So they presume their conclusion: that Communism is a good thing and any excess in the defense of it is valid.
The rest of the world disagrees and wishes the government of China would just stop oppressing its people, starting with allowing those people to discuss the oppression.
Use a pump to bring oil and water onto the boat, and run it through a huge coiled tube of this stuff. The water can spill out the sides and the oil will exit the other end into the hold.
The only question is whether the coating on the cloth is durable or needs to be replenished, and what kinds of pressures the cloth can take, and can it be knitted on existing looms.
What happened here was the result of shoddy implementation of known technology to prevent the sort of surge that induced the explosion.
After that, it became a tragedy of absent foresight in the technology of what to do if all you have is a pipe sticking out of the sea floor.
There are a finite number of things involved, and they have a finite number of failure mechanisms, all of which can likely be controlled for. If you can prove they can't, rather than claiming it or just implying you fear it, then we probably shouldn't do it.
BP, TransOcean, and Halliburton failed to control those things; and Congress and the Administration and the regulatory agency failed to control them (or rather, actively decontrolled them under Messrs. Bush and Cheney, leaving behind enough confusion and apathy that the succeeding administration actually approved similar activities).
So what they found is that video games select for those qualities that result in superior performance. Fast reflexes, increases in focus with pressure, etc.
Make a game that consists of holding a heavy rock motionless in your hand and you'll find a class of players with different qualities.
People without those qualities are not likely to progress, and eventually not likely to continue playing, certainly not to be promoted to more-skilled competitions.
The first time you strafe a hallway instead of just walking past it you prove to yourself that gaming has done something to your head.
But neurons are highly malleable and learn not to be affected by such situations as easily as they learned to react to them. Except for the flashbacks, that sort of behavior goes away.
So, a little old lady whom[sic] takes a hit by a 3K pound car must be approximately ten times more of a "real" athlete than a football player?
If she actually takes the hit, and stops the car in its tracks, instead of being critically injured by it, then yes, she's ten times Brian Urlacher in my eyes.
When you patent something you have the right to license it to be sold by someone else. How it gets implemented is not relevant.
Ditto for copyright. It gives you the right to license it to be sold by someone else. How they implement it is not relevant.
You could argue that ideas are different from linguistic expressions, but no, they aren't. Linguistic exprssions are just a form we cast ideas into.
The law doesn't work this way because lawyers are pettifiggery experts, so they have the law all bollixed up in differences that don't really exist.
Which was my point. If you eliminate patents, you might as well blow away copyrights, because you're either saying that intellectual property shouldn't exist, or you're trying to get one kind of intellectual property protection removed so that you can take the property and change the cover and sell it yourself and claim it's protected for you.
Well, all they get is the one top result, an the other 950,999,999 are pushed down by all of one slot thereby.
And the result they get is in a box of a different color, so my ocular scanning firmware skips right past it thinking it's a banner ad (which it is).
So the only effect is that the 10th result shows up on the second page instead of the first (or in my case, the 100th gets pushed past the jump, because that's how i configured google to roll).
So your cynicism is misplaced. They're not trying to hide anything of significance (or if they are, they're not doing it at all well).
What they actually paid for was to have their PR site at the top of the results, so that it doesn't disappear into the pile, and at least a few people will see it, preferably those with access to replicators of visibility, like, say, people looking for an easy submission acceptance from/....
No it wouldn't. BP contracted with Google for visibility and clicks. Google contracted with BP for payment. BP gets its visibility and clicks, and Google gets its payment.
It's no business of BP's how Google drives traffic to BP or what Google does with the money, unless the contract itself contains limitations on those things.
Moral: when selling your soul, make sure you read what you sign.
I have faith that they will end up paying for the cleanup. Mr. Obama is taking an undeserved pasting for being the supervisor instead of the RPV operator on this, and that's got him pissing and nuking mad.
Fortunately for Fox News, the President of the United States is not a king, and can't just waltz in and start lopping off heads. Justice for corporate infractions takes time, as does capping and cleaning up, and lawyering only makes that take longer and the amount of money available to lawyers only makes them multiply like tribbles. That gives Fox "News" an opening to spin Obama's inability to act capriciously as a weakness. Of course all they're doing is criticizing the democracy, but they won't tell you that, they'll just act indignant and fill their Hummers up at the Arco on the way home each night.
