Get a receipt, then put the receipt (with its scanable bar code) in a ballot box. Solves that problem, and you've got TWO separate databases that can be compared.
I'm not sure about how work for hire works with patents, and though I'm tempted to make an argument from analogy to copyrights, I'm pretty sure that would be a faux ami.
Indeed. In case folks don't get Radja's point, Dis, Styx, and Charon are all from Greek myth (e.g, Styx goes back at least as far as Hesiod).
Re:G5 is cooler than a P4
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 1
True, but... last I checked, those are G4s in the iMac case, not Pentium 4s. So the comparison should be between the G5s and the G4s, not the G5s and the x86s. If the current G4 is the max temp for the iMac form factor, then the G5 would be too hot (and the x86 too damned hot).
Re:Or maybe....
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Excellent post, but I was making the point that current G5s are pretty hot in comparison to G4s - since the iMac design currently works with G4s - not x86s.
Because Openpatents wouldn't have done the work. Sure, you could file for the patents on your own behalf and then *transfer* them to such an organization, but Openpatents wouldn't have standing to file the patent itself.
for "All Digital Satellite, Inc." comes up with somebody in O'Fallon.
Re:Or maybe....
on
G5 in an iMac
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Current G5s run pretty hot. On the other hand, they're stuffing the newer ones into XServes, and the form factor of the XServe isn't ideal for air flow, so I don't think there's any reason they couldn't eventually stick 1 G5 into an iMac. But I'm expecting a Powerscale G4 for the next iMac revisions.
(the Aiwa (sp?) in Japan were mostly replaced by the Japanese, the Hopi were replaced by Christians. Muslims spread over N. Africa replacing whatever proto-voodo gods were native there (I don't know) etc.)
1. The Ainu.
2. There are still Hopi. Also, a lot of Native Americans were converted to Christianity. A LOT. Nowhere near as many as were wiped out by disease (often the disease wave moved slightly ahead of the colonization wave, carried by explorers and native American travelers who had contact with colonizers), or killed in conflict with colonizers (or internecine conflicts aggravated by the presence of colonizers), and not all of them, but enough to make it an interesting case study for first contact situations.
3. In most areas, Islam displaced modern religions, not "proto-Voodoo". North Africa was basically Christian, with some outlying "pagan" areas (what we would call polytheists): for instance, keep in mind that St. Augustine lived in Carthage in what today is Tunisia. The city of Cyrene in what is today Libya was an important Greek city with a Christian population. The Egyptians were mostly Christians - today we call the "indigenous" Egyptians Copts (Boutros-Boutros Ghali, for instance), and they are Christians. There were various other traditional religions in trans-Saharan Africa (e.g., in what is now Nigeria) that might have contributed to the cultural background of Santeria, but they weren't as simple as many outside observers would imagine.
In Arabia (don't call it Saudi Arabia until the 20th century) and Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), you've got Christians and Zoroastrians as well as "pagans," in Bactria (Afghanistan) you've got Buddhists, in India you have mostly Hindus with some Buddhists, in Persia you have mostly Zoroastrians, and in Russia (before the Horde) you have various kinds of animists. In China you have Confucianists, Taoists, Buddhists, Nestorian Christians, and a bunch of other religious communities before Islam is introduced (I imagine it reached China through "evangelism" before the Khanate); only the first three had significant effects after the Yuan. (Indeed, I think the Yuan basically "converted" - this is not as meaningful a term outside Western religions as it is within - to Confucianism, but I'm no expert on Chinese history.
I think the concept of a nation being tied to a territory may be original and tribal, but in modern times it is an outgrowth of "modern" European nation-state theory, and is already under assault. Yes, I think that interplanetary (and if possible interstellar) colonization will have dramatic effects on nationality and religion, and these are interesting speculations; but keep in mind that ethnicity and religion (which often go hand in hand) are rather inertial concepts, and are quite capable of surviving even as great a shock as extraterrestrial contact or interstellar diaspora.
For one thing, suggesting that we might convert aliens to Christianity is pretty much akin to suggesting that less well developed parts of the world might have had a chance to convert western explorers to their local animalist or totemist belief system.
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in California. "Do you know the things they do there?"
