to charge based on square miles of kilometers (or whatever area measurement makes the most sense)? Finns and Canucks seem to be grossly overcharged compared to Nauruans.
Dancin Santa
If you are correct, then I admit less than full knowledge of the song coverage issue.
If you are not correct, I'll continue to pontificate as if I were correct.
Dancin Santa
If you're so interested in getting local, interesting, independent bands heard, why would you want to perpetuate the "myth" that Napster is a music-pirate's wet dream by playing this cat and mouse game with the RIAA?
Dancin Santa
I didn't read anywhere in the article that the RIAA is the sole gateway into this list. Your "Neighbor Gargling" MP3 would have just as much right to be put up on Napster as any song under the protection of the RIAA. If you did rename For whom the bell tolls to some other name, the RIAA can challenge the song in court. Posting a covered song would likely be challenged as well.
This isn't to say that that only the RIAA can challenge the list. Independant artists will also have the ability to do so, though with much more limited resources.
The RIAA is trying to get their members' copyrighted music off of Napster, and this is really the only way to do it. The RIAA doesn't care about indies. They care about their own artists. What's more likely is that Napster will become bare of music barred by the RIAA and filled with indies. Quite the opposite of what you suggest.
Dancin Santa
Sure, that's what Napster claimed in court. However, they are still serving as a means of distributing copyrighted music (only with mangled names). The RIAA is saying that if you want to distribute those songs, you'd better get the artists' permission first. Hence the opt-in scheme.
As for getting on the list, I didn't see anywhere in the article that the RIAA controls this list except by means of having it publicly available and challenging it when they notice an infringement on their copyrights. You will have that power too if you notice one of your songs being copied against your copyright. Not that your caterwauling is going to be in demand...
Dancin Santa
I know when you're sleeping, I know when you're awake...
Well, considering that the record companies (rather than the artists) are frequently the copyright holders of their artists' music, it stands to reason that copyright holders will have the final sayso in matters of Napster distribution.
Looks like you can still distribute your 3-hour gargling, man.
Dancin Santa
Yes, it's called a 'quine'. Check out Google.
Dancin Santa
Obviously, no one has seen dark matter, but only attributed to it unexplainable effects. Being as dense as it supposedly is with such great gravitational attraction, how does it keep from folding in on itself like a black hole?
Dancin Santa
- #!perl -w
}for my $w (1..712) {
- for my $x ($w..(712 - $w)) {
:%.2f :%.2f :%.2f \n", $w/100,$x/100,$y/100,$z/100) if ($w*$x*$y*$z == 711000000);
}for my $y ($x..(712-($w + $x))) {
my $z = 711 - ($w + $x + $y);
printf ("%.2f
}
Dancin Santa
Of course the lameness filter thinks that I have too many lame characters. Maybe if I nip here and tuck there?
Your example is bogus because though the likelihood of hitting the number with the greatest representation is greater than hitting one of lesser representation, it is equally likely for a 3 digit binary number to be 100 or 101 (assuming that you encountered the first two digits in this order).
Flip a coin 3 times and record the results.
You're saying that if I show you the first as heads, then the second as tails that the odds of the third flip being heads is *higher* than it being tails? I don't buy it.
The odds of any child being male is 50%. Just because you encountered a female room first means very little when you consider that a house is not randomly laid out. "Take the first right" when "Take the first left" is correct could accidentally lead a guest to the girl's room.
Let's say that you had a 10 digit binary number. If the first number you reveal is a 0 and the second is a 1, are you saying that the third number that you reveal is more likely to be a 0?
Dancin Santa
You have a non-zero binary number of 3 digits. You read in from left to right. The first number you encounter is a 1. The second number is a 0. What are the odds that the value of this binary number having the value 5?
:-)
Your rule does not hold up in truly random environments. It's attraction is in semi-random environments like process lists and splay trees where it is likely that a certain process will be hit more often than another. Transmeta would know all about this.
Dancin Santa
Take a tip from Prince, get famous first, then start dictating your terms.
Dancin Santa
Aren't most web users interested in finding web resources?
I'd have to say no. Yes, you and I are interested in finding things on the web. We use search engines to find these things. The average web user (I'll use my mom as an example) can't tell the difference between Internet Explorer, Earthlink, Yahoo!, Hotmail, and the Internet. For her, these things are all equivalent. She is interested in "going" to places on the web, but she is pretty much restricted to those places that she can link to from Yahoo! or hear from her friends.
I believe that the majority of users are just like her. As a result, web communities are able form at places like The Motley Fool and the message board at Yahoo!. Users find a little place they like to frequent, put it in their favorites (because they don't know how to make it their startup page) and never venture very far. For these people (the majority of users) a semantic web would be completely useless.
Probably the best you could do is simulate one using a search engine that constantly sought and categorized pages intelligently.
This is more what people are suggesting; by defining and publishing terms (and making them machine parseable), equivalences between ontologies can be identified and applied automatically, along with other machine reasoning.
How long will this classification take and how long would any information be good? Joe Blow over at Geocities just put up his Britney Spears page. One day he may find Bjork his muse. He sure isn't going to inform some search engine of his updates. How long before the search engine comes back around to check his page out? Anything can be outdated by the time you find it in a search engine, which is not so different a situation than exists now, but no one is trying to put any handcuffs on web publishers now.
Dancin Santa
This move by EA does *not* prove that 3d is unnecessary for a fun game. Rather it is the collection of really good games that are technologically primitive compared to current machine capabilities.
This is a big mistake for EA. By relying on improvements to a game that is now displayed spine-out at Babbages, they have effectively given up on attracting new gamers. They have fallen for the lie that game improvements will re-ignite software sales in an industry where new games move off the shelves faster than old.
Dancin Santa
UO came out so long ago I can't imagine the player base is large enough to sink more capital into. They would have been better off releasing a new game to attract both old and new players. As a result of this game scrapping, I don't think they can expect to see huge increases in the UO gaming population.
Bummer.
Dancin Santa
A sadist, maybe.
Apparently, these device makers believe that they can spit out any old piece of hardware, make it internet-ready, and expect people to snap it up like hotcakes. No one is asking "What can it do?"
I already have a web-surfing appliance. I already have a phone. I can already access information from the web through my PDA. What in the world would entice me to buy something that I've already got?
e-books? heads-up kitchen internet appliance? enhanced washing machine?
Give me something I can use!
Dancin Santa