But in the end, the gummint is the biggest lawyer there is, and wins when it wants to.
We'll be seeing reports of totalizations of BP's recompense to the treasury on this for decades, and zeitgeist reruns of the footage of billowing plumes under the sea for a century or more. If there's oil then, BP will probably be selling it in the BP store next to the Apple store at the mall.
BP's PR campaign has been a bit late, but, at least for me halfway across the country from the first-person impact of the sludge, it's making fine use of available media and hitting the notes it needs to hit.
Of course, I'm tone-deaf and have sources of factual information available to me, so I'm all for boiling Tony Hayward in light sweet crude, but he's getting his money's worth from his image folks.
So, after they succeed in getting all software patents nullified, I hope they'll willingly give up copyright on the software they're creating using all that free IP. Otherwise their argument boils down to "I don't want anyone to steal my intellectual property, I'm just not smart enough to come up with anything truly innovative."
Using the money to start a technology company, on the other hand, is spending it.
Well, no, you have it backwards.
Investing is the act of purchasing capital (equipment) and labor to produce something of value. It adds to productivity and production, and thus grows the economy.
That stuff about buying "real estate, stocks, bonds, things like that" is colloquially known as investment, but since it does not actually increase productive capacity it is not investment, it is simply speculation. Of course, anyone doing any real investment wants you to think you're investing when you buy his stock from him, because that makes you over-value it and pay him a premium. That "goodwill value" does not create anything of value and is not a concrete addition to the economy, it's an inflation of value and a form of gambling that increases the risk in the markets. its only sufferable value is that it induces people to take bigger risks when investing in capital and labor, which adds to the economy, albeit in the form of crappy product ideas and business models of questionable merit. But its risks are enormous, especially when it goes unregulated, leads to speculative bubbles, and inevitable crashes as the ignorami making the new speculations discover all at once that the real value of their equity is far less than what they paid.
So, to get back to your example, "real estate, stocks, bonds, things like that" is speculation. "Using the money to start a technology company" is investment.
I'm pretty sure that the impetus for the development of the computer was codebreaking early in WW2, before anyone had the idea of using a computer to control one, because, after all, in WW2 computers were the size of basketball courts.
The development of microcircuits that make little computers several orders of magnitude more powerful than the original basketball-court sized computers was what the space-age promoted, although the invention of the microcircuit was a rather natural progression from the invention and development of the transistor, which was driven entirely by telecommunications, not rocketry.
wait. nemmind. these are liquid-fueled, not solid.
yes, liquid-fueled rocket engines are a mass of pumps and tubes that require enormous expense to forge, and come in only one type: honking tough.
they're all but impossible to break, so yes, there would be a lot of reusable parts on them that would survive many launches, descents, recoveries, and refurbs.
I'd be very leery of reusing these things (yes I know the shuttle boosters were reused). Making them sturdy enough to survive multiple uses has got to cost you mass that could go into fuel and payload. Recycling them is a great idea, though.
Correct. NASA is redundant as a launch-services company. It should turn its attention to regulation and oversight of flight safety and space access, rather than production and operation of vehicles. It's the possessor of a massive amount of intellectual property, and it should manage that for the nation's maximum profit, but otherwise it should look at getting out of the science business as well.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm going to pile on.
The vast majority of port scans in my router logs are from IP addresses in China.
If they insist on filtering what goes into China, they should at least have the consistency to filter what comes out of it.
So they presume their conclusion: that Communism is a good thing and any excess in the defense of it is valid.
The rest of the world disagrees and wishes the government of China would just stop oppressing its people, starting with allowing those people to discuss the oppression.
Hmm. Oily pads of hazardous waste, or an oily ocean full of hazardous waste...let me think...
Use a pump to bring oil and water onto the boat, and run it through a huge coiled tube of this stuff. The water can spill out the sides and the oil will exit the other end into the hold.
