Oh give me a break! I DO Meta Moderate SlashDot and I do it A LOT!:-) And it most certainly does feel like a second job! (Although the pay isn't all that great):-P
Ok! If you want a sensible reply - I'm working on my own RPG game (soon to be at www.sim1.us <-plug!) as well as a couple of other programs I've been working on for a year or two (in my copious amounts of time).:-) I finally got my wife to agree that I needed my own static IP address (instead of trying to set things up at some other site), got my router set up, webserver (Apache! via Linux) set up, and am beginning to get everything ready for the launch date (I can only say soon presently). Anyway, if the Troll patrol requires a sensible response here is one. Most of my other time is spent helping out on various OSS projects under other names as well as volunteering to help out a lot of other people I call friends. (Especially the over 70 crowd whom a lot of people seem to have decided to abandon.)
The problem is which way will people whine about the most. When astronauts are lost NASA is bombarded with "Save the Astronauts!" slogans. Lots of BS about why we should send robots instead of people.
Then when the price tag for sending robots into space is talked about people start screaming "Why are we doing that? Send astronauts instead! It's cheaper."
It is decisions by committee and it works in the same way as if you were driving a bus down a multilane freeway at the beginning of rush hour with a cloth tied over your eyes. Your only method of knowing what to do is what everyone on the bus is trying to tell you. So everyone gets to scream out what they want the bus driver to do and then he tries to react to the orders. And just like the bus - NASA is going willy-nilly down the freeway trying not to hit anyone, trying to apease each and every person on the bus, and to reach the destination each and every one on the bus is screaming at them to go to. It is a thankless, almost impossible task to perform.
The people of America need to realize just how stupid their over-the-top reactions to problems with space travel are. This isn't Star Trek, BattleStar Galactica, Star Wars, or any of the other truly great (IMHO) space shows. The physics alone are no where near the same. Yet these TV/Movie shows are what are held up as being totally correct and truthful. Further, when someone dies (as in Star Wars when trying to take out the Death Star) no one goes "Wait! Oh my GOD! Think about the insurance! Oi-vey! What about the children? His/Her wife/husband? Friends, relatives, and countrymen? Who's going to pay for all of this?" Everyone goes "Oh Wow! Did you see that? His head flew off into the window next to where Luke was trying to save Obiwan!"
So what am I trying to get at? The country needs to decide, once and for all, whether it is worth the lives of our astronauts to send people into space. If it is - stop complaining and start supporting that way of going into space. If it isn't - stop complaining about the cost and lend your support to the cause. The main thing is - you can't have it both ways. Either people are going to die up there or we are going to probably bankrupt the country trying to build a robot capable of doing everything a human can do.
And don't think that just because businesses are starting to get into the space business that things are going to change for the better. The problem isn't going to go away just because you've changed who is going into space. It doesn't work like that. You are still going to have people dying up there if you send them up there. You just will have more of them dying at one time. Just like in an airplane crash.
So come on America! Make up your mind! People or robots?
Don't forget the Air Car. It is always nice to see improvements in gas powered cars, but one which runs on air is a lot better. For us and for the environment as well.
I was diagnosed with thrombophlebitis in 1986. I was stupid and did not get it looked at immediately. After two tries where the doctors said it looked like gout I turned to a third doctor who took one look and said I had thrombophlebitis and that I was going into the hospital. This doctor (Dr. Howard Dillard, MD) was excellent. He scheduled my coming over to the hospital for the tests, they did the tests and I spent a month and a half in the hospital.
Note though that it took three tries to get someone who knew what they were talking about.
When my company went onto an HMO I was forced to leave Dr. Dillard's excellent services. I then went through no fewer than six doctors to find the doctor I now have. One of those doctors told me flat out that she wished I would just die and leave her alone. Needless to say - I do not hold most doctors in high regard.
Even my current doctor I do not rely on for many things and we go back and forth on whether I have or need something. For instance, after 1990 I was put on to HCT by Dr. Dillard. I had a slight reaction to the HCT but, at that time, there wasn't enough information about HCT (because the Internet had not yet come along) at hand to know that even a slight reaction is enough to alert someone (ie: a doctor) to the fact that maybe some other drug should be used. However, the greatest reaction I had was that my blood pressure actually went up from my usage of HCT instead of down. So Dr. Dillard put me on another high blood pressure medicine. (Which was not, IMHO, his best decision. I now believe he should have just changed the HCT out for one of the other dieuretics available.) In any event, all of the HMO doctors just kept giving me my meds even when I began to complain of continus sinus infections and an ache I developed near/on my right kidney region. Finally, in June of 2001 our area of the US was hit by a massive tropical storm which flooded our house as well as most of the city. Under the stress of trying to deal with this I began having severe kidney problems, problems breathing, massive sinus infections (almost couldn't breath), and times when my heart would just pound (but not like a heart attack with pain et al). I too got on to the internet and began reading. There were three medications I was on: Coumadin, Lisinopril, and HCT. On the FDA's website they list all three of these medications. Of the three the only one which listed the exact same kinds of problems from a reaction (such as stress) was HCT. I immediately went off of the HCT, contacted my doctor, talked with him about it, and am now taking an herbal dieuretic. My sinus infections have become almost non-existent but the damage done to my kidneys is not.
I am older and I do realize that as you age things tend to break down and I do what I can (exercise, drink lots of water, take vitamins, etc....) but I could tell there was still something wrong.
Recently my doctor said that I had become a diabetic so I have gone on to glucophauge. My doctor says this is because my kidneys are not functioning correctly. What a surprise.
So this is what I am trying to say:
1. There are good doctors and bad doctors. 1a. So you DO have to hunt for the good ones and you WILL go through (sometimes a lot of) bad ones. 2. Medicines interact in each person differently. 2a. If the symptoms are getting WORSE, then the meds you are on may not be the right ones for you. Figure out when the problems first arose and then go from there. 2b. The worst thing about meds is that they are chemicals and sometimes two chemicals may not interreact like a doctor thinks they should interreact. Check on the internet (the FDA is a good place to go to see what kinds of reactions you may have with meds), see if any of the symptoms listed match what you are experiencing - then talk with your doctor about it. There should be alternative d
"This is your TV rambling reporter live at Dave's house. Officer O'Reilly, what happened here?"
"Well, we can't be certain ya know. We've never seen anything quite like this."
"Oh? What do you mean?"
"Well, from what we can tell, Dave came home after working hard all day and his clothes were all dusty and dirty. Like most people get if they work outside."
"So he worked outside? Like a gardnerer or something?"
"Well, a construction worker actually. Anyway, as I was saying, he came home and his house literally attacked him. It grabbed him, slamed him to the ground, and then stuffed him into the vacuum slot. It was quite grissly."
