It's part of a legal tactic called "offensive blocking patents" in which businesses or individual entrepreneurs use patents not so much as tools to build new products, but as legal roadblocks or bargaining chips against competitors or corporate giants.
Patents are never tools to build new products. You don't need a patent to build your own product. And if your product partially infringes on somebody else's active patent - then a patent of your own wont give you any rights to build it at all.
The only use for a patent is to stop others from using your technology.
Personally, I am a bit of an inventor and I often come up with different ideas for business software. When I do, I ask myself if I can develop it myself as a stand-alone product. If I can, then I start develop it; and I don't necessarily file a patent.
But sometimes I find that my idea would be most useful as a part of a large existing piece of software. In that case I try to file a patent, and I can then approach a bigger company with my idea. I don't see anything wrong with this.
1. Living standards in the industrialized world are falling ("importing a 3rd world standard of living")
2. Third world countires are trying to stop offshoring ("a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States")
3 Corporate profitability is constantly increasing ("this is about making corporations rich.")
But on the contrary!
1 Living standards are constantly increasing in industrial countries; by a few percent per year.
2 Developing countries are desperate for offshore opportunities and foreign investments, and they are pushing this agenda in international negotiations
3 Corporate profitability has been constant or decreasing over the past years and decades
Ok, it seems like the two quotes are contradicting each other. By "we" in the first statement, I mean the people of the US. In the second statement, I am referring to the corporate government, whose motives are different, IMO. There are also two kinds of imports, which I didn't necessarly make clear. There are intra-corporate imports, which is what corporations want, and their are imports that come from foreign companies which is what the rest of us Americans should desire. The reason we want the latter, is because foreign companies will typically return more of the profits to that country, which will mean higher wages for countries we trade with, which means more consumption by that country and more money flowing back into the American middle class. Intra-corporate imports means lower wages, and the profits get returned to that company and it's investors, who will simply hoard that money.
The assumption here is that using off-shore labor for "intra-corporate" imports results in higher profits, and investors will "hoard that money". But this is true only if the market is not competitive. If the market is competitve, then all competitors will take similar action and the consumer will be the winner in terms of lower prices.
American business is extremely competive. In spite of constant productivity improvements and offshoring of simpler activities corporate profits are not generally increasing.
I told them that this was not about helping the people of India,
Of course corporations do not go to India with charity as a motive - but their motive is of no consequence. If you set up a new factory/ programing shop somwhere you have to give salaries that are locally competitive or you are not going to fill it with good people - clearly the IT investments have been very beneficial to India in terms of increased standard of living for the people there.
it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this
As economists have long known, the market forces slowly push living conditions towards similar levels for people doing similar work and are equally productive. It works in both directions: improved salaries for the ones with lower salaries and lower salaries for the ones with higher salaries (or unemployment, if the labor market is very regulated).
which is why so many people around the world are against this
Special interest groups in the industrialized world (e.g., American IT workers) are against this. Poor workers in India and Russia are not against this - they have a lot to gain. You never hear them asking us to put up barriers of trade to protect them; this is purely an argument of the political left in developed nations.
It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States
This is exactly the argument I was talking about. It is quite pathetic. In trying to protect their own interest (there is nothing wrong witht that) the left is trying to present it as though regulation and trade barriers are in the interest of poor countries - which is ridicolous - because all these countries are asking for is for us to reduce the trade barriers we have.
If you don't buy this on a philosphical level, please take a look at empirical experiences - let's take a very high level view. Rich free-trading nations grow at 2-3% GDP per year. Poor free-trading nations typically grow more like 5% per year in terms of GDP - if they have working institutions. Long term (it varies with the economic cycle, of course) rich nations have unemployment of maybe 5% (or more like 10% when the labor market gets very regulated like in parts of Europe). Corporations are making profits around 5-10% - also this varies by cycle, but it is not in general getting bigger and bigger.
What in this picture do you find so horribly wrong? What would your perfect world look like where there are plenty of trade barriers. Well, why not take a look at some places that have tried: China, Vietnam and North Korea come to mind. These places have tried self-reliance and just accepted the occasional socialistic factory project from Sweden. The result: complete catastrophy! China and Vietnam eventually figured out that this is not the way to go; opened up their countries to trade and are now growing like crazy. North Koreans are not so fortunate - people are still starving. Millions have died because of their economic policy of self-reliance.
