That's why the W3C got into such big trouble with RAND licenses. They were having situations like the one you describe. So, they tried to make an explicit policy about what their contributors were allowed to do with regards to patents. Their first effort generated quite a stir, as you might remember.
Remember, despite the aura of benevolence surrounding the W3C, it is necessarily made up of the big players in IT--Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, etc. Those companies are big enough to have departments that want to play fair and other departments that want to make loads of cash on the patents they own. Most of those companies have done something unpopular as regards intellectual property at some point.
It's quite a hard balance for the W3C to strike. They want to make standards that are interesting and that the big players will adopt, or they will become a useless body. On the other hand, those big companies own lots of patents and don't always want to give them up just for some lofty ideals about standards. That's why it's taking the W3C quite a while to formulate a policy that everyone is willing to work under.
Microsoft has several "campuses" in and around Redmond. The largest is where most of the products you know and love are produced (Windows, Office, etc.) One of the many roads running inside this campus has been renamed Microsoft Way.
It's like if you renamed your driveway YeeHaW_Jelte Way, except that the U.S. Postal Service actually recognizes it.
Don't worry--if the viruses you postulate become reality, they will depend on us for their existence. Being intelligent, they will no doubt farm us as we farm cows. You will have a place in the new order.
Well, this probably won't help convince your boss, but IIRC subselects are mathematically unnecessary. You can flatten any query down to a single select and what you get is much more efficient. Read the real scoop in the first chapter of any database textbook.
Actually, IIRC it's not even that hard to do it for 90% of queries...
It's no secret, but NASA is getting a bit dull these days. What those boys need is a big makeover. A little glamour dust, a little something that says "We're proud to be us!"
Maybe the astronauts could take just a few moments off from their busy schedule learning about science and learn how to apply a bit of makeup for the cameras. They look so pale on television! Looks like someone needs a fashion consultant.
It's no wonder NASA is in the "crappa". They need to take a clue from the folks in Hollywood that really know what they're doing, and get a bit of "star powa"!
Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.
Music influences how we think. It's a metaphor for sex. It's an educator. It's a disseminator of wisdom. To have music commodified into a soulless, brainless cash crop is more than a tragedy. To have a contract of law slightly breached is at most a misdemeanor, in the grand scheme of things.
Sometimes the rule of law is wrong, but it cannot be changed. In such cases, it is morally justifiable to break it. Ask the founding fathers of America. Ask Ghandhi. I don't mean to melodramatize the issue, but the larger picture is that the culture of the human race is being co-opted and turned into drivel, not that some obscure legal bullshit was violated.
Deep Blue (and its successor, "Deeper Blue") were essentially a advertisements for IBM's RS/6000 servers and (probably to a lesser extent) their decision support software.
IBM was never very serious about maintaining Deep Blue on the world chess circuit. All they ever cared about was beating the World Champion for a one-time publicity stunt. It is very unfortunate that Kasparov agreed to the rather unfair terms they proposed, because many people still think that Kasparov was a better player than IBM's box.
Now, of course, they refuse rematches, since they can only lose their reputation.
Anyhow, Deep Blue is a Kasparov-killing machine, not a general chess-playing machine. It was tuned to Kasparov's game and no-one else's. Probably someone like Karpov would have beaten Deeper Blue hands down, since he was nearly as good as Kasparov but the machine wasn't built specifically to defeat him.
I wonder what type of machines the software in this contest runs on--IIRC Deeper Blue was custom chess-playing hardware!
Re:So where does the information come from?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 5
[The following makes the rhetorical assumption that the parent is not a troll]
...and when we do figure it out, will you recant and become a card-carrying atheist?
This kind of "God of the Gaps" argument for the existence of God will get you in trouble. Every time a representative of "The Church" makes the following claim:
"Science can't explain X, therefore it must be the work of a Supreme Being, which therefore must exist."
...what happens is science does end up solving the problem, and your rational reason for believing in God instantly evaporates.
So what do you do then?
There are other reasons for believing in the mystical, and some of them are much easier to defend. Read about it. That goes for all o'y'all.
If you're willing to discard the "semantics", then you'll have to call the CN Tower the biggest. Right now it's the world's tallest "free standing structure", but it's taller that both the Sears Tower and the Petronas towers.
check it out, Sony used to have a video camera on the market that could see through clothing. They modified it to prevent such use quickly after they discovered it could be done, though.
We need a less scrupulous company to manufacture bionic eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you are an excellent candidate to read adbusters.
Welcome.