"So what are you going to do?" (Sirens coming in the background.)
"Well, we thought about it and, like any kind of rabid animal, we felt it best if we put the house down. So the firemen are on their way."
"You mean you're going to burn the house down?"
"Yes. It's the only way. We can't let the house run amok killing people ya know."
"Seems a bit extreme officer. Shouldn't there be a trial or something?"
"No-no. Two of my police officers had to be rescued too. When they entered the house to search the house attacked them and almost shoved them up the vacuum slot too. Seems one of them had stepped in some dog poo and well......the house didn't like that very much. It was how we figured out what happened to Dave."
"Poor Dave. Done in by a house with an attitude. You just have to wonder at the irony of that. Makes you wonder if you could ever really have a truly clean house. Maybe dirt isn't so bad after all. Maybe we should all give dirt another chance."
In the background you hear "Ok! Who took my jelly donuts? Whadda mean you thought it was blood on the donuts? Those were special cherry jelly donuts! What? Paul took them in to compare them with the blood in the house?! Paul! Paul! Can you hear me?"
To answer: Even if MS was found guilty and had to clean up the mess it would still be less than 1% of their overall income for the year.
American history has repeated itself several times already. Once every 100 years we have a war:
1. 1492 America founded. 2. 1500's Anyone know what went on during this time frame? 3. 1600's Also a large blank 4. 1700's war of independence. 5. 1800's civil war 6. 1900's World Wars 4. 2000's ????
Usually they occur between 50 to 100 years apart. Just long enough for the generations involved in the previous wars to have died off. Usually they occur just before or just after a era of depression (as in the great depression or like the depression America is about to go into due to the imbalance of wealth). They are also usually surrounded by smaller wars (such as the one we are in now).
And now for a little sarcasm: The government is trying to phase out sending people into space because it is "too dangerous". Yet they are more than willing to fly thousands of people around the world and let them get shot, maimed, and murdered. Flying into space helps to save lives, expand our awareness, and engenders good feelings for our country and coutrymen/women. The second loses lives, shrinks our awareness to our own greed, avarice, and short comings, and makes everyone else in the world hate us. So....why are we doing this again?
But the majority of them will be based upon other patents formerly issued past the 20 year rule.
As a for-instance: I investigated/researched LED displays. LED displays were invented/patented in the 1950s. Not a single patent being issued today is unique. All of them reference back to the original patent. The changes are: Gigantic LEDs, micro LEDs, LEDs of different colors, shapes, and variable intensities.
So if you were going to create a new LED your patent would also have to reference back to all of these other patents. And that is the catch. This is why Adobe, Corel, Macromedia, and others file their patents. So if company A were to sue company M, then company M can say they have patents also which cover similar aspects of the same patents company A has. Which, is stupidity to me in any case. (To sue over some method on how to make a button look like it was clicked or if you can or can not detach a tab to make it a separate window. COME ON! IS THERE NO COMMON SENSE LEFT IN THE WORLD? Oh! I forgot - we are trying to build the world's largest IF-THEN tree. IF you have a tab and IF you want to detach it THEN IF you are company A you can use Patent #5 ELSE IF you are company M you can use Patent #6 ELSE Ad Nauseum END IF. Sorry! Not the intention of giving out patents! Especially if more than one person comes up with the idea - then the idea isn't unique and therefore disqualifies it as a patent.)
I don't know about anyone else, but I am highly in favor of making very strict laws governing the issuance of patents. Specifically that anyone attempting to patent blatantly obvious things should be fined an excessive amount or put in jail. *sigh* But then the innocent people who thought they had a great idea would most probably go to jail instead. Oh well guess we will have to live with the stupidity that the patent office has become. Until the whole system collapses that is. Which is where it is headed. Pretty soon you won't be able to tie your shoes because the method is patented. Or you won't be able to put your clothes on because that is patented. Everyone will have bad hair cuts as the barbers try not to infringe on what used to be standard haircuts. Sorry - you can't brush your teeth because using the Oral-B toothbrush was patented last week. Colgate is planning on doing the same next week. And Crest already has a "use the finger" method to clean your teeth. So that's out.
Sorry! I refuse to pay and I refuse to live my life doing research over what someone else may have patented. Let them scream. Let them take me to court. Then I'll declare bankruptcy and they will be out all of those hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or better yet - I will do what the people who owe me money do. I file a writ of execution (boy wouldn't that be something if they really did execute them!), the constable goes out to them, they say they will have to go to the bank to get the money, they go file for bankruptcy instead, show the paperwork to the constable, the constable has to stop attempting to collect, they go dismiss the bankruptcy. Cost to them: $10.00 in filing fees. Cost to me: $65.00 each time I send the constable to them. Who wins? They do. So let them sue me. I'll frustrate the heck out of them. And know what? There is no limit to how many times you can file bankruptcy in a given year. Yep. That's how the system works folks.
Actually, as per previous talks about patents, a lot of today's patents are based upon previous patents with slight changes here and there. Therefore, always base your product upon expired patented items. Really though, patent infringement on many of today's things should be easily avoided. After all, more than six million patents have been given out since the founding of the US. How many of those do you think are still valid? (Even at Microsoft's threatened 3000 patents this year - that is still a far cry from even one million; let alone six!) They only last twenty years so anything patented before 1984 is up for grabs - even the original Macintosh patents, Apple computer patents, Lisa patents, and IBM PC XT patents. Even Intel's original patents for the 8086 should now be in the public domain. What's going to be interesting soon is cell phones and CD players since they were originally introduced in the 80s. Software patents began in the 1980s also so we should soon see some interesting patents falling into the public domain. Like XOR'd cursors, the way overlapping windows work, and others.
Also! Don't forget to write your congressman and the Supreme Court (if you can find the email address) about the "chilling effect" it has had on you wanting to produce new works. This is the kind of data the supreme court needs in order to decide whether or not the laws ARE affecting how people do things in America.
This is both a good and bad idea. It is good for the reasons you list but it is bad because it discriminates against those who would not have the money to prop up their tremendous idea. This is part of the problem now. The government recently raised the rates for filing for a patent from (if I remember correctly) $300.00 to $1,200.00 minimum. This is a four times increase in the cost of filing a patent and does not cover the many options which the patent office already provides when filing.
Only being able to lease a patent and only being able to make the lease for a maximum of five years would guarantee that good ideas would garner the holder of the IP more money over the life of the patent. (ie: Ideas which do not at first look to be a great idea until implemented would gain the owner more money by leasing than if they just sold it for a small amount up front because there would be time to correct the inequality.) Further, since patents are for twenty years only it would guarantee that as the patent gained in popularity the patent holder could ask for more over the life of the patent. This could be done four times at five year increments. However, anyone with any business sense at all would do it for five years the first time and then probably drop back to three year increments.
