Even at 44 hours a week, hunter-gatherers are kicking back a fuckton more than most working Americans, who might, if they're lucky, get to START adding food preparation time at that point...
It's already encouraged: it works better. Boeing doesn't need to license their design software, or sue anyone else for using similar software, in order to see an ROI on this process.
What's not encouraged by patents is: anyone else designing their planes entirely on computer, because now they have to worry about infringing on Boeing's software patents even if they entirely develop their own application for wholly internal use.
If you want to ban software patents, where do you draw the line?
1. A machine that cures rubber by heating and cooling it, controlled by hand. 2. A machine that cures rubber by heating and cooling it, controlled by a computer program using a new, nonobvious, and useful application of a mathematical equation. 3. A new and nonobvious kind of rubber curing machine that uses such a complex curing process that only a computer could control it, resulting in a significantly superior product.
Right here.
4. A computer program for controlling the rubber curing process using a new, nonobvious, and useful algorithm that could only be carried out by a computer, resulting in a significantly superior product. 5. A computer program for modeling the rubber curing process using new, nonobvious, and useful applications of mathematical equations.
If the machine is patented, no one can use the software in 1-4. (Yes, including 1. Think about it: could you patent both the machine in example 1, and the instruction manual for curing rubber using it, separately? Not really).
In the case of 5, why should that software be patentable? Any actual useful results from the software WOULD be patentable, provided they could be physically implemented. There is no need whatsoever to patent the software itself.
But software patents claim more than just a program. They claim a program running on a computer, or stored on a computer-readable medium.
So, just to be clear: you're directly advocating that putting "...on a computer!" at the end should make things that are otherwise unpatentable, patentable.
You'd have to prove somehow that software is radically different than the rest of the industries.
You mean all the rest of those industries where the actual physical product has, in addition to development costs, extremely significant upfront tooling costs and manufacturing overhead, which happen to the specific costs that patent law was created to protect investment in?
Man, I'm gonna have to think hard on this one. Let me get my thinking cap on.
No, you didn't. It's twenty. lousy. freaking. seconds.
For twenty seconds it is annoying, stupid and useless, therefore it is bad. Argument over.
Literally all it does is piss some people off. That's all. It has no other function whatsoever.
Seriously, try this the next time you go into a supermarket: start picking people out at random and spend twenty seconds, each, loudly admonishing them not to steal anything. Make sure to block the path of their shopping carts until you're done. See how they respond. For that matter, see how the STORE responds.
From the curb, please take a moment to reflect on how it totally didn't matter that it was twenty lousy freaking seconds, and how no one seemed to care when you claimed to be educating the customers as a benefit to the store.
For bonus points, actually run a store where the staff does this. Track how long it takes before you have no customers.
Are there other chemicals in there that might be harmeful? Could be (and often are). Call them out specifically if you want me to worry about them.
That's actually the bulk of this issue: the companies that do fracking won't tell anyone what's in the fluid.
Based on, oh, all of history since the Industrial Revolution, it's pretty easy for people to believe that the chemicals are harmful, given that circumstance.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod Parent Urrp!
Sorry threw up in my mouth a little there
actually, kicking back and relaxing after a hard day's work seems to be the default standard of most of humankind's existence.
Even at 44 hours a week, hunter-gatherers are kicking back a fuckton more than most working Americans, who might, if they're lucky, get to START adding food preparation time at that point...
$129,000
It's already encouraged: it works better. Boeing doesn't need to license their design software, or sue anyone else for using similar software, in order to see an ROI on this process.
What's not encouraged by patents is: anyone else designing their planes entirely on computer, because now they have to worry about infringing on Boeing's software patents even if they entirely develop their own application for wholly internal use.
I don't know if that's such a great idea.
If you want to ban software patents, where do you draw the line?
1. A machine that cures rubber by heating and cooling it, controlled by hand.
2. A machine that cures rubber by heating and cooling it, controlled by a computer program using a new, nonobvious, and useful application of a mathematical equation.
3. A new and nonobvious kind of rubber curing machine that uses such a complex curing process that only a computer could control it, resulting in a significantly superior product.
Right here.
