Wrong. There is no such thing as a natural ownership of any kind of knowledge.
Patents and other intellectual rights are articifical limitations on personal freedom, devised and enforced by societies in order to acheive specififc aims. From the start of patents and until this day, "to promote progress" is the rhetoric used in order to justify the otherwise draconian measure of punishing people for using what they know.
It is not obvious that this tradeoff is a good one for all times and all societies. Similarly, a society is not bound by the self-imposed limitations of any another, unless it agrees to be.
In simple standard case, it's just a matter of an identical twin with a different age. Can't see what's ethically questionable or complex about that.
But there's a hidden snag: normally, there would be no reason to do that. Once there is a more specific motive, the questions start popping up. Most cases have parallels already, but safe, efficient cloning would make them more accessible and likely:
Clueless idiots raising a clone to be a replacement for a lost child isn't in principle any different from clueless people today raising a normal sibling to be a replacement. But it might be more *likeley*.
Conceiving with the specific aim of transplanting is already an ethical conundrum we have to handle today, but with cloning it would be a lot more promising in fulfilling its aim, and the request much more common. Hopefully w'ed be able to grow organs without a clone by then, but you never know.
It's as simple as that, anyone saying otherwise has anti-semitic agendas.
While you do have some other valid points, this one basically equates to "if you're not with us you're against us", which means you automatically lose the discussion. Better luck next time.
No, but it sums up all the useful/practical ones. If you only have two inputs, there are only 4 rows in the table,: | A | B | | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 1 | | 1 | 0 | | 1 | 1 |
This yields only 16 possible output columns: 0000 - does not vary with input 0001 - AND 0010 - not commutative 0011 - reacts only to A 0100 - not commutative 0101 - reacts only to B 0110 - XOR 0111 - OR 1000 - NOR 1001 - XNOR 1010 - reacts only to B 1011 - not commutative 1100 - reacts only to A 1101 - not commutative 1110 - NAND 1111 - does not react to input
That makes 6 potentialy desirable operations. The seventh is NOT, which takes only one input. The not commutative ones could conceivably be put to useful work, but in physical designs the asymmetry is impractical, and you can trivially construct them from other gates if need be. In fact some of the useful ones ar also usually constructed from combinations of the others, and all of them *can* be constructed from combinations of NAND gates.
Amen. When people don't even spot the glaringly obvious (and frequently demonstrated) flaw that uregulated markets don't remain freee for very long, it's really hard not to extrapolate about their general capacity for evaluating societal systems or for logic in general.
There's the Unseen Hand of Adam Smith, and then there's the unseen hand of Santa Claus. Thay are not the same.
-- all it takes is keeping two lengthy sets of logic rules with highly complex behavior and formulated in different laguages in perfect sync at all times
// This comparator is performance critical and intentionally left messy after empirical optimisation.// Do NOT change it without TESTING that sort performance does not suffer for 500K+ rows.
or
// Since extrudeStrands() has side effects we don't control, we can't use the Gnocci pattern here.
That sounds harsh, and of course it doesn't fit 100% of the time, but if you look closely enough it is true a frightening part of it.
The only thing you can trust is the code.
When I write comments it is usually to say "this code might look like an opportunity for this or that refactoring/optimisation. Don't do it becauase..." Yes, ideally the code should express this directly, and commetns are an admission of defeat, but sometimes we are defeated.
For the sake of argument accepting the premise that baked/fried carbs is the bugaboo: it is not expensisve at all to replace bread with boiled/steamed rice or potatoes. Impractical, maybe, but a lot of the world do eat rice as we do bread, so it can't be that bad.
"One big reason Apple doesn't use USB is that the dock connector does more than just USB."
Does it, now? With airplay and whatnot, the need to transmit analog audio and video is rapidly disappearing, which is probably why the new plug has nine pins in stead of the previous billion. It's been months since I used my cable for anything besides charging, and I really can't see what I'd want from it that USB + wifi + bluetooth can't already offer.
Let's face it: it's a money-making ploy and nothing more. It is of course entirely within their rights to use proprietary designs that way, but harassing people trying to adapt to it is not (or shouldn't be), and it is entirely within my rights to dispise and chastise them for it in any case.
when the BBC Micro was introduced they used to broadcast source code on a few of the Ceefax pages overnight.
Ah, that brings me back.
This was proabably also the reason the BBC micro had a native teletext display mode (good old "mode 7"), which gave you the magic combo of fairly pretty text, color, and even primitive graphics in only 1K of display memory. A real life-saver for many apps when the whole thing only had 32K.
The error is in your treatment of the reflecting side. It does indeed conserve the momentum of an incoming photon, but in doing so triples the energy with no satisfactory explenation.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
There is no such thing as a natural ownership of any kind of knowledge.
Patents and other intellectual rights are articifical limitations on personal freedom, devised and enforced by societies in order to acheive specififc aims. From the start of patents and until this day, "to promote progress" is the rhetoric used in order to justify the otherwise draconian measure of punishing people for using what they know.