Leasing also has other consequences which are good. Patent attorneys would, of necessity, have to be used thus creating jobs which, otherwise, are used once and then never again (when a patent is sold). So Patent Attorneys should be in favor of this change.
Leasing levels the playing field for both the companies as well as the patent holders. Since a patent can be withdrawn from a company if a reasonable settlement can not be reached it makes the patent holder a lot more powerful. This is both a plus and a drawback. Companies will be more reluctant to lease patents if, after five years hard work, the patent is yanked out from under them. Thus, a maximum amount (as per your suggestion) would have to be worked out by Congress on just how much can be asked for by the patent holder in percentages of gross profit. For instance, if a company approached a patent holder about an idea and this is the first time, then maybe they would only settle for 1% of gross profit (or maybe even just a lump sum). Once the product is established then the amount might increase. To be fair though, a cap of some percentage would have to be set by Congress so the patent holder could not extort money from the company. Contracts could be written that as long as the company wishes to lease the idea they get first bid on renewing the lease.
Leasing also does other things. It would allow someone to lease the idea to several companies as well. The contract could be written so that Company A gets exclusive rights for the first X number of years and then other companies can lease the rights after that expired amount of time.
Last, but not least, is the fact that leasing would allow for bad ideas to be dropped easily and would allow companies to not have to pay out ungodly amounts up front for a technology which may never be implemented due to a changing economy, technological structure, or just whims of the public. (Pet rocks versus virtual pets for instance.)
By placing limitations on the length of a contract (ie: max of five years), forcing patents to remain with the originator, and capping the amount of money which can be awarded to the owner of the patent the field is leveled so the owners of the patents have more say in what happens with their ideas. Allowing the selling and buying of patents allows a single entity to gobble up as many patents as they can thus destroying the level playing field which both patents and copyrights were meant to create. By removing the ability to buy and sell patents and copyrights you remove any one entity's ability to monopolise any given market.
Oversight of patents and copyrights is not possible under our present system. Once sold a patent and copyright belong to
I would think that this would be a disaster for most companies. Think General Mills or Johnson & Johnson. Both do many things under one umbrella. However, it is true though that companies used to be very specific in their business dealings but it is the very nature of diversity which has caused such things a cell phones, VoIP, and your ability to receive e-mail, TV, radio, and other things over your cell phone. Without the diversity these things would not have been possible.
If companies were made to split though, one method of them dividing up would be to break back apart the individual sub-companies which would achieve the same effect as what you have suggested.
I would also have to say that I'd modify your original statement to say that companies can not own stock in other companies. By restricting stock ownership to people alone you would effectively remove the influence oil companies have over car manufacturers and so forth. But this would also have a major drawback. Unknown to many people is the fact that many small companies are started by the larger companies. A good example of this is when IBM created a separate company to create their IBM PCs. The people at IBM's main offices recognized that there were too many strictures at the parent company and that only by creating a new company which would work independently from the main company could they manage to create their own Personal Computer. So the entire PC revolution (in the business world) was done by a subsidary to IBM which was later on reabsorbed back into the rest of the corporation and eventually shut down. (IBM PCs and Laptops are now made by third party companies which put the IBM logo onto the product before it is shipped. Books, videos [Revenge of the Geeks-PBS], and other information is readily available to those who want to pursue this further.)
If I remember correctly this was already put forwards by someone on one of those PBS shows like Charlie Rose. It sounded like a good idea to me at the time but it has as of yet to be implemented by any of the governing bodies. Their reasoning was to limit the amount of money the heads of the various companies were making. The concern was that the CEOs and others were bleeding companies dry by taking all of the profits and not passing the profits on to the stock holders. I believe the example used was the head of one of the car manufacturers which not only made well over ten million a year but also had stock options which were unbelieveable, and exit policy which would damage the company economically, and several other features.
I can understand someone wanting to make money but how much do they really need? What are they spending it on? And why do our corporations put up with such things?
These problems remind me a lot of what went on before the French Revolution. A dwindling middle class, an upper class which is trying its best to suppress the lower classes (in our case through the use of legal maneuverings), and a burgeoning but suppressed hatred against a state of being which is attempting to suppress people into conforming to the role of mindless beasts.
Simple. Competition. One of the problems with putting your eggs all in one basket is that if the basket were to tip you would lose a lot of eggs. So the idea would be to force the basket owner to split up the contents of the basket. Thus, if a company were split then you would have at least two companies who would potentially need a given technology. Also, since both companies would then have access to the same IP, no one company could then claim total ownership and the playing field is then leveled somewhat. It is classic divide and conquer.
My other, probably highly unpopular, idea is that all copyrights and patents can NOT be sold. They may only be leased at a maximum of five years. Thus, unlike present day copyrights and patents, there truly can only be one owner. Everyone else is a leasor. This would do at least two things: 1)Put the copyright/patent holder on a more even basis with those who want to make use of the copyright/patent, and 2)It would ensure that the age of a copyright/patent is never in question (which occasionally happens when highly popular copyrights/patents get bought or sold).
Both of these are designed to remove the strangle hold companies have over individuals and to engender competition. Because when competition, not monopolies, is allowed to flourish - everyone gains.
This is true and not true. As with the very recent Secretary of the Treasury's statement that another chunk of money ($500 Billion I believe) was needed. The problem with this was that the government had already used up all of the money it had. So more was needed. A directive was given, by Congress to the Federal Reserve, to print more money and, as far as I know, they did. After all, our troops have to be paid whether or not we actually have the money to do so. Otherwise, as with all wars, the troops won't fight, kill, and be killed for you.
I actually have already gone down the bankruptcy course. Our house was partially destroyed in a recent flood. The credit card companies raised all of our interest rates to 30% because for two weeks we could not get out of the house and the postal workers could not get to our house to deliver the mail. We got the insurance money and the people we hired (we did check them out first) took our money and then left us with a partially rebuilt house. As the months ground away we slowly but surely fell deeper and deeper into debt. After trying (for four months) to get the builder to return we finally had to do two things: Hire a lawyer to go after the builder and file bankruptcy.
The lawyers both fail and helped us. They decided to drop us and not file the proper paperwork after the case was heard in court but we won a $60,000.00 decision. Unfortunately, the builder is now penniless and we can not collect a penny from him. So we still live in a partially rebuilt house. No power in two of the rooms because the electrician the builder brought in didn't connect it properly. A large hole is now jackhammered through our foundation so we set traps for mice and such. I lost my job the day before the space shuttle blew up last year, and we might get evicted soon. My wife, getting the new job is the only redeeming thing that has happened in the years following the flood. Truth to tell, this past week I have been eating nothing more than a couple of PBJ sandwiches a day, a piece of fruit, and maybe some soup. I'm hoping to change this soon - but it is my wife and I's current method of living. Not that I'm looking for sympathy. It is just - this is my reality right now.