Yes, perhaps some competition is a good thing. The real harm is done when
a) The parties are secretive against each other and do not share their discoveries (like during the cold war)
b) When the parties build duplicate versions of the same expensive thing (Gallileo/GPS comes to mind).
Why not stake out challenging and different goals for EU, the US and China. "We challenge you that we will have a man on Mars before your moon base is operational!".
Given the past performaces of Mars expeditions, NASA is taking a big risk.
Of course, technology has improved, but is this a prudent bet for NASA?
The rovers and the mission have been in development for years. It is true that it is risky, but most of that risk has already been taken in the development of the rovers; it is a sunk cost.
Cancelling the mission at this point will not remove the risk, it will just guarantee a failure.
we can't get the weather right within 80% more than 12 hours in advance
This is true, because as you point out weather is a chaotic system. But nevertheless, we can predict certain global outcomes like the annual rainfall in Sweden or the average summer temperature in LA with quite good accuracy.
Similarly, we will probably never be able get the number of crimes within the next 12 hours right within 80%. But the number of crimes within the next month is another matter.
And this can be quite useful in considering different social policies or sending patrol cars to the right places.
This is actually a key point. A key failure of the current nuclear industry is that the plants are not standardized - they follow a large number of different designs.
Standardized modules will cut costs and also make them safer; discovered bugs can be fixed in all installations.
Conan the Barbarian:... and the next morning my sword was gone, and the gold pieces, and...
Cross-Examining Lawyer: And, if I may ask, where did you get those gold pieces in the first place...?
Conan the Barbarian: Well, I killed this dragon and...
Cross-Examining Lawyer: Murderer!! You killed, pillaged and raped to get this money and now you have the stomach of accusing the defendant, and honor student in the other end of the kingdom...
Conan the Barbarian: But it was just a dragon...
Cross-Examining Lawyer: Racist!! There we have it, honored members of the jury, Mr Barbarian here is not only a thief and a murderer, he is also a racist. That nullifies any and all of his allegations. You must aquit.
Wouldn't wildly inaccurate measurements tend to *decrease* the probability that an object would hit in general? I mean, if I say that based on my innacurate measurements that assteroid X will be 'somewhere in the solar system' on day Y, then what are the odds that the earth will occupy the same spot in the solar system on day Y as the asteroid?
Say you make enough observations to assess, based on all available data, that the probability of collision is 10%.
After this two things can happen.
1. There is a 10% chance that there really will be an impact. If this is true, then more and more observations will increase that assessed probability until it is obvious that there is a 100% risk.
2 But in 90% of cases, additional observations will reveal a lower and lower impact probability, until we know for certain that it will miss.
Since most observations concern low-probability events, you are right that additional observations usually leads to lower impact probability assessments. But one day it may be the other way around...
Is that 0.3% chance mostly from the inaccuracy of the devices that measure the velocity of the object, inaccuracy of the prediction models
Mostly measurement of exact position and velocity vectors.
These percentage risks actually present a great communication problem for astronomers.
Scientists are used to the notion of measuring accuracy. They thus understand that when you start measuring, it can be say a 10% chance, based on the limited data you have. Then you collect more data, and it is reduced to say 1%.
For the common public, however, the updated numbers suggest that the scientists "were wrong" in the first place, and they lose credibility.
This is one of the reasons for scientists being more reluctant to release early data on asteroid observations.
I think a big part of this is that we may never have as much fun with games as we did when we started way back then.
We can then start looking at the games and argue that they are not as original as they used to.
But then again, my younger brother seems to be amazed and thrilled by all new computer games.
Tor
Re:CIA Humint - Sigint - Remote Sensing
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I read the Hunt for Bin Laden which is about the Green Berets in Afghanistan which doesn't have anything nice to say about CIA either.
The conflict in Afghanistan was revolutionary because of CIA. They were there before any of the armed forces and they basically won the war by bribing/ persuading different fraction to join up against the Taliban.
Also, has it occured to you that in the set of failed and successful CIA activities there is an extreme bias in which ones you ever hear about?
Actually, it's very easy to imagine the US to switch of half or all of GPS because they're combating some 'rogue state'.
