How about fixing the patent system instead, and getting rid of the brain-dead software patent examiners who have no clue what's "obvious to someone in the field" or not?
Like, for starters, coming up with the idea to simulate a real-world thing is not, in and of itself, patentable, though clever implementations might be (note: clever ones, not obvious ones.)
It's ironic, but one of the examples used as a bad patent, the 1-click purchase, is actually an example of a good patent. It was completely beyond the concept of computer programmers to do such a thing without confirmation. Amazon deserves it. That the implementation is trivial and obvious once the concept is realized is irrelevant in this case. The idea was obviously not obvious.
"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.
Horrible idea. Here's why: To start to suckle on the tit of government, all you have to do is crank out a few crap songs or albums, then sign up for your cut.
If you think farm subsidies to not grow vegetables, and cyber-squatters and porn popups and link redirectors are bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
Yes, he knew that -- that was his point. There are physiological males with XX chromosomes and physiological females with XY chromosomes. Overly simply, the DNA controls the hormones, which control the growth. But something can go wrong and the person can developt the opposite way for some reason.
Hopefully it'll work both ways. Penis bends? Give the man a knife! And pump him up on testosterone while you're at it, and encourage extra large growth through the use of a penis pump and "Austin Power's Penis Pumps: That's My Bag, Baby, Yeah!" instruction booklet.
That's fine, but Creationists have to keep in mind that scientific evidence for creationism/ID is in far worse shape than that for evolution.
Whereas evolution has just had a few tweaks over its history, the core concept remains strong. Creationism has loads of observations actively set against it, from sloppy designs that would embarass an actual intelligent designer, to genetic codes that usually don't manifest a feature, but that sometimes do (like legs on snakes or whales, or tails on a human), to things they can't explain without getting silly (like dinosaurs, myriad other species now extinct, etc. Sorry, the devil didn't plant them), to "Irriducible Grotesqueness", which points out that if God designed all systems of life, then he's mighty cruel for designing worm parasites, heck even lions.
Evolution, the grand old dam, explains all these like Einstein explaining how everything is really moving at the speed of light through the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum.
Quite frankly, I'd rather have evolved from an ape (or ape-like ancestor) than have been designed by the murderous, "slaves are ok" god Yaweh of the Old Testament.
> The question is how and when these changes are going to manifest....and whether they're bad....and whether the standard, command-and-control "cure", so loved by, let's face it, those of socialist bent, won't be worse than the problem. No, seriously. Last century is replete with actual, demonstrable tens of millions of deaths when heavy handed socialism got out of control. Doing it for "science" won't necessarily have different results.
- Why is the tailbone a series of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of a single solid bone process, if it's so well needed and "designed"?
- Why do dormant tail genes sometimes activate and create an actual, if distorted, tail? Why are those genes in there?
- Why use vertebra at all for a vertical animal? They're wonderful for a horizontal one, but terrible for a vertical one. This is why your arms and legs are long bones rather than vertebra.
How is it incorrect? It's been in use as a language standard for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
I also have no problem using "she" from time to time -- or always.
Both are quite elegant to use, and both are easily understood as to applying to no person in particular when used in context.
The neo-cultural imperative to strip genderosity from language is a fraud perpetrated those eager to assume paternalistic authority all the while disclaiming otherwise.
One of the very first was that it would incorporate gyroscopes, which would allow players to control games via physical movement of the controller. Later rumors said the controller would sport everything from a touch screen, which would allow for configurable virtual buttons, to there not being any controller at all--just a visor and floor-mounted motion sensor."
One button for each of the four fingers for forward, backward, slide left, and slide right. The Thresh configuration.
I don't care how many touch screens, wah000zy buttons, nipple ring electro-static shockers, and robotic penis pumps they attach to it. Give me a keyboard and a mouse and I will destroy, thanks.
I don't know how he can make this claim given the "walking on water" study that showed the top fraction of programmers were 4x as productive as the average one, and could do things the others could not no matter how much time they were given.
Now I'll grant you, many hackers are lame little shits who are in it not for any intellectual reasons...
> because of EA's negotiated exclusivity deal > with the NFL, this is the only NFL title > you'll get to play this year. So, what are the > players to do?"
Have a little pride and refuse to buy it? And thus punish both EA and the NFL?
> If I had to pick between us causing it and the > planet causing it, I'd prefer it to be us. At > least in that case, it means we have some > power to do something about it.
As opposed to it turning out we're imagining our influence is much larger than it actually is, and that we're clueless as to actual long-term natural variations? And you [b]prefer[/b] this scenario?
More than a few have noted that, as communism and heavy-handed socialism started dying out, those who hated capitalism-as-derived-from-freedom lept from the socialist bandwagon to the environmental one. Why? Gives them another reason to lord over humanity.
Maybe it's something psychological about human nature. Just an idea...
> Regardless of whether the Russians win $10K in 10 years,
So even if the Russians are correct, it doesn't matter.:rollseyes
Given the observed climate cycles in the past of decades, centuries, millenia, and tens of millenia in length, our observation of current changes may be more like a kid going through puberty panicking because they're seeing growth here and there they never saw before! But they never really paid this close attention before, either.
Slashdot Mirror
How about fixing the patent system instead, and getting rid of the brain-dead software patent examiners who have no clue what's "obvious to someone in the field" or not?
Like, for starters, coming up with the idea to simulate a real-world thing is not, in and of itself, patentable, though clever implementations might be (note: clever ones, not obvious ones.)
It's ironic, but one of the examples used as a bad patent, the 1-click purchase, is actually an example of a good patent. It was completely beyond the concept of computer programmers to do such a thing without confirmation. Amazon deserves it. That the implementation is trivial and obvious once the concept is realized is irrelevant in this case. The idea was obviously not obvious.