All that's really needed is a law which ensures that the moment a company makes more than a billion dollars a year - it must break up into two companies. The newly formed company must be given everything the original company has and the newly formed company must relocate to a separate state. Should the company already have been broken apart (as in those companys who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year) then the newly created company can not reside in the same state as any of the other broken up bits of the company. Nor may these companies unite in any way, shape, or form but must work in isolation from each other.
Were this done, we would not have the problems we are having now.
Think it won't work? Look at history. So long as companies are kept in check the people flurish. When one or more companies become overly powerful - the people suffer. Just like when governments become overly powerful. Both tend to intrude into the private person's life and both tend to try to dominate, like a dog, everything a person tries to do.
On the funny side: I wonder how many times you can patent a flashlight as a cat toy? And how many times will a company buy that patent?
I am betting it is the disable bit. If Intel made a bit deal of introducing this product with the capability of making you not be able to execute something (DRM anyone?) there probably would be a gigantic public outcry against it. But by just introducing it they can replace pre-existing cpus and keep DRM in the cpu.
Remember: Evil can not stand the light whether that light is the light of day, or the public spotlight.
IMHO putting an execute disable bit into a cpu who's main function is to execute programs is like selling me a car and giving the manufacturer the ability to tell me when I can or can not drive my car. Not because (as some may assume) I'm drunk, but because I might want to drive down the backroads instead of the freeway. If you get my drift.:-)
It reminded me of when I worked at a University in the computing department. The shocker is - I went back a year or so ago and they were still using the same machines!
Still, I used to be a tape ape and a disk hugger/lugger. I well remember the salesman's answer to "I thought we were getting a color monitor." It was "It is a color monitor. Black and white!" Oh yeah....one of THOSE kinds of sales men.
Actually, our current deductible is $200.00 a year. Our new set-up is about the same. Only instead of me carrying my wife it is going to be my wife carrying me. We checked out her options versus my own and they were a lot better.
Our total for the year will now be:
$2000.00/y med exp + $200.00/y deductible = $2,200.00/y
However, this comes at a somewhat steep price. My wife has to pay $400.00/m * 12 = $4,800.00. So the total cost of meds this year are:
$2000.00/y + $200.00/deduct + $4800.00/y Ins = $7,000.00/y total.
But we are covered by major medical too. So that offsets it.
I believe that the problem is that there are a lot of other areas which need to be addressed first before stock options are even considered. First (and foremost in my mind) is health insurance, dental insurance, vision, and so forth. My wife and I are having a hard time trying to decide on what kind of insurance to get. This is because of the $1,400.00 she is bringing home, almost $400.00 of that is presently going towards insurance.
After looking up insurance, sure you can get $200.00 med insurance, but then it has a $10,000.00 deductible on it! Since we pay out maybe $2,000.00 a year max for medical costs this doesn't make sense.
Coupled with the rising cost of gas, electricity, and food in general - the average joe is thinking more along the lines of "Am I going to have enough money to even eat?" let alone think about stock options which, in some cases, are better used as toliet paper.
Speaking of taxes (as per the election where everyone kept saying that they were not going to raise taxes to pay for everything) - think of this: Every time the feds print more money it is an invisible tax upon you. Because the more money there is in circulation - the less that money in your pocket/bank/whatever is worth. So Mr. Bush doesn't have to raise taxes - he can just print up some more money and ta-da! You have just been taxed! And ya know what? They don't even have to ask Congress for permission to do so.
This is true. However, Jupiter is even larger than Saturn and Io's dance with it (ie: It's orbit) is what is causing all of the problems Io's having (ie: lots of volcanic activity). The opposite is true of Titan. Titan may have volcanic/thermal vents but if so then that means that the actual activity is taking place below the surface of the planet. In this case it not only would account for the high number of particles in the atmosphere but it would also be one of the reasons why the surface is smooth. All of that volcanic ash has to settle somewhere and, like Pompeii, everything would then be covered up.
Again, if this was going on for millions of years - even the mountains could be affected by this type of action and ash, like sand, is rather abrasive if blown around by air. (It contains pumice which is used in the soap called Lava and which is a very abrasive substance.)
This is true - but - do these other moons have an atmosphere which is 10 times the density of earths? The atmosphere again would help to eliminate asteroids hitting the surface unlike other moons with not atmosphere or very little atmosphere. Further, the atmosphere is filled with (according to the article) particles similar to those found in cigarette smoke. (Not to be confused with the particles ACTUALLY being the same as cigarette smoke.) If Titan has atmosphere, then that means that it also probably has air currents. Therefore, think of it like this:
In the desert, when a sandstorm comes along it can kill and both humans and animals hide from it. This is not only because the storm makes it hard to breath, but because of the sand blast effect. The flesh can be literally stripped from the bones by the force of the sand hitting you.
Again, it may take millions of years, but if the atmosphere is doing this it will slowly but surely reduce mountains to hills and fill valleys. This is also true of any impact craters which were formed. The real question becomes - when was the last time something actually slammed into Titan's surface? Not that we watch it day and night 24/7/365 - but I suspect it is about as long ago as when our planet was last smacked into by a fairly large asteroid. Which, if I recall correctly, was a few million years ago. Without a lot of geologic upheavel it is quite possible that everything has just been worn down.:-)
Not to nitpick, but whether or not it is a structured magnetic field, a fixed magnetic field, or a fluctuating magnetic field still means that it has some kind of a magnetic field. In order for anything (even us) to not have some kind of magnetic field you would have to eliminate all traces of elements which could be magnetized. Therefore, on any celestial body which has been around for a while there is always a good chance there is some kind of magnetic field.
This is not to say that it could or would not be very very weak. But if your testing equipment is sensitive enough - it would even pick up on the magnetic field generated by a human being. And that isn't because of the braces, caps, crowns, and other things which have been inserted into a person's body (like lost crayons!). It is because we all contain traces of iron, copper, nickel, and the like.
So actually - they do. When scientists talk about large celestial objects though, they don't mean there is a total absense of something - they mean that it is below a certain level. Thus, the moon is considered to have a very very weak magnetic field that probably would not affect any passing object and that its gravitational field is probably stronger than its magnetic field by some order of magnitude. Thus, to simplify (or dumb it down to the level the masses so they will understand), they just say - it has no magnetic field. Or no magnetic field to speak of. (to use bad english and all ending with a prep. phrase)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh give me a break! I DO Meta Moderate SlashDot and I do it A LOT! :-) And it most certainly does feel like a second job! (Although the pay isn't all that great) :-P
:-) I finally got my wife to agree that I needed my own static IP address (instead of trying to set things up at some other site), got my router set up, webserver (Apache! via Linux) set up, and am beginning to get everything ready for the launch date (I can only say soon presently). Anyway, if the Troll patrol requires a sensible response here is one. Most of my other time is spent helping out on various OSS projects under other names as well as volunteering to help out a lot of other people I call friends. (Especially the over 70 crowd whom a lot of people seem to have decided to abandon.)