Really? To my knowledge, the US has never actively stopped GPS signals with the intent of disturbing Europe (although admitevly, during military operations satellites are shifted around to increase presence in the hot spot itself).
Europe did not take any actions, besides diplomatical ones, to stop US action in Iraq.
This is exactly my point. They almost never take any action. If it were the case that Europe frequently took action, and the US opposed and switched of GPS, then this Gallileo would make sense. Now it does not.
was really justified to liberate the Iraqis against their will(where are the weapons of mass destrucion, by the way?)
When I hear these arguments I ask one thing. All in all, would you say the war did more good than bad, yes or no? If the answer is no, then I respectfully disagree. If the anwer is yes, I just think it is a really pathetic attitude. Then it is time to admit that one got the big picture wrong, not for complaining about everything that one would have prefered for the US to have done differently.
Expensive? Why do you care? It's not going to cost the US anything; to the contrary, Europe will probably import some parts from the US.
Because I am from Europe (three years in the US now) and I fundamentally believe that the US and Europe should be on the same side. I wish that the people of Europe could protest against Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Ill instead of against George W. Sure, George W has many faults and we may disapprove of his solutions for the world problems, but somehow people seem to forget that people like Saddam and Kim Jong Ill constitute the world's problems. If Europe had taken a hard line against Saddam then perhaps the regime would have collapsed wihtout any intervension. If Turkey would have let through the US 4th Infantry division then the war would have ended even quicker and there would have been more people on the ground to stop looting in Bagdad and elsewhere.
I think under these circumstances the world needs another option.
Please explain how this extraordiary expensive Gallileo system would have stopped US action in Iraq.
ultimately staged an invasion rather than liberation
Are you saying that you think that it would have been better if the US had stayed out of Iraq?
Or are you one of those who before the war opposed US action, and after realized that it was better than the alternative, but refrain from saying so and rather complain on those things that went wrong or did not happen as Pentagon predicted...? It's weak, but at least you have plenty of company.
This I can understand considering that the US and China represent so different systems.
But for Europe to launch a comprehensive, expensive system... I don't get it. I mean of course there are sometimes disagreements between the US and Europe but I wish that we could realize that we stand on the same side: that of democratic capitalism. Most of the rest of the world does not.
Why not spend the money on real space science? Even if you think that stronger European military independence is a good thing (I do) there are plenty of military investments that make more sense (e.g., strategic trasport aircraft for power projection). This Gallileo system is very expensive and is useful in the very unlikely scenario where the US blocks GPS for Europe (btw, can anyone describe a single plausible scenario where this happens?).
Even if I try really hard I can't imagine a scenario where Europe really needed satellite navigation but the US would block GPS from them. Europe has the habit of sitting on their butts and complaining on whatever the US does. It is not like they are the ones taking action left and right and the US stopping them by blocking GPS. Even if Europe had had this Gallileo that would not have enabled them to stop US action in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If Europe would have taken a more of a leadership role in world politics (as opposed to just complaining on whatever the US does) then I am sure the US would be delighted and more the willing to let them use GPS.
This sounds like a very expensive French idea. Accuracy is supposed to be higher than GPS so it is not completely useless, but too expensive. I could think of so many big research and defense projects that would be more useful for European tax payers than this.
Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles).
This is true.
Microsoft, the stock will certainly go down in the next years
This may very well not be true, because predictions of the future are built into the current market price. (If you don't believe me, put your money were your mouth is and start short selling.)
A little of topic but a few days ago the result of Italian research project was published. The result of DNA comparisons between Neanderthals and Humans found that most likely no interbreeding have occured.
No, the result is that there is no Neandertal genetic material left in modern humans.
The conclusion should be that interbreeding was not common enough for Neanderthal genes to prevail 1,000 odd generations later - not necessarily that interbreeding never happened at all.
Our current system for categorizing the inhabitants of this is long outdated and is based largely on phsycal characteristics of the components on the creature, rather than the stuff it is actually made up of.
We find we've had to tweak this existing system to make new species fit
I agree completely. In fact even the concept of species is not so well-defined any more, because there are examples of groups of animals where group A can mate with group B and group C, but groups B and C cannot mate with each other. Are they different species or the same?
