No. And that is a very real drawback of a notebook. I've tinkered with computerized note taking applications for that reason but have never settled on one. There is something about putting pen to paper that forces me to think about what I am writing. And that is _usually_ enough of an assist so that if I do need to search for something that I know what project it was associated with, and roughly when that was, and where that was in which notebook, etc. But I am (kinda) old. YMMV.
As an aside: I can't imagine how anyone learns anything through presentations alone. Power point in college would have killed me. I can still see my notes in my head from many of my chem classes 20+ years ago because I had so see the diagrams on the chalkboard, process them, and then write them down. Now get off my lawn.
Didn't realize that I was talking to Antonio Cromartie! I've been inspired. I'll trade in the minivan for a bitchin' camaro, ditch the wife and kids, and try to be more like you every day. Thanks for setting me straight.
Of course, it was not Steve Bartman that caused the cubs to lose that day. It was Alex Gozalez's inability to field a routine ground ball later in the innning.
As long as we are time travelling, we may as well get the history right.
I'm with you that it is not the "fundamental components of biology" that are being patented. What I do not understand fully is what is being patented? The articles are rather vague when it says, "cover not only the process for determining the structure of the molecules, but also the computation used to design new antibiotics." It seems like Steitz et al are hardly the first to grow these crystals. See: co-winner Ada E. Yonath. Also, it seems like the computation is more of a software patent. Do we have those in the US?
As far as your question,"Why should an organization bear this cost out of the kindness of their heart?", I don't know for a fact, but I am guessing most of the work was paid for by NIH, NSF or some other granting agency.
Sounds a lot like the situation down in Miami a few weeks ago. The government really hyped a plot by several people to attack the Sears Tower. Turned out that those people had no more ability to blow up a firecracker than the Sears Tower. Now we get a similar story about a plan that (depending on who you listen to) either targeted a transportation target in New York or the Holland Tunnel specifically. I'd like to think that our government is on top of the situation but after the Sears Tower story and all the orange terror alerts before the last election, I don't. And that is bad. You'd like to think that our government has enough integrity to provide accurate information about terror threats to protect the public, but it doesn't.
The fact that this is coming out of a university gives me hope that this technology won't turn out to be just so much vapor.
I was going to write just how incorrect this statement is, but after reading previoius comments, I feel I need to defend academic research instead of bash it.
The reason why academic research is not likely to pump out an actual product is because it is not the goal of academic research to create a commercially viable project. The goal is usually to explore the basic underpinnings of something of interest, in this case the possibility of hydroxyl ions to stabilize minute ferroelectric wires. Corporations come along later and add engineering to those principles and produce the products we use.
Those who are saying that academic researchers are con men in search of funding are overstating their case. There are examples of cheating and overstating cases in academic research but they are rare. There are also examples of corporations doing basic research, but they are becoming more rare, too. Bell Labs has all but disappeared, IBM hasn't won my Nobels lately.
Academic research does what it does very very well and quite cheaply (see how much a grad student makes compared to well, anything, really). Corporatations do their research well, too. Just don't confuse the two.
Before the announcement yesterday, Cell's only assignment outside of Sony and Toshiba had been specialized medical and defence computers made by Mercury Computing Systems Inc.
Investors don't like unknowns. They aren't going to dump billions into a company run by two guys (though brilliant) who have never run a business. Instead they want a company with the ideas of two brilliant guys and run by someone who has done it before. Even if that persion seems to run sinking ships. So Eric Schmidt did what probably many people could have done, but he was the one who did it. So he gets the money.
It's basic economics and psychology: proper motivation results in proper rewards.
Unfortunately, it is also this motivation/reward scenario that created the term pump and dump. And landed executives in jail. And cost other shareholders millions/billions/pick a number.
IANASME (I am not a stock market expert) so maybe someone can explain this too me.
The SEC has mandated stock option expensing methods because previously too many companies made executives' pay pretty much disappear - instead of paying them, they gave them options. Now that they are expensed, what is the difference? It just seems to me as if the executives are getting paid billions of dollars and Google's bottom line should reflect that with the new expensing procedures- whether it it direct compensation or stock options.
I think the random thread idea is a very good one for all the reasons you outlined above. I think it would be particularly good for moderators. I hope this gets consideration.
It is interesting that Ars Technica didn't include legislation introduced to close the analog hole as some of the most important in 2005. I was worried that in the flurry of activity in congress before the winter recess that it might have passed. I did a little looking but didn't find anything about it so I assume it did not pass... yet.