4. A computer program for controlling the rubber curing process using a new, nonobvious, and useful algorithm that could only be carried out by a computer, resulting in a significantly superior product.
5. A computer program for modeling the rubber curing process using new, nonobvious, and useful applications of mathematical equations.
If the machine is patented, no one can use the software in 1-4. (Yes, including 1. Think about it: could you patent both the machine in example 1, and the instruction manual for curing rubber using it, separately? Not really).
In the case of 5, why should that software be patentable? Any actual useful results from the software WOULD be patentable, provided they could be physically implemented. There is no need whatsoever to patent the software itself.
But software patents claim more than just a program. They claim a program running on a computer, or stored on a computer-readable medium.
So, just to be clear: you're directly advocating that putting "...on a computer!" at the end should make things that are otherwise unpatentable, patentable.
You'd have to prove somehow that software is radically different than the rest of the industries.
You mean all the rest of those industries where the actual physical product has, in addition to development costs, extremely significant upfront tooling costs and manufacturing overhead, which happen to the specific costs that patent law was created to protect investment in?
Man, I'm gonna have to think hard on this one. Let me get my thinking cap on.
No, you didn't. It's twenty. lousy. freaking. seconds.
For twenty seconds it is annoying, stupid and useless, therefore it is bad. Argument over.
Literally all it does is piss some people off. That's all. It has no other function whatsoever.
Seriously, try this the next time you go into a supermarket: start picking people out at random and spend twenty seconds, each, loudly admonishing them not to steal anything. Make sure to block the path of their shopping carts until you're done. See how they respond. For that matter, see how the STORE responds.
From the curb, please take a moment to reflect on how it totally didn't matter that it was twenty lousy freaking seconds, and how no one seemed to care when you claimed to be educating the customers as a benefit to the store.
For bonus points, actually run a store where the staff does this. Track how long it takes before you have no customers.
One good way to find yourself up against multiple opponents is to use excessive force against a single one.
How is this relevant?
One example - you don't hit them. Get in close, disarm them if necessary, then pin them down.
This requires that you be more skilled, faster, more numerous than, and stronger than your attacker.
If you are not these things, you must either be prepared to cause injury, or graciously accept it.
The position (to kill in self-defence) that this man was advocating was untenable
You think that killing in self-defense is automatically untenable? Weird.
Frankly this guy sounds like an animal looking for some excuse to rip apart weaker animals.
Ignoramus.
most of the folks I know who take Systema are actually geeks.
Some of us are nerds.
It's clear we're just not ready for electronic voting. Let's stick to paper ballots and re-visit this idea in twenty years or so.
Frankly, there are entire classes of people I don't want working for me, with me or near me.
Sorry, dude. The law won't let you refuse to hire people just because they're one-legged French-speaking black presbyterians.
If you log into my friend's account and you're not my friend, you now have access to information in my profile that I did not give you permission to.
Facebook's ToS explicitly prohibits doing this.
Violating a website's ToS in order to gain access to information you don't have permission to access is, I think, some sort of federal crime.
Any lawyers care to chime in on this one?
There's a little more to the story than that, and raw milk is indeed more dangerous than pasteurised milk.
Not when it's produced properly.
Are there other chemicals in there that might be harmeful? Could be (and often are). Call them out specifically if you want me to worry about them.
That's actually the bulk of this issue: the companies that do fracking won't tell anyone what's in the fluid.
Based on, oh, all of history since the Industrial Revolution, it's pretty easy for people to believe that the chemicals are harmful, given that circumstance.
Or would you call methane with a systematic name of "Tetrahydrogen monocarbide"?
You would if you wanted it to sound scary. This is memetics, not chemistry.
Might as well drape the clothes over a wire hanger if that's what they're aiming for.
That is pretty much what they're aiming for, yeah. But they need something to show off the makeup and shoes, too.
If they're not private, why do they need Twitter's help to see them?
If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.
Unless they're under contract to provide a service.
Truth is, the pirates would not go and see it. Therefore, it's not a loss in revenue but a loss in popularity and mass viewership.
More people seeing it is a loss in popularity and mass viewership...?
... you stole the money from a pirate...
Stealing from pirates is copyright infringement.