The only question is whether the coating on the cloth is durable or needs to be replenished, and what kinds of pressures the cloth can take, and can it be knitted on existing looms.
There doesn't have to be.
What happened here was the result of shoddy implementation of known technology to prevent the sort of surge that induced the explosion.
After that, it became a tragedy of absent foresight in the technology of what to do if all you have is a pipe sticking out of the sea floor.
There are a finite number of things involved, and they have a finite number of failure mechanisms, all of which can likely be controlled for. If you can prove they can't, rather than claiming it or just implying you fear it, then we probably shouldn't do it.
BP, TransOcean, and Halliburton failed to control those things; and Congress and the Administration and the regulatory agency failed to control them (or rather, actively decontrolled them under Messrs. Bush and Cheney, leaving behind enough confusion and apathy that the succeeding administration actually approved similar activities).
Think about that again, only this time make it a women's league.
How has your attitude changed?
So what they found is that video games select for those qualities that result in superior performance. Fast reflexes, increases in focus with pressure, etc.
Make a game that consists of holding a heavy rock motionless in your hand and you'll find a class of players with different qualities.
People without those qualities are not likely to progress, and eventually not likely to continue playing, certainly not to be promoted to more-skilled competitions.
Like, duh.
The first time you strafe a hallway instead of just walking past it you prove to yourself that gaming has done something to your head.
But neurons are highly malleable and learn not to be affected by such situations as easily as they learned to react to them. Except for the flashbacks, that sort of behavior goes away.
So, a little old lady whom[sic] takes a hit by a 3K pound car must be approximately ten times more of a "real" athlete than a football player?
If she actually takes the hit, and stops the car in its tracks, instead of being critically injured by it, then yes, she's ten times Brian Urlacher in my eyes.
The attention given to the ones who get rich at a sport creates a disproportionate view of the probabilities of joining that class of competitors.
Those who gain little or no money, or even lose relative to another choice of profession, is by far the largest segment of any sport's population.
Delusional hope among the competing class is, of course, of enormous benefit to the organizer class. This goes for any industry, not just sports.
Okay, getting your heart rate up to 20% of your (MHR-RHR) and losing your cool because you're the n00b in the room is not aerobic exercise.
I rode my bike 20 miles at 22 mph yesterday and never got mine above 60%. That's known as a "recovery day".
Allay'all stop dawdling and excusing yourselves, get off your fat, pasty asses, and go play in the fucking sunshine.
Well, sort of but not really.
When you patent something you have the right to license it to be sold by someone else. How it gets implemented is not relevant.
Ditto for copyright. It gives you the right to license it to be sold by someone else. How they implement it is not relevant.
You could argue that ideas are different from linguistic expressions, but no, they aren't. Linguistic exprssions are just a form we cast ideas into.
The law doesn't work this way because lawyers are pettifiggery experts, so they have the law all bollixed up in differences that don't really exist.
Which was my point. If you eliminate patents, you might as well blow away copyrights, because you're either saying that intellectual property shouldn't exist, or you're trying to get one kind of intellectual property protection removed so that you can take the property and change the cover and sell it yourself and claim it's protected for you.
Well, all they get is the one top result, an the other 950,999,999 are pushed down by all of one slot thereby.
And the result they get is in a box of a different color, so my ocular scanning firmware skips right past it thinking it's a banner ad (which it is).
So the only effect is that the 10th result shows up on the second page instead of the first (or in my case, the 100th gets pushed past the jump, because that's how i configured google to roll).
So your cynicism is misplaced. They're not trying to hide anything of significance (or if they are, they're not doing it at all well).
What they actually paid for was to have their PR site at the top of the results, so that it doesn't disappear into the pile, and at least a few people will see it, preferably those with access to replicators of visibility, like, say, people looking for an easy submission acceptance from /. ...
No it wouldn't. BP contracted with Google for visibility and clicks. Google contracted with BP for payment. BP gets its visibility and clicks, and Google gets its payment.
It's no business of BP's how Google drives traffic to BP or what Google does with the money, unless the contract itself contains limitations on those things.
Moral: when selling your soul, make sure you read what you sign.