"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," Senator Russ Feingold D-Wisconson[sic], and the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
He has also been consistenly against the war. I am proud to say that he represents me. A Feingold - McCain race would be the best thing that has happened to this country in a while. Two candidates who are their own person.
Opera's founders had many chances to sell the company in the past and didn't. If you are thinking that maybe the price wasn't right before and that they went public to maximize the profit, I doubt that you would list on the Oslo stock exchange to do that.
I'm not saying that this rumor has no truth to it. If Google wants to get into the mobile market quickly, this is good way of doing it. But it is not a pump and dump by Operas' big shareholders.
Some of your misconceptions have already been dealt with in a previous post, but I fee that there are two more that need to be addressed.
Hybrids derive thier electric power from regenrtve braking and only make use of thier electric motors when crusing and driving around town. If you have a 40 min highway commute the 4cyl gas engine is going to be doing most of the work and you wont even see the improved gas mileage of a hybrid.
It is mostly true that the electric power comes from regenerative braking, but it also comes from the gasoline engine. If the computer senses that the car could be running at a more efficient rpm, it will and send the excess power to the batteries. Very cool. This is in addition, as has been pointed out, to the fact that the car is lighter due to the lack of a traditional transmission and a lighter engine.
The mentioned incentives to allow hybrid cars to use the HOV lanes actually hurts since they see thier best fuel econ in stop and go traffic.
Despite what the federal standards say, the fuel economy is still better on the highways, at least in my experience and all the websites I've visited. It is true that the advantages the hybrid provide are most pronounced in stop and go traffic, but that is mainly because traditional cars are so inefficient in those conditions.
Madison is quite liberal. But it isn't entirely due to a backlash against McCarthy and they aren't the only part of the state that is. Milwaukee has had several socialist mayors. The state's liberalism goes back quite some time. It was the birthplace of the progressive movement (strangely enough, by Republicans). This is a topic I'd like to learn more about as I have recently moved to Wisconsin, but I think its tradition is largely due to many of the German immigrants. They had a strong commitment to public education and I think it has manifested itself in many other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
No. And that is a very real drawback of a notebook. I've tinkered with computerized note taking applications for that reason but have never settled on one. There is something about putting pen to paper that forces me to think about what I am writing. And that is _usually_ enough of an assist so that if I do need to search for something that I know what project it was associated with, and roughly when that was, and where that was in which notebook, etc. But I am (kinda) old. YMMV.
As an aside: I can't imagine how anyone learns anything through presentations alone. Power point in college would have killed me. I can still see my notes in my head from many of my chem classes 20+ years ago because I had so see the diagrams on the chalkboard, process them, and then write them down. Now get off my lawn.
I was wondering that as well.
Didn't realize that I was talking to Antonio Cromartie! I've been inspired. I'll trade in the minivan for a bitchin' camaro, ditch the wife and kids, and try to be more like you every day. Thanks for setting me straight.
Really? I'm emasculated because I don't want any more kids and I love my minivan?
Of course, it was not Steve Bartman that caused the cubs to lose that day. It was Alex Gozalez's inability to field a routine ground ball later in the innning.
As long as we are time travelling, we may as well get the history right.
I'm with you that it is not the "fundamental components of biology" that are being patented. What I do not understand fully is what is being patented? The articles are rather vague when it says, "cover not only the process for determining the structure of the molecules, but also the computation used to design new antibiotics." It seems like Steitz et al are hardly the first to grow these crystals. See: co-winner Ada E. Yonath. Also, it seems like the computation is more of a software patent. Do we have those in the US?
As far as your question,"Why should an organization bear this cost out of the kindness of their heart?", I don't know for a fact, but I am guessing most of the work was paid for by NIH, NSF or some other granting agency.
Opus: And if elected I pledge to push for the legalization of the home use of 50mm anti-tank bazookas!
Old lady from the Society of Pro-acrylic knitters: Good heavens? Whatever for?
There are dimmable CFLs now.
Jack
Sounds a lot like the situation down in Miami a few weeks ago. The government really hyped a plot by several people to attack the Sears Tower. Turned out that those people had no more ability to blow up a firecracker than the Sears Tower. Now we get a similar story about a plan that (depending on who you listen to) either targeted a transportation target in New York or the Holland Tunnel specifically. I'd like to think that our government is on top of the situation but after the Sears Tower story and all the orange terror alerts before the last election, I don't. And that is bad. You'd like to think that our government has enough integrity to provide accurate information about terror threats to protect the public, but it doesn't.