The Mormons had a solution to this problem: they imagine that Jesus visited North America, too. The "no fall" explanation is used in Lewis's books, particularly *Perelandra*. I'm afraid that the fundamental problem here is that those who imagine any kind of theodicy didn't have a grand enough vision of the scale of the universe: Christian theology (specifically the concept of the Incarnation) really wasn't designed to cope with a planet with separated hemispheres, let alone planetary systems separated by trillions of miles. You have to imagine either that there is no other life in the universe, or that only Earth Fell, or that the whole Universe Fell, but God figured that Earth (and specifically the Middle East) was the most important place to fix the problem and that it was ok for generations of millions of men and women (and maybe trillions or quadrillions of alien intelligences) who lived and died in a Fallen state, but without knowledge of Christ, and died after the Harrowing of Hell, to be denied the face of God because of the problems of interstellar geography.
We have them in New England, they're called "rotaries" here. And frankly, if you've ever driven in New England, you'll know why in this imperfect world of ours, rotaries are not superior to traffic-lighted intersections: because most people either don't know or don't care what the YIELD sign means!
This has nothing to do with whether or not the current patent examination process is flawed or not, it's about an ideal patent process. And even in an ideal process, independent invention is not an sufficient criterion of "obviousness." Two individuals can invent (and have invented) the same non-obvious invention at the same time. Think telephone. The idea of using electricity itself might have been obvious; the way to do it was not.
Re:FOSS == obvious to skilled practitioner
on
Patents and the Penguin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nope. This is not reasonable. I don't think you have a very clear sense of what "obvious" means in this context.
Thanks for your post. I'm well aware of the plot of Animal Farm, but the adjective "Orwellian" usually refers to ubiquitous surveillance (in reference to 1984), not to "some are more equal than others." It's rather like saying that "Machiavellian" refers to a particular interpretation of Livy rather than the concept of "ends justifying the means" - while that interpretation of Livy may be more in touch with what Machiavelli actually wrote than "ends justify the means" is, folks have pretty much restricted the use of "Machiavellian" to that more limited (and somewhat inaccurate) sense. Of course, Orwell himself might agree with your expansion of the word's meaning to include his other work.
(By the way, you might prefer to say "dicta," rather than "dictums" - I don't think anyone actually uses "dictum" except as a loan word from Latin (like "datum")
One other point: one cannot copyright an idea, only its expression. You can copyright "print 'Hello World'" but you can't print the idea of a program that prints 'Hello World'. (Well, you can't actually copyright that piece of code, either, for various reasons too complex for/., but the point is that you can only copyright words or code or sounds or images, not ideas).
Slashdot Mirror
Get a receipt, then put the receipt (with its scanable bar code) in a ballot box. Solves that problem, and you've got TWO separate databases that can be compared.
It all but says that in Lucas's original book of the first film. So yeah, I think it's blindingly obvious.
I'm not sure about how work for hire works with patents, and though I'm tempted to make an argument from analogy to copyrights, I'm pretty sure that would be a faux ami.
The root password is probably Beatrice.
Indeed. In case folks don't get Radja's point, Dis, Styx, and Charon are all from Greek myth (e.g, Styx goes back at least as far as Hesiod).
True, but ... last I checked, those are G4s in the iMac case, not Pentium 4s. So the comparison should be between the G5s and the G4s, not the G5s and the x86s. If the current G4 is the max temp for the iMac form factor, then the G5 would be too hot (and the x86 too damned hot).
Excellent post, but I was making the point that current G5s are pretty hot in comparison to G4s - since the iMac design currently works with G4s - not x86s.
except Europa. Attempt no budget auditing there.
Because Openpatents wouldn't have done the work. Sure, you could file for the patents on your own behalf and then *transfer* them to such an organization, but Openpatents wouldn't have standing to file the patent itself.
for "All Digital Satellite, Inc." comes up with somebody in O'Fallon.
Current G5s run pretty hot. On the other hand, they're stuffing the newer ones into XServes, and the form factor of the XServe isn't ideal for air flow, so I don't think there's any reason they couldn't eventually stick 1 G5 into an iMac. But I'm expecting a Powerscale G4 for the next iMac revisions.
Do you have both a citation and a link for that? Thanks!
(the Aiwa (sp?) in Japan were mostly replaced by the Japanese, the Hopi were replaced by Christians. Muslims spread over N. Africa replacing whatever proto-voodo gods were native there (I don't know) etc.)
1. The Ainu.
2. There are still Hopi. Also, a lot of Native Americans were converted to Christianity. A LOT. Nowhere near as many as were wiped out by disease (often the disease wave moved slightly ahead of the colonization wave, carried by explorers and native American travelers who had contact with colonizers), or killed in conflict with colonizers (or internecine conflicts aggravated by the presence of colonizers), and not all of them, but enough to make it an interesting case study for first contact situations.
