I don't claim anything over the past ten years temperature have been *dropping* to the point now where we are now at 1980 temps. Also the readjustment of 'top world temps' that took place last year moved the hottest years
No they haven't. Either you are lying or you are an ignorant fool. And repeating doesn't make it so.
Tens of thousands die every day from malnutrition.
And, in order to improve this situation, more and more corn is taken from food-production and converted into inefficient fuel-production.
4 gallons of ethenol need to be burned to produce one extra gallon of corn-ethenol. Thus, for every gallon of ethonol you use in your car, you are actually burning 5 gallons of fuel. And this is supposed to reduce greenhouse gasses.
You are ignoring that the CO2 that gets released in the air was taken out of the air a couple of months before - while burning gasoline will release CO2 that was stuck under the earth for millions of years.
"Before humans, was there ever an atomic explosion on the surface of this planet?"
Volcano's and Asteroids have put *way* more heat out than the atomic explosions we humans have set off.
That sure as hell proves that man can not be responsible for Global Warming - but you also claim there is no Global Warming, even that " 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years" - what a load of crap.
The birth rate all over the world is going down. Over 60 countries have a birth rate that won't sustain current populations.
So the population problem is taking care of itself too.
Just suppose there were two countries with a total population surpassing that of these 60 states. Now imagine if in those two states birth rate were above the rate of sustain. What would happen?
Experimental motor cars had been around for a long time, but cities had always banned them.
So the cities were actually the problem to begin with. And the wonderful, forward thinking, solution their committees and think tanks came up with? Lift the ban on automobiles.
If that doesn't describe the Charlie-Fox that is government, nothing does.
Yeah, who wouldn't want an experimental mobile steam engine running amok in a city! What fools not to allow this!
And if there were no patents, he would simply build bikes with his wheels, and the poor bike inventor would get nothing out of it. Sure, he could try to build his own bike with his own wheels - but then the wheel guy would just sell his stuff cheaper, because he can even out the losses from his other wheel sales.
And we didn't even get to the part where nobody but the original inventor exactly knows how wheels are build exactly, what tools to use etc.
First of all, if you think about it, horse crap could not have gotten that bad. There were far more people than horses when this article was written and they weren't worried about people crap. Somehow they could deal with that, but horses? If they had a problem it was a problem with perception. Dealing with horse manure was actually a trivial problem. And they did it. There was never instances of horse manure piling up; they had, at worst, an economic problem of how to pay for removal.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/578.html:
While the nineteenth century American city faced many forms of environmental pollution, none was as all encompassing as that produced by the horse. The most severe problem was that caused by horses defecating and urinating in the streets, but dead animals and noise pollution also produced serious annoyances and even health problems. The normal city horse produced between fifteen and thirty-five pounds of manure a day and about a quart of urine, usually distributed along the course of its route or deposited in the stable. While cities made sporadic attempts to keep the streets clean, the manure was everywhere, along the roadway, heaped in piles or next to stables, or ground up by the traffic and blown about by the wind. Inventors and city officials devised improved methods of street cleaning and street sweeping became a major urban expense. Increasingly, however, it became obvious that the most effective way to eliminate the "typhoid fly" (so named by L.O. Howard, chief of the Bureau of Entomology of the Department of Agriculture and a leader in the campaign against flies), was to eliminate the horse.
As late as the 1890s, a Scientific American writer noted that the sounds of traffic on busy New York streets made conversation nearly impossible, while the author William Dean Howells complained that "the sharp clatter of the horses' iron shoes" on the pavement tormented his ear. In 1880, New York City removed 15,000 dead horses from its streets, and late as 1916 Chicago carted away 9,202 horse carcasses.
Yeah, right, the "Horse made problems" were just made up by the liberals and it simply wasn't that bad.
"The New York administration of the late 19th century" did not invent or popularise the automobile, or the train.
Well, the train was already quite mature by then, and there were several elevated lines in New York. And of course the opening of the first NY subway line falls clearly out of that time range (1904).
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/578.html It's not like horse manure was the only problem BTW: "In 1880, New York City removed 15,000 dead horses from its streets, and late as 1916 Chicago carted away 9,202 horse carcasses. Special trucks were devised to remove dead horses; since the average weight of dead horses was 1,300 pounds, one text on municipal refuse advised that "trucks for the removal of dead horses should be hung low, to avoid an excessive lift."