A better, more accurate, system needs to be devised based on current technologies that classify based on genetic code. The point of a classification system would be to allow us to draw similarities in creatures while studying them based on available data for ones in the same category. A genetic model would be very beneficial for this very reason.
The answer to your question is called cladestics, where species are classifed not based on observed similarities, but rather based on common heritage.
Common heritage can be established either from genetics or from counting the number of significant traits that differ or are the same, and using sophisticated computer programs to calculate probable common starting points.
A few provocative results are that birds are dinosaurs (dinosaurs are defined by a common ancestor, and since birds come from dinosaurs that make them dinosaurs too). Furthermore dinosaurs (including birds) are reptilians.
This specific project aside, I have a similar question. Could somebody outline in like three bullet points what the main pros and cons are with using PHP vs Perl for dynamic web content.
...when governments get too much power. No offense to any Koreans that are loyal, but you really ought to consider a coup. Personal liberty and the right to vehemently question one's leadership shouldn't be questioned, regardless of what type of place you live in. If where you live thinks the idea of free speech is "wrong" then you live int he wrong place or the leaders are fucktards. Take your pick.
South Korea has had a coup in the past; democracy was lost and the military was in power for some time. It seems to me like some Slashdotter's have lost sight of the big picture on democratic rights. National ID's are questionable but they are a very secondary problem when compared to challenged freedom of speech and the right to vote - and these rights are not self-evident in most of the world.
And oh yes, south Korea borders to some true barbarians in the north. A coup just might trigger nuclear war over there.
My question - If these cards are getting so powerful at computations then why do we need a Intel/AMD processor at all?
A development this extreme is unlikely. However, what is very real is the fact that GPUs and CPUs are at least partially competitors.
If you are doing a lot of graphics then you the best computer for your money may be with a great graphics card and a so-so CPU. The better and cheaper GPUs Nvidia can make, the smaller the demand for state of the art Pentium's.
But unless there is a revolutionary development somewhere, we will probably see computers with both kinds of processors for a good while.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
It's part of a legal tactic called "offensive blocking patents" in which businesses or individual entrepreneurs use patents not so much as tools to build new products, but as legal roadblocks or bargaining chips against competitors or corporate giants.
Patents are never tools to build new products. You don't need a patent to build your own product. And if your product partially infringes on somebody else's active patent - then a patent of your own wont give you any rights to build it at all.
The only use for a patent is to stop others from using your technology.
Personally, I am a bit of an inventor and I often come up with different ideas for business software. When I do, I ask myself if I can develop it myself as a stand-alone product. If I can, then I start develop it; and I don't necessarily file a patent.
But sometimes I find that my idea would be most useful as a part of a large existing piece of software. In that case I try to file a patent, and I can then approach a bigger company with my idea. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Tor
we would expect that:
1. Living standards in the industrialized world are falling ("importing a 3rd world standard of living")
2. Third world countires are trying to stop offshoring ("a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States")
3 Corporate profitability is constantly increasing ("this is about making corporations rich.")
But on the contrary!
1 Living standards are constantly increasing in industrial countries; by a few percent per year.
2 Developing countries are desperate for offshore opportunities and foreign investments, and they are pushing this agenda in international negotiations
3 Corporate profitability has been constant or decreasing over the past years and decades
Tor
Ok, it seems like the two quotes are contradicting each other. By "we" in the first statement, I mean the people of the US. In the second statement, I am referring to the corporate government, whose motives are different, IMO. There are also two kinds of imports, which I didn't necessarly make clear. There are intra-corporate imports, which is what corporations want, and their are imports that come from foreign companies which is what the rest of us Americans should desire. The reason we want the latter, is because foreign companies will typically return more of the profits to that country, which will mean higher wages for countries we trade with, which means more consumption by that country and more money flowing back into the American middle class. Intra-corporate imports means lower wages, and the profits get returned to that company and it's investors, who will simply hoard that money.
The assumption here is that using off-shore labor for "intra-corporate" imports results in higher profits, and investors will "hoard that money". But this is true only if the market is not competitive. If the market is competitve, then all competitors will take similar action and the consumer will be the winner in terms of lower prices.
American business is extremely competive. In spite of constant productivity improvements and offshoring of simpler activities corporate profits are not generally increasing.