It is not obvious that this tradeoff is a good one for all times and all societies. Similarly, a society is not bound by the self-imposed limitations of any another, unless it agrees to be.
Gasoline takes a lot more energy to drill, transport and refine than it gives back
Really?
Did you just make that up?
Source?
Mod up.
... or possibly bazium.
Not to mention: Mars will be worse.
Only you would do that.
Heat is just atoms moving around, after all, so negative temperatures are easy:
just make the atoms move backwards.
That would be manslaughter.
I'm sure they can't wait to put them selves in a position to very publically benefit financially from the first such murder...
In simple standard case, it's just a matter of an identical twin with a different age. Can't see what's ethically questionable or complex about that.
But there's a hidden snag: normally, there would be no reason to do that. Once there is a more specific motive, the questions start popping up. Most cases have parallels already, but safe, efficient cloning would make them more accessible and likely:
Clueless idiots raising a clone to be a replacement for a lost child isn't in principle any different from clueless people today raising a normal sibling to be a replacement. But it might be more *likeley*.
Conceiving with the specific aim of transplanting is already an ethical conundrum we have to handle today, but with cloning it would be a lot more promising in fulfilling its aim, and the request much more common. Hopefully w'ed be able to grow organs without a clone by then, but you never know.
It's as simple as that, anyone saying otherwise has anti-semitic agendas.
While you do have some other valid points, this one basically equates to "if you're not with us you're against us", which means you automatically lose the discussion. Better luck next time.
No, but it sums up all the useful/practical ones.
If you only have two inputs, there are only 4 rows in the table,:
| A | B |
| 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
This yields only 16 possible output columns:
0000 - does not vary with input
0001 - AND
0010 - not commutative
0011 - reacts only to A
0100 - not commutative
0101 - reacts only to B
0110 - XOR
0111 - OR
1000 - NOR
1001 - XNOR
1010 - reacts only to B
1011 - not commutative
1100 - reacts only to A
1101 - not commutative
1110 - NAND
1111 - does not react to input
That makes 6 potentialy desirable operations. The seventh is NOT, which takes only one input.
The not commutative ones could conceivably be put to useful work, but in physical designs the asymmetry is impractical, and you can trivially construct them from other gates if need be. In fact some of the useful ones ar also usually constructed from combinations of the others, and all of them *can* be constructed from combinations of NAND gates.
You should team up with this guy..
Amen. When people don't even spot the glaringly obvious (and frequently demonstrated) flaw that uregulated markets don't remain freee for very long, it's really hard not to extrapolate about their general capacity for evaluating societal systems or for logic in general.
There's the Unseen Hand of Adam Smith, and then there's the unseen hand of Santa Claus. Thay are not the same.
-- all it takes is keeping two lengthy sets of logic rules with highly complex behavior and formulated in different laguages in perfect sync at all times
There, I fixed it for you.
Funny.
But on the serious side, more like
// This comparator is performance critical and intentionally left messy after empirical optimisation. // Do NOT change it without TESTING that sort performance does not suffer for 500K+ rows.
or
// Since extrudeStrands() has side effects we don't control, we can't use the Gnocci pattern here.
That sounds harsh, and of course it doesn't fit 100% of the time, but if you look closely enough it is true a frightening part of it.
The only thing you can trust is the code.
When I write comments it is usually to say "this code might look like an opportunity for this or that refactoring/optimisation. Don't do it becauase..."
Yes, ideally the code should express this directly, and commetns are an admission of defeat, but sometimes we are defeated.
For the sake of argument accepting the premise that baked/fried carbs is the bugaboo: it is not expensisve at all to replace bread with boiled/steamed rice or potatoes. Impractical, maybe, but a lot of the world do eat rice as we do bread, so it can't be that bad.
Apple haven't exactly been earning their benefit of the doubt lately...
"One big reason Apple doesn't use USB is that the dock connector does more than just USB."
Does it, now? With airplay and whatnot, the need to transmit analog audio and video is rapidly disappearing, which is probably why the new plug has nine pins in stead of the previous billion. It's been months since I used my cable for anything besides charging, and I really can't see what I'd want from it that USB + wifi + bluetooth can't already offer.
Let's face it: it's a money-making ploy and nothing more.
It is of course entirely within their rights to use proprietary designs that way, but harassing people trying to adapt to it is not (or shouldn't be), and it is entirely within my rights to dispise and chastise them for it in any case.
Kickstarter
So is that artificially orange-flavoured candy I like. Doesn't mean they should be able to pass it off as "oranges"
when the BBC Micro was introduced they used to broadcast source code on a few of the Ceefax pages overnight.
Ah, that brings me back.
This was proabably also the reason the BBC micro had a native teletext display mode (good old "mode 7"), which gave you the magic combo of fairly pretty text, color, and even primitive graphics in only 1K of display memory. A real life-saver for many apps when the whole thing only had 32K.
The error is in your treatment of the reflecting side.
It does indeed conserve the momentum of an incoming photon, but in doing so triples the energy with no satisfactory explenation.
Yes.