The coming of the automobile dealt another large blow to the horse. Experimental motor cars had been around for a long time, but cities had always banned them. The crisis of the 1890s and early twentieth century, involving public health fears about pollution, traffic jams, and rising prices for both hay, oats, and urban land, made municipal governments and urban residents much more ready to switch to autos.
Yeah, 32000 "scientists" from just about any field that allows one to get a PhD should easily trump many thousands of scientists from the fields closely related to climate science. Did I mention that that list originally included "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' [sic] and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.'
The same people who claim scientists predicted mass starvation in the 70s are the same people who claim scientists predicted a new ice age in the 70s. We know they are just misinformed about what scientists (as opposed to the media) actually said. Well, not the media, but those who didn't like what was actually said.
The Meadows & al. report is probably, just like the IPCC report on climate change today, among these documents that 99% of the people that quote them never read, given the quantity of conclusions supposedly included in this paper that are not found once it is read.... In short, this "famous" report, that some accuse today of having all possible flaws because no disaster happened yet (!), is nothing else than a scientific paper a little long, presenting the research work that was done to build a model, use it, and the results obtained.
"Multitouch gestures? I'm not saying there isn't prior art for what Apple has patented, but PenPoint doesn't seem to be it."
Read the first few lines of the link. Care to enlighten us as to how to make an X with a single stroke?/sarcasm
Sarcasm doesn't help if you are wrong - making one stroke after another is not thew same as making two strokes at the same time.
I'm actually quite interested, if anyone has an idea, in the answer to this question: if you release a product before you get the patent, and concurent makers release similar products before said patent is granted, doesn't that constitute prior art?
If you release a product, or even announce technical details, before you apply for a patent or a provisional, then your own invention now counts as prior art which will prevent you (or anyone else) from ever patenting it.
Wrong. It prevents others from patenting it, but you still have one year for filing a patent.
Sorry, but saying "wouldn't be nice if x existed" doesn't count a prior art. If this is included in Rockbox, he should say that it is, not that somebody once requested it to be included. As for the second claim - I have no idea what Rockbox actually does, but if it is what he claims Apple patented, it isn't what Apple actually patented.
I find it odd that your link that supposedly shows Apple sued a school doesn't even mention a school, and also says nothing about Apple suing anybody, but then - it's one of your posts, so it's bound to be full of misinformation.
Incorrect. Any detail of the technology you disclose is no longer patentable. I think what you are thinking of are trade secrets. Keeping the inner workings of your technology secret is dangerous, because someone else might come along and patent it.
Incorrect. Any detail of the technology you disclose is no longer patentable by somebody else. In the US at least you still have one year to file for patent.
Considering the rapid movement of the tech industry, doesn't 18 YEARS seem like a fairly significant time to stop anyone else from using your innovation as a foundation for further innovation?
Also "innovate their way around" is one of the craziest phrases I've ever read. We're happy to waste creative energy on getting around artificial restrictions now rather than simply creating?
Errm, "innovating around" means innovating, copying means not innovating. Anyway, patents don't stop you from using somebody else's innovation as a foundation for further innovation, only from commercially exploiting your innovation without consent from the patent holder - but then, if you patent your innovation on the innovation, neither can anybody else, probably leading to a deal of cross-licensing.
In the UK I have been seeing how a 1984 situation is being established:
1) Speed cameras to the wahzoo....
2) Camera's to watch people to the wahzoo...
3) Rights being taken away and people sent to jail on issues that would otherwise seem "ludicrous.."
It has been proven that the cameras do squat to stop crime. Yet there they are and more are coming. Why? It is an issue of the establishment in the UK wanting to control the people. 1984!
What "ludicrous issues"? Dangerous speeding without a policeman around? If the cameras can't even stop crime, how exactly can they take your freedom away?
Slashdot Mirror
That is clearly the easy part, should only take a few years, much shorter than the decision at least. I'll bang my head against the wall while I wait.
I don't claim anything over the past ten years temperature have been *dropping* to the point now where we are now at 1980 temps. Also the readjustment of 'top world temps' that took place last year moved the hottest years
No they haven't. Either you are lying or you are an ignorant fool. And repeating doesn't make it so.