Tor
I told them that this was not about helping the people of India,
Of course corporations do not go to India with charity as a motive - but their motive is of no consequence. If you set up a new factory/ programing shop somwhere you have to give salaries that are locally competitive or you are not going to fill it with good people - clearly the IT investments have been very beneficial to India in terms of increased standard of living for the people there.
it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this
As economists have long known, the market forces slowly push living conditions towards similar levels for people doing similar work and are equally productive. It works in both directions: improved salaries for the ones with lower salaries and lower salaries for the ones with higher salaries (or unemployment, if the labor market is very regulated).
which is why so many people around the world are against this
Special interest groups in the industrialized world (e.g., American IT workers) are against this. Poor workers in India and Russia are not against this - they have a lot to gain. You never hear them asking us to put up barriers of trade to protect them; this is purely an argument of the political left in developed nations.
It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States
This is exactly the argument I was talking about. It is quite pathetic. In trying to protect their own interest (there is nothing wrong witht that) the left is trying to present it as though regulation and trade barriers are in the interest of poor countries - which is ridicolous - because all these countries are asking for is for us to reduce the trade barriers we have.
If you don't buy this on a philosphical level, please take a look at empirical experiences - let's take a very high level view. Rich free-trading nations grow at 2-3% GDP per year. Poor free-trading nations typically grow more like 5% per year in terms of GDP - if they have working institutions. Long term (it varies with the economic cycle, of course) rich nations have unemployment of maybe 5% (or more like 10% when the labor market gets very regulated like in parts of Europe). Corporations are making profits around 5-10% - also this varies by cycle, but it is not in general getting bigger and bigger.
What in this picture do you find so horribly wrong? What would your perfect world look like where there are plenty of trade barriers. Well, why not take a look at some places that have tried: China, Vietnam and North Korea come to mind. These places have tried self-reliance and just accepted the occasional socialistic factory project from Sweden. The result: complete catastrophy! China and Vietnam eventually figured out that this is not the way to go; opened up their countries to trade and are now growing like crazy. North Koreans are not so fortunate - people are still starving. Millions have died because of their economic policy of self-reliance.
Tor
Yes, perhaps some competition is a good thing. The real harm is done when
a) The parties are secretive against each other and do not share their discoveries (like during the cold war)
b) When the parties build duplicate versions of the same expensive thing (Gallileo/GPS comes to mind).
Why not stake out challenging and different goals for EU, the US and China. "We challenge you that we will have a man on Mars before your moon base is operational!".
Tor
Given the past performaces of Mars expeditions, NASA is taking a big risk.
Of course, technology has improved, but is this a prudent bet for NASA?
The rovers and the mission have been in development for years. It is true that it is risky, but most of that risk has already been taken in the development of the rovers; it is a sunk cost.
Cancelling the mission at this point will not remove the risk, it will just guarantee a failure.
Tor
we can't get the weather right within 80% more than 12 hours in advance
This is true, because as you point out weather is a chaotic system. But nevertheless, we can predict certain global outcomes like the annual rainfall in Sweden or the average summer temperature in LA with quite good accuracy.
Similarly, we will probably never be able get the number of crimes within the next 12 hours right within 80%. But the number of crimes within the next month is another matter.
And this can be quite useful in considering different social policies or sending patrol cars to the right places.
Tor
Actually, this has precedence. A Swedish fighter jet of type Draken was sold on ebay.
The problem is that for these types of items the sticker price is usually only a small part of the cost of actually owning and maintaining one.
Tor
That would certainly make me feel more comfortable as this universe is an awfully big place and to think we were all alone would be......scary.
/Tor (somebody famous said something similar once)
I don't know what is scarier: that we are alone in the universe - or that we are not alone in the universe.
This is actually a key point. A key failure of the current nuclear industry is that the plants are not standardized - they follow a large number of different designs.
Standardized modules will cut costs and also make them safer; discovered bugs can be fixed in all installations.
Tor
Conan the Barbarian: ... and the next morning my sword was gone, and the gold pieces, and...
/Tor
Cross-Examining Lawyer: And, if I may ask, where did you get those gold pieces in the first place...?
Conan the Barbarian: Well, I killed this dragon and...