Ok! If you want a sensible reply - I'm working on my own RPG game (soon to be at www.sim1.us <-plug!) as well as a couple of other programs I've been working on for a year or two (in my copious amounts of time).
sic the title.
;-) )
(Get'em boy! Get'em! Sic that title! Good boy!
The problem is which way will people whine about the most. When astronauts are lost NASA is bombarded with "Save the Astronauts!" slogans. Lots of BS about why we should send robots instead of people.
Then when the price tag for sending robots into space is talked about people start screaming "Why are we doing that? Send astronauts instead! It's cheaper."
It is decisions by committee and it works in the same way as if you were driving a bus down a multilane freeway at the beginning of rush hour with a cloth tied over your eyes. Your only method of knowing what to do is what everyone on the bus is trying to tell you. So everyone gets to scream out what they want the bus driver to do and then he tries to react to the orders. And just like the bus - NASA is going willy-nilly down the freeway trying not to hit anyone, trying to apease each and every person on the bus, and to reach the destination each and every one on the bus is screaming at them to go to. It is a thankless, almost impossible task to perform.
The people of America need to realize just how stupid their over-the-top reactions to problems with space travel are. This isn't Star Trek, BattleStar Galactica, Star Wars, or any of the other truly great (IMHO) space shows. The physics alone are no where near the same. Yet these TV/Movie shows are what are held up as being totally correct and truthful. Further, when someone dies (as in Star Wars when trying to take out the Death Star) no one goes "Wait! Oh my GOD! Think about the insurance! Oi-vey! What about the children? His/Her wife/husband? Friends, relatives, and countrymen? Who's going to pay for all of this?" Everyone goes "Oh Wow! Did you see that? His head flew off into the window next to where Luke was trying to save Obiwan!"
So what am I trying to get at? The country needs to decide, once and for all, whether it is worth the lives of our astronauts to send people into space. If it is - stop complaining and start supporting that way of going into space. If it isn't - stop complaining about the cost and lend your support to the cause. The main thing is - you can't have it both ways. Either people are going to die up there or we are going to probably bankrupt the country trying to build a robot capable of doing everything a human can do.
And don't think that just because businesses are starting to get into the space business that things are going to change for the better. The problem isn't going to go away just because you've changed who is going into space. It doesn't work like that. You are still going to have people dying up there if you send them up there. You just will have more of them dying at one time. Just like in an airplane crash.
So come on America! Make up your mind! People or robots?
Don't forget the Air Car. It is always nice to see improvements in gas powered cars, but one which runs on air is a lot better. For us and for the environment as well.
May you have a speedy recovery Mr. Volkerding.
:-)
I thought I'd just put in my $0.02 worth.
I was diagnosed with thrombophlebitis in 1986. I was stupid and did not get it looked at immediately. After two tries where the doctors said it looked like gout I turned to a third doctor who took one look and said I had thrombophlebitis and that I was going into the hospital. This doctor (Dr. Howard Dillard, MD) was excellent. He scheduled my coming over to the hospital for the tests, they did the tests and I spent a month and a half in the hospital.
Note though that it took three tries to get someone who knew what they were talking about.
When my company went onto an HMO I was forced to leave Dr. Dillard's excellent services. I then went through no fewer than six doctors to find the doctor I now have. One of those doctors told me flat out that she wished I would just die and leave her alone. Needless to say - I do not hold most doctors in high regard.
Even my current doctor I do not rely on for many things and we go back and forth on whether I have or need something. For instance, after 1990 I was put on to HCT by Dr. Dillard. I had a slight reaction to the HCT but, at that time, there wasn't enough information about HCT (because the Internet had not yet come along) at hand to know that even a slight reaction is enough to alert someone (ie: a doctor) to the fact that maybe some other drug should be used. However, the greatest reaction I had was that my blood pressure actually went up from my usage of HCT instead of down. So Dr. Dillard put me on another high blood pressure medicine. (Which was not, IMHO, his best decision. I now believe he should have just changed the HCT out for one of the other dieuretics available.) In any event, all of the HMO doctors just kept giving me my meds even when I began to complain of continus sinus infections and an ache I developed near/on my right kidney region. Finally, in June of 2001 our area of the US was hit by a massive tropical storm which flooded our house as well as most of the city. Under the stress of trying to deal with this I began having severe kidney problems, problems breathing, massive sinus infections (almost couldn't breath), and times when my heart would just pound (but not like a heart attack with pain et al). I too got on to the internet and began reading. There were three medications I was on: Coumadin, Lisinopril, and HCT. On the FDA's website they list all three of these medications. Of the three the only one which listed the exact same kinds of problems from a reaction (such as stress) was HCT. I immediately went off of the HCT, contacted my doctor, talked with him about it, and am now taking an herbal dieuretic. My sinus infections have become almost non-existent but the damage done to my kidneys is not.
I am older and I do realize that as you age things tend to break down and I do what I can (exercise, drink lots of water, take vitamins, etc....) but I could tell there was still something wrong.
Recently my doctor said that I had become a diabetic so I have gone on to glucophauge. My doctor says this is because my kidneys are not functioning correctly. What a surprise.
So this is what I am trying to say:
1. There are good doctors and bad doctors.
1a. So you DO have to hunt for the good ones and you WILL go through (sometimes a lot of) bad ones.
2. Medicines interact in each person differently.
2a. If the symptoms are getting WORSE, then the meds you are on may not be the right ones for you. Figure out when the problems first arose and then go from there.
2b. The worst thing about meds is that they are chemicals and sometimes two chemicals may not interreact like a doctor thinks they should interreact. Check on the internet (the FDA is a good place to go to see what kinds of reactions you may have with meds), see if any of the symptoms listed match what you are experiencing - then talk with your doctor about it. There should be alternative d
Yeah, I can see it now.....
"This is your TV rambling reporter live at Dave's house. Officer O'Reilly, what happened here?"
"Well, we can't be certain ya know. We've never seen anything quite like this."
"Oh? What do you mean?"
"Well, from what we can tell, Dave came home after working hard all day and his clothes were all dusty and dirty. Like most people get if they work outside."
"So he worked outside? Like a gardnerer or something?"
"Well, a construction worker actually. Anyway, as I was saying, he came home and his house literally attacked him. It grabbed him, slamed him to the ground, and then stuffed him into the vacuum slot. It was quite grissly."
"So what are you going to do?" (Sirens coming in the background.)