That's why the W3C got into such big trouble with RAND licenses. They were having situations like the one you describe. So, they tried to make an explicit policy about what their contributors were allowed to do with regards to patents. Their first effort generated quite a stir, as you might remember.
Remember, despite the aura of benevolence surrounding the W3C, it is necessarily made up of the big players in IT--Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, etc. Those companies are big enough to have departments that want to play fair and other departments that want to make loads of cash on the patents they own. Most of those companies have done something unpopular as regards intellectual property at some point.
It's quite a hard balance for the W3C to strike. They want to make standards that are interesting and that the big players will adopt, or they will become a useless body. On the other hand, those big companies own lots of patents and don't always want to give them up just for some lofty ideals about standards. That's why it's taking the W3C quite a while to formulate a policy that everyone is willing to work under.
Microsoft has several "campuses" in and around Redmond. The largest is where most of the products you know and love are produced (Windows, Office, etc.) One of the many roads running inside this campus has been renamed Microsoft Way.
It's like if you renamed your driveway YeeHaW_Jelte Way, except that the U.S. Postal Service actually recognizes it.
This previous article from the BBC describes Mr. Bennett's lunacy a bit more clearly.
He's not going to win the X-Prize.
Don't worry--if the viruses you postulate become reality, they will depend on us for their existence. Being intelligent, they will no doubt farm us as we farm cows. You will have a place in the new order.
Well, this probably won't help convince your boss, but IIRC subselects are mathematically unnecessary. You can flatten any query down to a single select and what you get is much more efficient. Read the real scoop in the first chapter of any database textbook.
Actually, IIRC it's not even that hard to do it for 90% of queries...
Oh my God! Like, no duh, Mr. Warhol.
It's no secret, but NASA is getting a bit dull these days. What those boys need is a big makeover. A little glamour dust, a little something that says "We're proud to be us!"
Maybe the astronauts could take just a few moments off from their busy schedule learning about science and learn how to apply a bit of makeup for the cameras. They look so pale on television! Looks like someone needs a fashion consultant.
It's no wonder NASA is in the "crappa". They need to take a clue from the folks in Hollywood that really know what they're doing, and get a bit of "star powa"!
No. I think you have lost your perspective.
Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.
Music influences how we think. It's a metaphor for sex. It's an educator. It's a disseminator of wisdom. To have music commodified into a soulless, brainless cash crop is more than a tragedy. To have a contract of law slightly breached is at most a misdemeanor, in the grand scheme of things.
Sometimes the rule of law is wrong, but it cannot be changed. In such cases, it is morally justifiable to break it. Ask the founding fathers of America. Ask Ghandhi. I don't mean to melodramatize the issue, but the larger picture is that the culture of the human race is being co-opted and turned into drivel, not that some obscure legal bullshit was violated.
Deep Blue (and its successor, "Deeper Blue") were essentially a advertisements for IBM's RS/6000 servers and (probably to a lesser extent) their decision support software.
IBM was never very serious about maintaining Deep Blue on the world chess circuit. All they ever cared about was beating the World Champion for a one-time publicity stunt. It is very unfortunate that Kasparov agreed to the rather unfair terms they proposed, because many people still think that Kasparov was a better player than IBM's box.
Now, of course, they refuse rematches, since they can only lose their reputation.
Anyhow, Deep Blue is a Kasparov-killing machine, not a general chess-playing machine. It was tuned to Kasparov's game and no-one else's. Probably someone like Karpov would have beaten Deeper Blue hands down, since he was nearly as good as Kasparov but the machine wasn't built specifically to defeat him.
I wonder what type of machines the software in this contest runs on--IIRC Deeper Blue was custom chess-playing hardware!
[The following makes the rhetorical assumption that the parent is not a troll]
...and when we do figure it out, will you recant and become a card-carrying atheist?
...what happens is science does end up solving the problem, and your rational reason for believing in God instantly evaporates.
This kind of "God of the Gaps" argument for the existence of God will get you in trouble. Every time a representative of "The Church" makes the following claim:
"Science can't explain X, therefore it must be the work of a Supreme Being, which therefore must exist."
So what do you do then?
There are other reasons for believing in the mystical, and some of them are much easier to defend. Read about it. That goes for all o'y'all.
If you're willing to discard the "semantics", then you'll have to call the CN Tower the biggest. Right now it's the world's tallest "free standing structure", but it's taller that both the Sears Tower and the Petronas towers.
check it out, Sony used to have a video camera on the market that could see through clothing. They modified it to prevent such use quickly after they discovered it could be done, though.
We need a less scrupulous company to manufacture bionic eyes.