Cross-Examining Lawyer: Murderer!! You killed, pillaged and raped to get this money and now you have the stomach of accusing the defendant, and honor student in the other end of the kingdom...
Conan the Barbarian: But it was just a dragon...
Cross-Examining Lawyer: Racist!! There we have it, honored members of the jury, Mr Barbarian here is not only a thief and a murderer, he is also a racist. That nullifies any and all of his allegations. You must aquit.
Wouldn't wildly inaccurate measurements tend to *decrease* the probability that an object would hit in general? I mean, if I say that based on my innacurate measurements that assteroid X will be 'somewhere in the solar system' on day Y, then what are the odds that the earth will occupy the same spot in the solar system on day Y as the asteroid?
Say you make enough observations to assess, based on all available data, that the probability of collision is 10%.
After this two things can happen.
1. There is a 10% chance that there really will be an impact. If this is true, then more and more observations will increase that assessed probability until it is obvious that there is a 100% risk.
2 But in 90% of cases, additional observations will reveal a lower and lower impact probability, until we know for certain that it will miss.
Since most observations concern low-probability events, you are right that additional observations usually leads to lower impact probability assessments. But one day it may be the other way around...
Tor
Is that 0.3% chance mostly from the inaccuracy of the devices that measure the velocity of the object, inaccuracy of the prediction models
Mostly measurement of exact position and velocity vectors.
These percentage risks actually present a great communication problem for astronomers.
Scientists are used to the notion of measuring accuracy. They thus understand that when you start measuring, it can be say a 10% chance, based on the limited data you have. Then you collect more data, and it is reduced to say 1%.
For the common public, however, the updated numbers suggest that the scientists "were wrong" in the first place, and they lose credibility.
This is one of the reasons for scientists being more reluctant to release early data on asteroid observations.
Tor
I think a big part of this is that we may never have as much fun with games as we did when we started way back then.
We can then start looking at the games and argue that they are not as original as they used to.
But then again, my younger brother seems to be amazed and thrilled by all new computer games.
Tor
I read the Hunt for Bin Laden which is about the Green Berets in Afghanistan which doesn't have anything nice to say about CIA either.
The conflict in Afghanistan was revolutionary because of CIA. They were there before any of the armed forces and they basically won the war by bribing/ persuading different fraction to join up against the Taliban.
Also, has it occured to you that in the set of failed and successful CIA activities there is an extreme bias in which ones you ever hear about?
Tor
Actually, it's very easy to imagine the US to switch of half or all of GPS because they're combating some 'rogue state'.
Really? To my knowledge, the US has never actively stopped GPS signals with the intent of disturbing Europe (although admitevly, during military operations satellites are shifted around to increase presence in the hot spot itself).
Europe did not take any actions, besides diplomatical ones, to stop US action in Iraq.
This is exactly my point. They almost never take any action. If it were the case that Europe frequently took action, and the US opposed and switched of GPS, then this Gallileo would make sense. Now it does not.
was really justified to liberate the Iraqis against their will(where are the weapons of mass destrucion, by the way?)
When I hear these arguments I ask one thing. All in all, would you say the war did more good than bad, yes or no? If the answer is no, then I respectfully disagree. If the anwer is yes, I just think it is a really pathetic attitude. Then it is time to admit that one got the big picture wrong, not for complaining about everything that one would have prefered for the US to have done differently.
Expensive? Why do you care? It's not going to cost the US anything; to the contrary, Europe will probably import some parts from the US.
Because I am from Europe (three years in the US now) and I fundamentally believe that the US and Europe should be on the same side. I wish that the people of Europe could protest against Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Ill instead of against George W. Sure, George W has many faults and we may disapprove of his solutions for the world problems, but somehow people seem to forget that people like Saddam and Kim Jong Ill constitute the world's problems. If Europe had taken a hard line against Saddam then perhaps the regime would have collapsed wihtout any intervension. If Turkey would have let through the US 4th Infantry division then the war would have ended even quicker and there would have been more people on the ground to stop looting in Bagdad and elsewhere.
Tor
I think under these circumstances the world needs another option.
Please explain how this extraordiary expensive Gallileo system would have stopped US action in Iraq.
ultimately staged an invasion rather than liberation
Are you saying that you think that it would have been better if the US had stayed out of Iraq?