"Well, we thought about it and, like any kind of rabid animal, we felt it best if we put the house down. So the firemen are on their way."
"You mean you're going to burn the house down?"
"Yes. It's the only way. We can't let the house run amok killing people ya know."
"Seems a bit extreme officer. Shouldn't there be a trial or something?"
"No-no. Two of my police officers had to be rescued too. When they entered the house to search the house attacked them and almost shoved them up the vacuum slot too. Seems one of them had stepped in some dog poo and well......the house didn't like that very much. It was how we figured out what happened to Dave."
"Poor Dave. Done in by a house with an attitude. You just have to wonder at the irony of that. Makes you wonder if you could ever really have a truly clean house. Maybe dirt isn't so bad after all. Maybe we should all give dirt another chance."
In the background you hear "Ok! Who took my jelly donuts? Whadda mean you thought it was blood on the donuts? Those were special cherry jelly donuts! What? Paul took them in to compare them with the blood in the house?! Paul! Paul! Can you hear me?"
To answer: Even if MS was found guilty and had to clean up the mess it would still be less than 1% of their overall income for the year.
American history has repeated itself several times already. Once every 100 years we have a war:
1. 1492 America founded.
2. 1500's Anyone know what went on during this time frame?
3. 1600's Also a large blank
4. 1700's war of independence.
5. 1800's civil war
6. 1900's World Wars
4. 2000's ????
Usually they occur between 50 to 100 years apart. Just long enough for the generations involved in the previous wars to have died off. Usually they occur just before or just after a era of depression (as in the great depression or like the depression America is about to go into due to the imbalance of wealth). They are also usually surrounded by smaller wars (such as the one we are in now).
And now for a little sarcasm: The government is trying to phase out sending people into space because it is "too dangerous". Yet they are more than willing to fly thousands of people around the world and let them get shot, maimed, and murdered. Flying into space helps to save lives, expand our awareness, and engenders good feelings for our country and coutrymen/women. The second loses lives, shrinks our awareness to our own greed, avarice, and short comings, and makes everyone else in the world hate us. So....why are we doing this again?
But the majority of them will be based upon other patents formerly issued past the 20 year rule.
As a for-instance: I investigated/researched LED displays. LED displays were invented/patented in the 1950s. Not a single patent being issued today is unique. All of them reference back to the original patent. The changes are: Gigantic LEDs, micro LEDs, LEDs of different colors, shapes, and variable intensities.
So if you were going to create a new LED your patent would also have to reference back to all of these other patents. And that is the catch. This is why Adobe, Corel, Macromedia, and others file their patents. So if company A were to sue company M, then company M can say they have patents also which cover similar aspects of the same patents company A has. Which, is stupidity to me in any case. (To sue over some method on how to make a button look like it was clicked or if you can or can not detach a tab to make it a separate window. COME ON! IS THERE NO COMMON SENSE LEFT IN THE WORLD? Oh! I forgot - we are trying to build the world's largest IF-THEN tree. IF you have a tab and IF you want to detach it THEN IF you are company A you can use Patent #5 ELSE IF you are company M you can use Patent #6 ELSE Ad Nauseum END IF. Sorry! Not the intention of giving out patents! Especially if more than one person comes up with the idea - then the idea isn't unique and therefore disqualifies it as a patent.)
I don't know about anyone else, but I am highly in favor of making very strict laws governing the issuance of patents. Specifically that anyone attempting to patent blatantly obvious things should be fined an excessive amount or put in jail. *sigh* But then the innocent people who thought they had a great idea would most probably go to jail instead. Oh well guess we will have to live with the stupidity that the patent office has become. Until the whole system collapses that is. Which is where it is headed. Pretty soon you won't be able to tie your shoes because the method is patented. Or you won't be able to put your clothes on because that is patented. Everyone will have bad hair cuts as the barbers try not to infringe on what used to be standard haircuts. Sorry - you can't brush your teeth because using the Oral-B toothbrush was patented last week. Colgate is planning on doing the same next week. And Crest already has a "use the finger" method to clean your teeth. So that's out.
Sorry! I refuse to pay and I refuse to live my life doing research over what someone else may have patented. Let them scream. Let them take me to court. Then I'll declare bankruptcy and they will be out all of those hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or better yet - I will do what the people who owe me money do. I file a writ of execution (boy wouldn't that be something if they really did execute them!), the constable goes out to them, they say they will have to go to the bank to get the money, they go file for bankruptcy instead, show the paperwork to the constable, the constable has to stop attempting to collect, they go dismiss the bankruptcy. Cost to them: $10.00 in filing fees. Cost to me: $65.00 each time I send the constable to them. Who wins? They do. So let them sue me. I'll frustrate the heck out of them. And know what? There is no limit to how many times you can file bankruptcy in a given year. Yep. That's how the system works folks.
IANAL2!
Actually, as per previous talks about patents, a lot of today's patents are based upon previous patents with slight changes here and there. Therefore, always base your product upon expired patented items. Really though, patent infringement on many of today's things should be easily avoided. After all, more than six million patents have been given out since the founding of the US. How many of those do you think are still valid? (Even at Microsoft's threatened 3000 patents this year - that is still a far cry from even one million; let alone six!) They only last twenty years so anything patented before 1984 is up for grabs - even the original Macintosh patents, Apple computer patents, Lisa patents, and IBM PC XT patents. Even Intel's original patents for the 8086 should now be in the public domain. What's going to be interesting soon is cell phones and CD players since they were originally introduced in the 80s. Software patents began in the 1980s also so we should soon see some interesting patents falling into the public domain. Like XOR'd cursors, the way overlapping windows work, and others.
Also! Don't forget to write your congressman and the Supreme Court (if you can find the email address) about the "chilling effect" it has had on you wanting to produce new works. This is the kind of data the supreme court needs in order to decide whether or not the laws ARE affecting how people do things in America.
This is both a good and bad idea. It is good for the reasons you list but it is bad because it discriminates against those who would not have the money to prop up their tremendous idea. This is part of the problem now. The government recently raised the rates for filing for a patent from (if I remember correctly) $300.00 to $1,200.00 minimum. This is a four times increase in the cost of filing a patent and does not cover the many options which the patent office already provides when filing.
Only being able to lease a patent and only being able to make the lease for a maximum of five years would guarantee that good ideas would garner the holder of the IP more money over the life of the patent. (ie: Ideas which do not at first look to be a great idea until implemented would gain the owner more money by leasing than if they just sold it for a small amount up front because there would be time to correct the inequality.) Further, since patents are for twenty years only it would guarantee that as the patent gained in popularity the patent holder could ask for more over the life of the patent. This could be done four times at five year increments. However, anyone with any business sense at all would do it for five years the first time and then probably drop back to three year increments.