I have faith that they will end up paying for the cleanup. Mr. Obama is taking an undeserved pasting for being the supervisor instead of the RPV operator on this, and that's got him pissing and nuking mad.
Fortunately for Fox News, the President of the United States is not a king, and can't just waltz in and start lopping off heads. Justice for corporate infractions takes time, as does capping and cleaning up, and lawyering only makes that take longer and the amount of money available to lawyers only makes them multiply like tribbles. That gives Fox "News" an opening to spin Obama's inability to act capriciously as a weakness. Of course all they're doing is criticizing the democracy, but they won't tell you that, they'll just act indignant and fill their Hummers up at the Arco on the way home each night.
But in the end, the gummint is the biggest lawyer there is, and wins when it wants to.
We'll be seeing reports of totalizations of BP's recompense to the treasury on this for decades, and zeitgeist reruns of the footage of billowing plumes under the sea for a century or more. If there's oil then, BP will probably be selling it in the BP store next to the Apple store at the mall.
BP's PR campaign has been a bit late, but, at least for me halfway across the country from the first-person impact of the sludge, it's making fine use of available media and hitting the notes it needs to hit.
Of course, I'm tone-deaf and have sources of factual information available to me, so I'm all for boiling Tony Hayward in light sweet crude, but he's getting his money's worth from his image folks.
So, after they succeed in getting all software patents nullified, I hope they'll willingly give up copyright on the software they're creating using all that free IP. Otherwise their argument boils down to "I don't want anyone to steal my intellectual property, I'm just not smart enough to come up with anything truly innovative."
One word: Tailhook.
Using the money to start a technology company, on the other hand, is spending it.
Well, no, you have it backwards.
Investing is the act of purchasing capital (equipment) and labor to produce something of value. It adds to productivity and production, and thus grows the economy.
That stuff about buying "real estate, stocks, bonds, things like that" is colloquially known as investment, but since it does not actually increase productive capacity it is not investment, it is simply speculation. Of course, anyone doing any real investment wants you to think you're investing when you buy his stock from him, because that makes you over-value it and pay him a premium. That "goodwill value" does not create anything of value and is not a concrete addition to the economy, it's an inflation of value and a form of gambling that increases the risk in the markets. its only sufferable value is that it induces people to take bigger risks when investing in capital and labor, which adds to the economy, albeit in the form of crappy product ideas and business models of questionable merit. But its risks are enormous, especially when it goes unregulated, leads to speculative bubbles, and inevitable crashes as the ignorami making the new speculations discover all at once that the real value of their equity is far less than what they paid.
So, to get back to your example, "real estate, stocks, bonds, things like that" is speculation. "Using the money to start a technology company" is investment.
There. All better. Now go play.
I'm pretty sure that the impetus for the development of the computer was codebreaking early in WW2, before anyone had the idea of using a computer to control one, because, after all, in WW2 computers were the size of basketball courts.
The development of microcircuits that make little computers several orders of magnitude more powerful than the original basketball-court sized computers was what the space-age promoted, although the invention of the microcircuit was a rather natural progression from the invention and development of the transistor, which was driven entirely by telecommunications, not rocketry.
wait. nemmind. these are liquid-fueled, not solid.
yes, liquid-fueled rocket engines are a mass of pumps and tubes that require enormous expense to forge, and come in only one type: honking tough.
they're all but impossible to break, so yes, there would be a lot of reusable parts on them that would survive many launches, descents, recoveries, and refurbs.
I'd be very leery of reusing these things (yes I know the shuttle boosters were reused). Making them sturdy enough to survive multiple uses has got to cost you mass that could go into fuel and payload. Recycling them is a great idea, though.
Correct. NASA is redundant as a launch-services company. It should turn its attention to regulation and oversight of flight safety and space access, rather than production and operation of vehicles. It's the possessor of a massive amount of intellectual property, and it should manage that for the nation's maximum profit, but otherwise it should look at getting out of the science business as well.
Your soul.
The RIAA now goes after ring-bearers?
I thought I recognized the dudes on the black horses...
You can't have the precioussss....