Back before USB flash drives were widely and cheaply available, the only way to easily move around more than a few floppy's worth of data was the Zip drive.
More importantly, it contains a false claim: It claims it proves innocence, while in reality it only disproved the evidence of guilt: It does not prove that he actually stopped, it only proved that the officer cannot know whether he did.
More importantly, how to make sure that they really work on that project if they are not required to give updates, nor final results? So you make a new project "I want to investigate [some interesting question], I need $100000." Then after you got the $100000 you remain silent, except maybe after a while claiming "I've solved the problem, but I've decided to share the result with nobody." Meanwhile you enjoy the new flat you've bought with that money.
So how to make sure there really was research going on with the money if you are not required to give any updates on it?
No, the former do not fix things because those are going to be obsolete anyway, to be replaced by the new, shiny and equally buggy new thing they are just working on. The latter OTOH do fix things if they are broken, but leave them alone otherwise.
But what if your intended use does not include adding a screen or high GHz? And I doubt that with a screen you'll get the low energy consumption. And does that tablet have a comparable form factor?
The language is defined by (a) rules to decide whether a given source is a valid program, and (b) rules to define the behaviour of any valid program.
For example, I could define a language by stating that a text is a valid program if it doesn't contain any 'e', and the behaviour of the program is to print the number of lines of the text.
That's not a very useful language, but a language. Note however that the sentence above is not the language, but a description of the language. A valid program in the language would be
Yes, a description of the language is an expression and copyrightable. But the language is not the description of the language, it is what the description of the language describes. See here for a more developed version of my comment.
To be copyrightable it not only has to be creative (ideas can be pretty creative, too, and they are definitely not covered by copyright), it also has to be the expression of an idea. Since a language is not an expression, but a means to write expressions, it cannot be copyrighted.
A programming language is not an idea; it is a creative product, like a novel or a song or a software program.
Not every creative product is copyrightable. For example, algorithms are often a creative product, but they are not copyrightable (they may be patentable, but that's something different). Of course a specific implementation of an algorithm can (and usually will) be copyrighted.
Programming languages are more like algorithms than like programs. They correspond not to a song, but to the note system in which the music of the song may be written, and the natural language in which the text of the song is written. A completely different thing.
It has rules and symbols.
Which makes it an idea, not an expression of an idea. Because the expression of an idea has no rules, it is a specific combination of symbols, sounds, graphic elements etc. following (or sometimes not following) certain rules.
You cannot copyright the idea of a programming language, but the invention of a programming language is a specific manifestation or expression of that idea.
No. A specific implementation is an expression of the idea. The language itself cannot be an expression because it has no form. There is no way to write down a programming language, or to perform it. You can describe a programming language (either in the form of a specification, or in the form of a compiler/interpreter implementation), and those descriptions are of course copyrightable. But there is no way you can write down the language just in the same way you cannot write down an idea, but only a description of an idea (or the implementation of it, if it is an implementable idea).
Yes: You could transfer quantum states from one place to another. Which is essential if you want to do something quantum (like quantum cryptography, or quantum computation).
When you change the state of one, it changes the state of another.
No, you don't. If you take e.g. a singlet state of two spin-1/2 (which is an entangled state that has the property that if you measure both spins in the same direction, the two results are always opposite, so if one is up, the other is down and vice versa) and do (without measurement) a spin-flip on one (a spin flip exchanges up and down for that spin), then you'll get a different entangles state where the up measurement of the other spin now corresponds to an up measurement of your spin, and vice versa. In other words, the other spin did not follow (if it had followed, you'd still have the original singlet state).
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the complete solution. The complete solution reads: N=1 or P=0
Doing it in HTML5 first makes it easier to do in GIMP afterward? :-)
That's crazy talk, good sir. Human behavior can't possibly have consequences on the natural world!
Yeah, that's why it is completely safe to make fire in the forest. :-)
Ergot?