Leasing also has other consequences which are good. Patent attorneys would, of necessity, have to be used thus creating jobs which, otherwise, are used once and then never again (when a patent is sold). So Patent Attorneys should be in favor of this change.
Leasing levels the playing field for both the companies as well as the patent holders. Since a patent can be withdrawn from a company if a reasonable settlement can not be reached it makes the patent holder a lot more powerful. This is both a plus and a drawback. Companies will be more reluctant to lease patents if, after five years hard work, the patent is yanked out from under them. Thus, a maximum amount (as per your suggestion) would have to be worked out by Congress on just how much can be asked for by the patent holder in percentages of gross profit. For instance, if a company approached a patent holder about an idea and this is the first time, then maybe they would only settle for 1% of gross profit (or maybe even just a lump sum). Once the product is established then the amount might increase. To be fair though, a cap of some percentage would have to be set by Congress so the patent holder could not extort money from the company. Contracts could be written that as long as the company wishes to lease the idea they get first bid on renewing the lease.
Leasing also does other things. It would allow someone to lease the idea to several companies as well. The contract could be written so that Company A gets exclusive rights for the first X number of years and then other companies can lease the rights after that expired amount of time.
Last, but not least, is the fact that leasing would allow for bad ideas to be dropped easily and would allow companies to not have to pay out ungodly amounts up front for a technology which may never be implemented due to a changing economy, technological structure, or just whims of the public. (Pet rocks versus virtual pets for instance.)
By placing limitations on the length of a contract (ie: max of five years), forcing patents to remain with the originator, and capping the amount of money which can be awarded to the owner of the patent the field is leveled so the owners of the patents have more say in what happens with their ideas. Allowing the selling and buying of patents allows a single entity to gobble up as many patents as they can thus destroying the level playing field which both patents and copyrights were meant to create. By removing the ability to buy and sell patents and copyrights you remove any one entity's ability to monopolise any given market.
Oversight of patents and copyrights is not possible under our present system. Once sold a patent and copyright belong to
I would think that this would be a disaster for most companies. Think General Mills or Johnson & Johnson. Both do many things under one umbrella. However, it is true though that companies used to be very specific in their business dealings but it is the very nature of diversity which has caused such things a cell phones, VoIP, and your ability to receive e-mail, TV, radio, and other things over your cell phone. Without the diversity these things would not have been possible.
If companies were made to split though, one method of them dividing up would be to break back apart the individual sub-companies which would achieve the same effect as what you have suggested.
I would also have to say that I'd modify your original statement to say that companies can not own stock in other companies. By restricting stock ownership to people alone you would effectively remove the influence oil companies have over car manufacturers and so forth. But this would also have a major drawback. Unknown to many people is the fact that many small companies are started by the larger companies. A good example of this is when IBM created a separate company to create their IBM PCs. The people at IBM's main offices recognized that there were too many strictures at the parent company and that only by creating a new company which would work independently from the main company could they manage to create their own Personal Computer. So the entire PC revolution (in the business world) was done by a subsidary to IBM which was later on reabsorbed back into the rest of the corporation and eventually shut down. (IBM PCs and Laptops are now made by third party companies which put the IBM logo onto the product before it is shipped. Books, videos [Revenge of the Geeks-PBS], and other information is readily available to those who want to pursue this further.)
If I remember correctly this was already put forwards by someone on one of those PBS shows like Charlie Rose. It sounded like a good idea to me at the time but it has as of yet to be implemented by any of the governing bodies. Their reasoning was to limit the amount of money the heads of the various companies were making. The concern was that the CEOs and others were bleeding companies dry by taking all of the profits and not passing the profits on to the stock holders. I believe the example used was the head of one of the car manufacturers which not only made well over ten million a year but also had stock options which were unbelieveable, and exit policy which would damage the company economically, and several other features.
I can understand someone wanting to make money but how much do they really need? What are they spending it on? And why do our corporations put up with such things?
These problems remind me a lot of what went on before the French Revolution. A dwindling middle class, an upper class which is trying its best to suppress the lower classes (in our case through the use of legal maneuverings), and a burgeoning but suppressed hatred against a state of being which is attempting to suppress people into conforming to the role of mindless beasts.
Not yet it won't but just give'em a little time and someone will probably come up with a way to twist this around to their advantage.
Nice to know though that it wasn't meant to be used the way I thought it was going to be used (ie: DRM).
Simple. Competition. One of the problems with putting your eggs all in one basket is that if the basket were to tip you would lose a lot of eggs. So the idea would be to force the basket owner to split up the contents of the basket. Thus, if a company were split then you would have at least two companies who would potentially need a given technology. Also, since both companies would then have access to the same IP, no one company could then claim total ownership and the playing field is then leveled somewhat. It is classic divide and conquer.
My other, probably highly unpopular, idea is that all copyrights and patents can NOT be sold. They may only be leased at a maximum of five years. Thus, unlike present day copyrights and patents, there truly can only be one owner. Everyone else is a leasor. This would do at least two things: 1)Put the copyright/patent holder on a more even basis with those who want to make use of the copyright/patent, and 2)It would ensure that the age of a copyright/patent is never in question (which occasionally happens when highly popular copyrights/patents get bought or sold).
Both of these are designed to remove the strangle hold companies have over individuals and to engender competition. Because when competition, not monopolies, is allowed to flourish - everyone gains.
This is true and not true. As with the very recent Secretary of the Treasury's statement that another chunk of money ($500 Billion I believe) was needed. The problem with this was that the government had already used up all of the money it had. So more was needed. A directive was given, by Congress to the Federal Reserve, to print more money and, as far as I know, they did. After all, our troops have to be paid whether or not we actually have the money to do so. Otherwise, as with all wars, the troops won't fight, kill, and be killed for you.
I actually have already gone down the bankruptcy course. Our house was partially destroyed in a recent flood. The credit card companies raised all of our interest rates to 30% because for two weeks we could not get out of the house and the postal workers could not get to our house to deliver the mail. We got the insurance money and the people we hired (we did check them out first) took our money and then left us with a partially rebuilt house. As the months ground away we slowly but surely fell deeper and deeper into debt. After trying (for four months) to get the builder to return we finally had to do two things: Hire a lawyer to go after the builder and file bankruptcy.
The lawyers both fail and helped us. They decided to drop us and not file the proper paperwork after the case was heard in court but we won a $60,000.00 decision. Unfortunately, the builder is now penniless and we can not collect a penny from him. So we still live in a partially rebuilt house. No power in two of the rooms because the electrician the builder brought in didn't connect it properly. A large hole is now jackhammered through our foundation so we set traps for mice and such. I lost my job the day before the space shuttle blew up last year, and we might get evicted soon. My wife, getting the new job is the only redeeming thing that has happened in the years following the flood. Truth to tell, this past week I have been eating nothing more than a couple of PBJ sandwiches a day, a piece of fruit, and maybe some soup. I'm hoping to change this soon - but it is my wife and I's current method of living. Not that I'm looking for sympathy. It is just - this is my reality right now.