Tens of thousands die every day from malnutrition.
And, in order to improve this situation, more and more corn is taken from food-production and converted into inefficient fuel-production.
4 gallons of ethenol need to be burned to produce one extra gallon of corn-ethenol. Thus, for every gallon of ethonol you use in your car, you are actually burning 5 gallons of fuel. And this is supposed to reduce greenhouse gasses.
You are ignoring that the CO2 that gets released in the air was taken out of the air a couple of months before - while burning gasoline will release CO2 that was stuck under the earth for millions of years.
"Before humans, was there ever an atomic explosion on the surface of this planet?"
Volcano's and Asteroids have put *way* more heat out than the atomic explosions we humans have set off.
That sure as hell proves that man can not be responsible for Global Warming - but you also claim there is no Global Warming, even that " 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years" - what a load of crap.
The birth rate all over the world is going down. Over 60 countries have a birth rate that won't sustain current populations.
So the population problem is taking care of itself too.
Just suppose there were two countries with a total population surpassing that of these 60 states. Now imagine if in those two states birth rate were above the rate of sustain. What would happen?
Experimental motor cars had been around for a long time, but cities had always banned them.
So the cities were actually the problem to begin with. And the wonderful, forward thinking, solution their committees and think tanks came up with? Lift the ban on automobiles.
If that doesn't describe the Charlie-Fox that is government, nothing does.
Yeah, who wouldn't want an experimental mobile steam engine running amok in a city! What fools not to allow this!
Sorry that ankle deep in horse shit on all major streets even with cleaning all day isn't bad enough for you.
And we didn't even get to the part where nobody but the original inventor exactly knows how wheels are build exactly, what tools to use etc.
in the beginning, computing (like any theoretical science) was about learning and work and inventiveness and intelligence and dedication.
And ten seconds later it became an applied science - live with it.
First of all, if you think about it, horse crap could not have gotten that bad. There were far more people than horses when this article was written and they weren't worried about people crap. Somehow they could deal with that, but horses? If they had a problem it was a problem with perception. Dealing with horse manure was actually a trivial problem. And they did it. There was never instances of horse manure piling up; they had, at worst, an economic problem of how to pay for removal.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/578.html:
While the nineteenth century American city faced many forms of environmental pollution, none was as all encompassing as that produced by the horse. The most severe problem was that caused by horses defecating and urinating in the streets, but dead animals and noise pollution also produced serious annoyances and even health problems. The normal city horse produced between fifteen and thirty-five pounds of manure a day and about a quart of urine, usually distributed along the course of its route or deposited in the stable. While cities made sporadic attempts to keep the streets clean, the manure was everywhere, along the roadway, heaped in piles or next to stables, or ground up by the traffic and blown about by the wind.
Inventors and city officials devised improved methods of street cleaning and street sweeping became a major urban expense. Increasingly, however, it became obvious that the most effective way to eliminate the "typhoid fly" (so named by L.O. Howard, chief of the Bureau of Entomology of the Department of Agriculture and a leader in the campaign against flies), was to eliminate the horse.
As late as the 1890s, a Scientific American writer noted that the sounds of traffic on busy New York streets made conversation nearly impossible, while the author William Dean Howells complained that "the sharp clatter of the horses' iron shoes" on the pavement tormented his ear.
In 1880, New York City removed 15,000 dead horses from its streets, and late as 1916 Chicago carted away 9,202 horse carcasses.
Yeah, right, the "Horse made problems" were just made up by the liberals and it simply wasn't that bad.
"The New York administration of the late 19th century" did not invent or popularise the automobile, or the train.
Well, the train was already quite mature by then, and there were several elevated lines in New York. And of course the opening of the first NY subway line falls clearly out of that time range (1904).
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/578.html
It's not like horse manure was the only problem BTW: "In 1880, New York City removed 15,000 dead horses from its streets, and late as 1916 Chicago carted away 9,202 horse carcasses. Special trucks were devised to remove dead horses; since the average weight of dead horses was 1,300 pounds, one text on municipal refuse advised that "trucks for the removal of dead horses should be hung low, to avoid an excessive lift."