That would be the people who don't eat meat simply because they don't like it. Yes, they exist. I've once met one.
Wrong: There was also the LS120 drive.
More importantly, it contains a false claim: It claims it proves innocence, while in reality it only disproved the evidence of guilt: It does not prove that he actually stopped, it only proved that the officer cannot know whether he did.
More importantly, how to make sure that they really work on that project if they are not required to give updates, nor final results? So you make a new project "I want to investigate [some interesting question], I need $100000." Then after you got the $100000 you remain silent, except maybe after a while claiming "I've solved the problem, but I've decided to share the result with nobody." Meanwhile you enjoy the new flat you've bought with that money.
So how to make sure there really was research going on with the money if you are not required to give any updates on it?
No, the former do not fix things because those are going to be obsolete anyway, to be replaced by the new, shiny and equally buggy new thing they are just working on. The latter OTOH do fix things if they are broken, but leave them alone otherwise.
The Raspberry Pi has a HDMI port as well, so your claim that you need a CRT is clearly wrong.
But what if your intended use does not include adding a screen or high GHz? And I doubt that with a screen you'll get the low energy consumption. And does that tablet have a comparable form factor?
Since when is 20 equal to 50?
No, most the rest of what makes a language (actually the part which makes it a language) is its semantics.
The language is defined by (a) rules to decide whether a given source is a valid program, and (b) rules to define the behaviour of any valid program.
For example, I could define a language by stating that a text is a valid program if it doesn't contain any 'e', and the behaviour of the program is to print the number of lines of the text.
That's not a very useful language, but a language. Note however that the sentence above is not the language, but a description of the language. A valid program in the language would be
Yes, a description of the language is an expression and copyrightable. But the language is not the description of the language, it is what the description of the language describes. See here for a more developed version of my comment.
So they are violating the copyright of the Whitespace inventors?
To be copyrightable it not only has to be creative (ideas can be pretty creative, too, and they are definitely not covered by copyright), it also has to be the expression of an idea. Since a language is not an expression, but a means to write expressions, it cannot be copyrighted.
Not every creative product is copyrightable. For example, algorithms are often a creative product, but they are not copyrightable (they may be patentable, but that's something different). Of course a specific implementation of an algorithm can (and usually will) be copyrighted.
Programming languages are more like algorithms than like programs. They correspond not to a song, but to the note system in which the music of the song may be written, and the natural language in which the text of the song is written. A completely different thing.
Which makes it an idea, not an expression of an idea. Because the expression of an idea has no rules, it is a specific combination of symbols, sounds, graphic elements etc. following (or sometimes not following) certain rules.
No. A specific implementation is an expression of the idea. The language itself cannot be an expression because it has no form. There is no way to write down a programming language, or to perform it. You can describe a programming language (either in the form of a specification, or in the form of a compiler/interpreter implementation), and those descriptions are of course copyrightable. But there is no way you can write down the language just in the same way you cannot write down an idea, but only a description of an idea (or the implementation of it, if it is an implementable idea).
Oracle would just zap a wand of litigation.
Actually for the Neutrinos, the question is not yet settled. That's why experimentalists are seeking for neutrino-less double-beta decay.
He obviously turned into dark matter.
Yes: You could transfer quantum states from one place to another. Which is essential if you want to do something quantum (like quantum cryptography, or quantum computation).
No, you don't. If you take e.g. a singlet state of two spin-1/2 (which is an entangled state that has the property that if you measure both spins in the same direction, the two results are always opposite, so if one is up, the other is down and vice versa) and do (without measurement) a spin-flip on one (a spin flip exchanges up and down for that spin), then you'll get a different entangles state where the up measurement of the other spin now corresponds to an up measurement of your spin, and vice versa. In other words, the other spin did not follow (if it had followed, you'd still have the original singlet state).
And yes, I'm a physicist.
No, when anonymous posting gets forbidden by law.
Well, for example by not reading his book. ;-)