All that's really needed is a law which ensures that the moment a company makes more than a billion dollars a year - it must break up into two companies. The newly formed company must be given everything the original company has and the newly formed company must relocate to a separate state. Should the company already have been broken apart (as in those companys who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year) then the newly created company can not reside in the same state as any of the other broken up bits of the company. Nor may these companies unite in any way, shape, or form but must work in isolation from each other.
Were this done, we would not have the problems we are having now.
Think it won't work? Look at history. So long as companies are kept in check the people flurish. When one or more companies become overly powerful - the people suffer. Just like when governments become overly powerful. Both tend to intrude into the private person's life and both tend to try to dominate, like a dog, everything a person tries to do.
On the funny side: I wonder how many times you can patent a flashlight as a cat toy? And how many times will a company buy that patent?
I am betting it is the disable bit. If Intel made a bit deal of introducing this product with the capability of making you not be able to execute something (DRM anyone?) there probably would be a gigantic public outcry against it. But by just introducing it they can replace pre-existing cpus and keep DRM in the cpu.
:-)
Remember: Evil can not stand the light whether that light is the light of day, or the public spotlight.
IMHO putting an execute disable bit into a cpu who's main function is to execute programs is like selling me a car and giving the manufacturer the ability to tell me when I can or can not drive my car. Not because (as some may assume) I'm drunk, but because I might want to drive down the backroads instead of the freeway. If you get my drift.
It reminded me of when I worked at a University in the computing department. The shocker is - I went back a year or so ago and they were still using the same machines!
Still, I used to be a tape ape and a disk hugger/lugger. I well remember the salesman's answer to "I thought we were getting a color monitor." It was "It is a color monitor. Black and white!" Oh yeah....one of THOSE kinds of sales men.
Actually, our current deductible is $200.00 a year. Our new set-up is about the same. Only instead of me carrying my wife it is going to be my wife carrying me. We checked out her options versus my own and they were a lot better.
Our total for the year will now be:
$2000.00/y med exp + $200.00/y deductible = $2,200.00/y
However, this comes at a somewhat steep price. My wife has to pay $400.00/m * 12 = $4,800.00. So the total cost of meds this year are:
$2000.00/y + $200.00/deduct + $4800.00/y Ins = $7,000.00/y total.
But we are covered by major medical too. So that offsets it.
I believe that the problem is that there are a lot of other areas which need to be addressed first before stock options are even considered. First (and foremost in my mind) is health insurance, dental insurance, vision, and so forth. My wife and I are having a hard time trying to decide on what kind of insurance to get. This is because of the $1,400.00 she is bringing home, almost $400.00 of that is presently going towards insurance.
After looking up insurance, sure you can get $200.00 med insurance, but then it has a $10,000.00 deductible on it! Since we pay out maybe $2,000.00 a year max for medical costs this doesn't make sense.
Coupled with the rising cost of gas, electricity, and food in general - the average joe is thinking more along the lines of "Am I going to have enough money to even eat?" let alone think about stock options which, in some cases, are better used as toliet paper.
Speaking of taxes (as per the election where everyone kept saying that they were not going to raise taxes to pay for everything) - think of this: Every time the feds print more money it is an invisible tax upon you. Because the more money there is in circulation - the less that money in your pocket/bank/whatever is worth. So Mr. Bush doesn't have to raise taxes - he can just print up some more money and ta-da! You have just been taxed! And ya know what? They don't even have to ask Congress for permission to do so.
Are you saying you have a strong magnetic personality though? ;-)
This is true. However, Jupiter is even larger than Saturn and Io's dance with it (ie: It's orbit) is what is causing all of the problems Io's having (ie: lots of volcanic activity). The opposite is true of Titan. Titan may have volcanic/thermal vents but if so then that means that the actual activity is taking place below the surface of the planet. In this case it not only would account for the high number of particles in the atmosphere but it would also be one of the reasons why the surface is smooth. All of that volcanic ash has to settle somewhere and, like Pompeii, everything would then be covered up.
Again, if this was going on for millions of years - even the mountains could be affected by this type of action and ash, like sand, is rather abrasive if blown around by air. (It contains pumice which is used in the soap called Lava and which is a very abrasive substance.)
This is true - but - do these other moons have an atmosphere which is 10 times the density of earths? The atmosphere again would help to eliminate asteroids hitting the surface unlike other moons with not atmosphere or very little atmosphere. Further, the atmosphere is filled with (according to the article) particles similar to those found in cigarette smoke. (Not to be confused with the particles ACTUALLY being the same as cigarette smoke.) If Titan has atmosphere, then that means that it also probably has air currents. Therefore, think of it like this:
:-)
In the desert, when a sandstorm comes along it can kill and both humans and animals hide from it. This is not only because the storm makes it hard to breath, but because of the sand blast effect. The flesh can be literally stripped from the bones by the force of the sand hitting you.
Again, it may take millions of years, but if the atmosphere is doing this it will slowly but surely reduce mountains to hills and fill valleys. This is also true of any impact craters which were formed. The real question becomes - when was the last time something actually slammed into Titan's surface? Not that we watch it day and night 24/7/365 - but I suspect it is about as long ago as when our planet was last smacked into by a fairly large asteroid. Which, if I recall correctly, was a few million years ago. Without a lot of geologic upheavel it is quite possible that everything has just been worn down.
Not to nitpick, but whether or not it is a structured magnetic field, a fixed magnetic field, or a fluctuating magnetic field still means that it has some kind of a magnetic field. In order for anything (even us) to not have some kind of magnetic field you would have to eliminate all traces of elements which could be magnetized. Therefore, on any celestial body which has been around for a while there is always a good chance there is some kind of magnetic field.
This is not to say that it could or would not be very very weak. But if your testing equipment is sensitive enough - it would even pick up on the magnetic field generated by a human being. And that isn't because of the braces, caps, crowns, and other things which have been inserted into a person's body (like lost crayons!). It is because we all contain traces of iron, copper, nickel, and the like.
So actually - they do. When scientists talk about large celestial objects though, they don't mean there is a total absense of something - they mean that it is below a certain level. Thus, the moon is considered to have a very very weak magnetic field that probably would not affect any passing object and that its gravitational field is probably stronger than its magnetic field by some order of magnitude. Thus, to simplify (or dumb it down to the level the masses so they will understand), they just say - it has no magnetic field. Or no magnetic field to speak of. (to use bad english and all ending with a prep. phrase)