The fact that this is coming out of a university gives me hope that this technology won't turn out to be just so much vapor.
I was going to write just how incorrect this statement is, but after reading previoius comments, I feel I need to defend academic research instead of bash it.
The reason why academic research is not likely to pump out an actual product is because it is not the goal of academic research to create a commercially viable project. The goal is usually to explore the basic underpinnings of something of interest, in this case the possibility of hydroxyl ions to stabilize minute ferroelectric wires. Corporations come along later and add engineering to those principles and produce the products we use.
Those who are saying that academic researchers are con men in search of funding are overstating their case. There are examples of cheating and overstating cases in academic research but they are rare. There are also examples of corporations doing basic research, but they are becoming more rare, too. Bell Labs has all but disappeared, IBM hasn't won my Nobels lately.
Academic research does what it does very very well and quite cheaply (see how much a grad student makes compared to well, anything, really). Corporatations do their research well, too. Just don't confuse the two.
Jack
Got a little hasty there. Whoops.
Thanks.
Straight from the linked article:
Before the announcement yesterday, Cell's only assignment outside of Sony and Toshiba had been specialized medical and defence computers made by Mercury Computing Systems Inc.
Hardly seems increasingly popular to me.
Jack
Investors don't like unknowns. They aren't going to dump billions into a company run by two guys (though brilliant) who have never run a business. Instead they want a company with the ideas of two brilliant guys and run by someone who has done it before. Even if that persion seems to run sinking ships. So Eric Schmidt did what probably many people could have done, but he was the one who did it. So he gets the money.
Thanks to both of you. I read about the first two paragraphs and read OPTIONS into it. Guess I should RTEFA (read the ENTIRE fine article)
Jack
It's basic economics and psychology: proper motivation results in proper rewards.
Unfortunately, it is also this motivation/reward scenario that created the term pump and dump. And landed executives in jail. And cost other shareholders millions/billions/pick a number.
Why not just let that potential money accumulate in the company and access it with much lower taxes later on as dividends
Google does not pay a dividend.
IANASME (I am not a stock market expert) so maybe someone can explain this too me.
The SEC has mandated stock option expensing methods because previously too many companies made executives' pay pretty much disappear - instead of paying them, they gave them options. Now that they are expensed, what is the difference? It just seems to me as if the executives are getting paid billions of dollars and Google's bottom line should reflect that with the new expensing procedures- whether it it direct compensation or stock options.
Thanks,
Jack
And I believe the Prius was available in Japan for three years before it was available in the States. So we're up to about 8 years now for the Prius.
I think the random thread idea is a very good one for all the reasons you outlined above. I think it would be particularly good for moderators. I hope this gets consideration.
Jack
Looks like we have covered this topic rather well.
The discussions were better on those, too.
Jack
It is interesting that Ars Technica didn't include legislation introduced to close the analog hole as some of the most important in 2005. I was worried that in the flurry of activity in congress before the winter recess that it might have passed. I did a little looking but didn't find anything about it so I assume it did not pass... yet.
Senator Russ Feingold D-Wisconson[sic], and the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
He has also been consistenly against the war. I am proud to say that he represents me. A Feingold - McCain race would be the best thing that has happened to this country in a while. Two candidates who are their own person.
Opera's founders had many chances to sell the company in the past and didn't. If you are thinking that maybe the price wasn't right before and that they went public to maximize the profit, I doubt that you would list on the Oslo stock exchange to do that.
I'm not saying that this rumor has no truth to it. If Google wants to get into the mobile market quickly, this is good way of doing it. But it is not a pump and dump by Operas' big shareholders.
Jack
Hybrids derive thier electric power from regenrtve braking and only make use of thier electric motors when crusing and driving around town. If you have a 40 min highway commute the 4cyl gas engine is going to be doing most of the work and you wont even see the improved gas mileage of a hybrid.
It is mostly true that the electric power comes from regenerative braking, but it also comes from the gasoline engine. If the computer senses that the car could be running at a more efficient rpm, it will and send the excess power to the batteries. Very cool. This is in addition, as has been pointed out, to the fact that the car is lighter due to the lack of a traditional transmission and a lighter engine.
The mentioned incentives to allow hybrid cars to use the HOV lanes actually hurts since they see thier best fuel econ in stop and go traffic.
Despite what the federal standards say, the fuel economy is still better on the highways, at least in my experience and all the websites I've visited. It is true that the advantages the hybrid provide are most pronounced in stop and go traffic, but that is mainly because traditional cars are so inefficient in those conditions.
Jack
Jack