Or are you one of those who before the war opposed US action, and after realized that it was better than the alternative, but refrain from saying so and rather complain on those things that went wrong or did not happen as Pentagon predicted...? It's weak, but at least you have plenty of company.
Tor
are launching a satellite system as well
This I can understand considering that the US and China represent so different systems.
But for Europe to launch a comprehensive, expensive system... I don't get it. I mean of course there are sometimes disagreements between the US and Europe but I wish that we could realize that we stand on the same side: that of democratic capitalism. Most of the rest of the world does not.
Why not spend the money on real space science? Even if you think that stronger European military independence is a good thing (I do) there are plenty of military investments that make more sense (e.g., strategic trasport aircraft for power projection). This Gallileo system is very expensive and is useful in the very unlikely scenario where the US blocks GPS for Europe (btw, can anyone describe a single plausible scenario where this happens?).
Tor
Even if I try really hard I can't imagine a scenario where Europe really needed satellite navigation but the US would block GPS from them. Europe has the habit of sitting on their butts and complaining on whatever the US does. It is not like they are the ones taking action left and right and the US stopping them by blocking GPS. Even if Europe had had this Gallileo that would not have enabled them to stop US action in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If Europe would have taken a more of a leadership role in world politics (as opposed to just complaining on whatever the US does) then I am sure the US would be delighted and more the willing to let them use GPS.
This sounds like a very expensive French idea. Accuracy is supposed to be higher than GPS so it is not completely useless, but too expensive. I could think of so many big research and defense projects that would be more useful for European tax payers than this.
Tor
Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles).
This is true.
Microsoft, the stock will certainly go down in the next years
This may very well not be true, because predictions of the future are built into the current market price. (If you don't believe me, put your money were your mouth is and start short selling.)
Tor
A little of topic but a few days ago the result of Italian research project was published. The result of DNA comparisons between Neanderthals and Humans found that most likely no interbreeding have occured.
No, the result is that there is no Neandertal genetic material left in modern humans.
The conclusion should be that interbreeding was not common enough for Neanderthal genes to prevail 1,000 odd generations later - not necessarily that interbreeding never happened at all.
Tor
Our current system for categorizing the inhabitants of this is long outdated and is based largely on phsycal characteristics of the components on the creature, rather than the stuff it is actually made up of.
We find we've had to tweak this existing system to make new species fit
I agree completely. In fact even the concept of species is not so well-defined any more, because there are examples of groups of animals where group A can mate with group B and group C, but groups B and C cannot mate with each other. Are they different species or the same?
A better, more accurate, system needs to be devised based on current technologies that classify based on genetic code. The point of a classification system would be to allow us to draw similarities in creatures while studying them based on available data for ones in the same category. A genetic model would be very beneficial for this very reason.
The answer to your question is called cladestics, where species are classifed not based on observed similarities, but rather based on common heritage.
Common heritage can be established either from genetics or from counting the number of significant traits that differ or are the same, and using sophisticated computer programs to calculate probable common starting points.
A few provocative results are that birds are dinosaurs (dinosaurs are defined by a common ancestor, and since birds come from dinosaurs that make them dinosaurs too). Furthermore dinosaurs (including birds) are reptilians.
Tor
This specific project aside, I have a similar question. Could somebody outline in like three bullet points what the main pros and cons are with using PHP vs Perl for dynamic web content.
Thanks.
Tor
South Korea has had a coup in the past; democracy was lost and the military was in power for some time. It seems to me like some Slashdotter's have lost sight of the big picture on democratic rights. National ID's are questionable but they are a very secondary problem when compared to challenged freedom of speech and the right to vote - and these rights are not self-evident in most of the world.
And oh yes, south Korea borders to some true barbarians in the north. A coup just might trigger nuclear war over there.
Tor
My question - If these cards are getting so powerful at computations then why do we need a Intel/AMD processor at all?
A development this extreme is unlikely. However, what is very real is the fact that GPUs and CPUs are at least partially competitors.
If you are doing a lot of graphics then you the best computer for your money may be with a great graphics card and a so-so CPU. The better and cheaper GPUs Nvidia can make, the smaller the demand for state of the art Pentium's.
But unless there is a revolutionary development somewhere, we will probably see computers with both kinds of processors for a good while.
Tor