3. In most areas, Islam displaced modern religions, not "proto-Voodoo". North Africa was basically Christian, with some outlying "pagan" areas (what we would call polytheists): for instance, keep in mind that St. Augustine lived in Carthage in what today is Tunisia. The city of Cyrene in what is today Libya was an important Greek city with a Christian population. The Egyptians were mostly Christians - today we call the "indigenous" Egyptians Copts (Boutros-Boutros Ghali, for instance), and they are Christians. There were various other traditional religions in trans-Saharan Africa (e.g., in what is now Nigeria) that might have contributed to the cultural background of Santeria, but they weren't as simple as many outside observers would imagine.
In Arabia (don't call it Saudi Arabia until the 20th century) and Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), you've got Christians and Zoroastrians as well as "pagans," in Bactria (Afghanistan) you've got Buddhists, in India you have mostly Hindus with some Buddhists, in Persia you have mostly Zoroastrians, and in Russia (before the Horde) you have various kinds of animists. In China you have Confucianists, Taoists, Buddhists, Nestorian Christians, and a bunch of other religious communities before Islam is introduced (I imagine it reached China through "evangelism" before the Khanate); only the first three had significant effects after the Yuan. (Indeed, I think the Yuan basically "converted" - this is not as meaningful a term outside Western religions as it is within - to Confucianism, but I'm no expert on Chinese history.
I think the concept of a nation being tied to a territory may be original and tribal, but in modern times it is an outgrowth of "modern" European nation-state theory, and is already under assault. Yes, I think that interplanetary (and if possible interstellar) colonization will have dramatic effects on nationality and religion, and these are interesting speculations; but keep in mind that ethnicity and religion (which often go hand in hand) are rather inertial concepts, and are quite capable of surviving even as great a shock as extraterrestrial contact or interstellar diaspora.
For one thing, suggesting that we might convert aliens to Christianity is pretty much akin to suggesting that less well developed parts of the world might have had a chance to convert western explorers to their local animalist or totemist belief system.
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in California. "Do you know the things they do there?"
DNA, requiscat in pacem
The Mormons had a solution to this problem: they imagine that Jesus visited North America, too. The "no fall" explanation is used in Lewis's books, particularly *Perelandra*. I'm afraid that the fundamental problem here is that those who imagine any kind of theodicy didn't have a grand enough vision of the scale of the universe: Christian theology (specifically the concept of the Incarnation) really wasn't designed to cope with a planet with separated hemispheres, let alone planetary systems separated by trillions of miles. You have to imagine either that there is no other life in the universe, or that only Earth Fell, or that the whole Universe Fell, but God figured that Earth (and specifically the Middle East) was the most important place to fix the problem and that it was ok for generations of millions of men and women (and maybe trillions or quadrillions of alien intelligences) who lived and died in a Fallen state, but without knowledge of Christ, and died after the Harrowing of Hell, to be denied the face of God because of the problems of interstellar geography.
We have them in New England, they're called "rotaries" here. And frankly, if you've ever driven in New England, you'll know why in this imperfect world of ours, rotaries are not superior to traffic-lighted intersections: because most people either don't know or don't care what the YIELD sign means!
This has nothing to do with whether or not the current patent examination process is flawed or not, it's about an ideal patent process. And even in an ideal process, independent invention is not an sufficient criterion of "obviousness." Two individuals can invent (and have invented) the same non-obvious invention at the same time. Think telephone. The idea of using electricity itself might have been obvious; the way to do it was not.
Nope. This is not reasonable. I don't think you have a very clear sense of what "obvious" means in this context.
And the rights to the recordings are owned by McC/St/HarEst/LenEst.
Yes, many are. But I've never actually seen "dictums." But if the dictionary you're using provides a cite for "dictums," ignore me.
(By the way, you might prefer to say "dicta," rather than "dictums" - I don't think anyone actually uses "dictum" except as a loan word from Latin (like "datum")
Orwellian in which sense, language being distorted to control people's thoughts, or ubiquitous surveillance?
Windows XP Pro Upgrade cost $199. By my math, that's pretty damned close to $200 .
One other point: one cannot copyright an idea, only its expression. You can copyright "print 'Hello World'" but you can't print the idea of a program that prints 'Hello World'. (Well, you can't actually copyright that piece of code, either, for various reasons too complex for /., but the point is that you can only copyright words or code or sounds or images, not ideas).
Bad idea. Disney would just buy a 10,000,000 year copyright on everything they could get their hands on.