The coming of the automobile dealt another large blow to the horse. Experimental motor cars had been around for a long time, but cities had always banned them. The crisis of the 1890s and early twentieth century, involving public health fears about pollution, traffic jams, and rising prices for both hay, oats, and urban land, made municipal governments and urban residents much more ready to switch to autos.
Yeah, 32000 "scientists" from just about any field that allows one to get a PhD should easily trump many thousands of scientists from the fields closely related to climate science. Did I mention that that list originally included "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' [sic] and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.'
The same people who claim scientists predicted mass starvation in the 70s are the same people who claim scientists predicted a new ice age in the 70s. We know they are just misinformed about what scientists (as opposed to the media) actually said. Well, not the media, but those who didn't like what was actually said.
Seriously, these guys make money by saying these things. Ever heard of anyone making money by saying everything will be fine and lovely?
Yes, I have - are you telling me you are doing for free?
The Meadows & al. report is probably, just like the IPCC report on climate change today, among these documents that 99% of the people that quote them never read, given the quantity of conclusions supposedly included in this paper that are not found once it is read. ... In short, this "famous" report, that some accuse today of having all possible flaws because no disaster happened yet (!), is nothing else than a scientific paper a little long, presenting the research work that was done to build a model, use it, and the results obtained.
"Multitouch gestures? I'm not saying there isn't prior art for what Apple has patented, but PenPoint doesn't seem to be it." Read the first few lines of the link. Care to enlighten us as to how to make an X with a single stroke? /sarcasm
Sarcasm doesn't help if you are wrong - making one stroke after another is not thew same as making two strokes at the same time.
I'm actually quite interested, if anyone has an idea, in the answer to this question: if you release a product before you get the patent, and concurent makers release similar products before said patent is granted, doesn't that constitute prior art?
If you release a product, or even announce technical details, before you apply for a patent or a provisional, then your own invention now counts as prior art which will prevent you (or anyone else) from ever patenting it.
Wrong. It prevents others from patenting it, but you still have one year for filing a patent.
Remember, if I patent a wheel, and you then patent a bicycle, you still can't make any bikes without my permission.
Sure, but neither can you. So if you want to, you will have to make a deal with him.
Sorry, but saying "wouldn't be nice if x existed" doesn't count a prior art. If this is included in Rockbox, he should say that it is, not that somebody once requested it to be included. As for the second claim - I have no idea what Rockbox actually does, but if it is what he claims Apple patented, it isn't what Apple actually patented.
I find it odd that your link that supposedly shows Apple sued a school doesn't even mention a school, and also says nothing about Apple suing anybody, but then - it's one of your posts, so it's bound to be full of misinformation.
Incorrect. Any detail of the technology you disclose is no longer patentable. I think what you are thinking of are trade secrets. Keeping the inner workings of your technology secret is dangerous, because someone else might come along and patent it.
Incorrect. Any detail of the technology you disclose is no longer patentable by somebody else. In the US at least you still have one year to file for patent.
Well, if WMF knows no prior art, that must be proof prior art exists. And since he knows nothing...
Considering the rapid movement of the tech industry, doesn't 18 YEARS seem like a fairly significant time to stop anyone else from using your innovation as a foundation for further innovation?
Also "innovate their way around" is one of the craziest phrases I've ever read. We're happy to waste creative energy on getting around artificial restrictions now rather than simply creating?
Errm, "innovating around" means innovating, copying means not innovating. Anyway, patents don't stop you from using somebody else's innovation as a foundation for further innovation, only from commercially exploiting your innovation without consent from the patent holder - but then, if you patent your innovation on the innovation, neither can anybody else, probably leading to a deal of cross-licensing.
Gee, just read your own source, mkay?
In the UK I have been seeing how a 1984 situation is being established:
1) Speed cameras to the wahzoo.... 2) Camera's to watch people to the wahzoo... 3) Rights being taken away and people sent to jail on issues that would otherwise seem "ludicrous.."
It has been proven that the cameras do squat to stop crime. Yet there they are and more are coming. Why? It is an issue of the establishment in the UK wanting to control the people. 1984!
What "ludicrous issues"? Dangerous speeding without a policeman around? If the cameras can't even stop crime, how exactly can they take your freedom away?