Horrible idea. Here's why: To start to suckle on the tit of government, all you have to do is crank out a few crap songs or albums, then sign up for your cut.
If you think farm subsidies to not grow vegetables, and cyber-squatters and porn popups and link redirectors are bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
In China, Engine searches YOU!
Far too much money to be made selling it for this to occur. Also, there's the vote to crack this can of worms open.
No, it was called "John Wayne Bobbit: Uncut"
Get it? Sewing it back on was uncutting it, a play on words of the "uncut" as a euphamism for the complete story? Get it?
Worse, one might be able to generate an acephalous Natalie Portman for personal use.
Yes, he knew that -- that was his point. There are physiological males with XX chromosomes and physiological females with XY chromosomes. Overly simply, the DNA controls the hormones, which control the growth. But something can go wrong and the person can developt the opposite way for some reason.
Hopefully it'll work both ways. Penis bends? Give the man a knife! And pump him up on testosterone while you're at it, and encourage extra large growth through the use of a penis pump and "Austin Power's Penis Pumps: That's My Bag, Baby, Yeah!" instruction booklet.
Yes. Pussy sucks compared to video games and your FUCKING PALM.
That's fine, but Creationists have to keep in mind that scientific evidence for creationism/ID is in far worse shape than that for evolution.
Whereas evolution has just had a few tweaks over its history, the core concept remains strong. Creationism has loads of observations actively set against it, from sloppy designs that would embarass an actual intelligent designer, to genetic codes that usually don't manifest a feature, but that sometimes do (like legs on snakes or whales, or tails on a human), to things they can't explain without getting silly (like dinosaurs, myriad other species now extinct, etc. Sorry, the devil didn't plant them), to "Irriducible Grotesqueness", which points out that if God designed all systems of life, then he's mighty cruel for designing worm parasites, heck even lions.
Evolution, the grand old dam, explains all these like Einstein explaining how everything is really moving at the speed of light through the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum.
Smooth as silk.
Personally, I prefer the dig "Buy Bull".
Quite frankly, I'd rather have evolved from an ape (or ape-like ancestor) than have been designed by the murderous, "slaves are ok" god Yaweh of the Old Testament.
It's much more respectable.
> The question is how and when these changes are going to manifest. ...and whether they're bad. ...and whether the standard, command-and-control "cure", so loved by, let's face it, those of socialist bent, won't be worse than the problem. No, seriously. Last century is replete with actual, demonstrable tens of millions of deaths when heavy handed socialism got out of control. Doing it for "science" won't necessarily have different results.
Yes. There was none beyond the usual pap.
- Nipples for men
- Why is the tailbone a series of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of a single solid bone process, if it's so well needed and "designed"?
- Why do dormant tail genes sometimes activate and create an actual, if distorted, tail? Why are those genes in there?
- Why use vertebra at all for a vertical animal? They're wonderful for a horizontal one, but terrible for a vertical one. This is why your arms and legs are long bones rather than vertebra.
...and cuisine!
> There isn't an elegant gender-neutral pronoun,
True enough
> and using 'he' is just not correct.
How is it incorrect? It's been in use as a language standard for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
I also have no problem using "she" from time to time -- or always.
Both are quite elegant to use, and both are easily understood as to applying to no person in particular when used in context.
The neo-cultural imperative to strip genderosity from language is a fraud perpetrated those eager to assume paternalistic authority all the while disclaiming otherwise.
Evidently they should have hired some better programmers.
$200k, I'll have it fixed in one year, and it'll run on their mainframe.
One button for each of the four fingers for forward, backward, slide left, and slide right. The Thresh configuration.
I don't care how many touch screens, wah000zy buttons, nipple ring electro-static shockers, and robotic penis pumps they attach to it. Give me a keyboard and a mouse and I will destroy, thanks.
I don't know how he can make this claim given the "walking on water" study that showed the top fraction of programmers were 4x as productive as the average one, and could do things the others could not no matter how much time they were given.
Now I'll grant you, many hackers are lame little shits who are in it not for any intellectual reasons...
Nothing wrong with that.
It'll be the first time people have actually roleplayed since typing dumbspeak to roleplay Ogres in EverQuest five years ago.
Personally, I'm going with "Kiptin! Sensor readin's INdicate that ancient starship is rilly a nuclear wessel."
Wasn't that the whole point of Einstein's paper, though? That only the atomic hypothisis could explain Brownian motion?
> because of EA's negotiated exclusivity deal
> with the NFL, this is the only NFL title
> you'll get to play this year. So, what are the
> players to do?"
Have a little pride and refuse to buy it? And thus punish both EA and the NFL?
> If I had to pick between us causing it and the
> planet causing it, I'd prefer it to be us. At
> least in that case, it means we have some
> power to do something about it.
As opposed to it turning out we're imagining our influence is much larger than it actually is, and that we're clueless as to actual long-term natural variations? And you [b]prefer[/b] this scenario?
More than a few have noted that, as communism and heavy-handed socialism started dying out, those who hated capitalism-as-derived-from-freedom lept from the socialist bandwagon to the environmental one. Why? Gives them another reason to lord over humanity.
Maybe it's something psychological about human nature. Just an idea...
> Regardless of whether the Russians win $10K in 10 years,
:rollseyes
So even if the Russians are correct, it doesn't matter.
Given the observed climate cycles in the past of decades, centuries, millenia, and tens of millenia in length, our observation of current changes may be more like a kid going through puberty panicking because they're seeing growth here and there they never saw before! But they never really paid this close attention before, either.