My understanding is the ruling couldn't be appealed by M$ but it can be rendered null and void by a ruling in another case that affects the patent itself. In other words, if the patent is revoked, all the cases that dealt with the upholding of that patent must be re-examined (read 'undone'). In computer science terms we would say that even if the outcome resolution of the interaction between two processes is terminated, the effects of that resoution would have to be re-examined if one of those processes(the patent) was suddenly discovered to have been executing incorrectly.
What I meant was a computer that used both electricity and light. From what I understand, the first electric computer used electric relays like the ones used in phones (cheaper than vaccum tubes whch had only been invented the same years as the germans began building the machine) and was described as being an electronic computer. When ENIAC was built using vacuum tubes, it was described as being a digital computer. What ever word you want to use to designate that the computer functions using electricity and transistors instead of light is up to you at this point.
They're probably sending you form letters dude. One of their understaffers scanned the letter for a total of 10 seconds looking for catch words, found one, and mailed you back a form letter stating the senators official position on that catch word/topic.
Yep, write a letter to your senator and watch him laugh immediately before wiping his ass with it. No money, no influence. You can pretty much buy votes these days so what does it matter what the voters think?
I'm just saying our definition of freedom is still a lot better than others definition of freedom. The orginal poster stated that are ideal of freedom is no better tahn a dictators ideal of freedom. Since you agree with my example, you must then agree with the fact our ideal of freedom is somewhat better. Even on our more evil side we aren't too bad.
I'd agree but who then goes out and gets the same model, just a different car and a coupel extra hood ornaments. The OSP needs to be a real techinical leap before it can justify putting the money it will take to build it into it. As it looks now, it isn't much better than the shuttles and the shuttles are 20 years old!
And when we get the OSP built, what is NASA going to use it for? What if the senate decides to scrap the shuttles and send NASA completely back to the drawing board with a mission to go to mars? Thena ll the moeny spent between now and then was wasted on a design that is going to be scraped.
"The old semi-dead people in the senate may not realize this"
When Gilgamesh wanted to go kill Humbaba, the elders of the sity said he didn't know what he was getting into and told him not to go. He did anyway and even after 5000 years we still remember his name. Anyone remember the names of the elders?
I got the worse cold this january than I have ever gotten in my life. This must mean that the diseases are getting more deadly! See the problem with your logic. Just becuase of one isloated incident with a raft does not indicate a trend. If you take a small enough sample set (or a biased enough sample set) you will get whatever results you want.
In addition, life itself is unsafe and just becuase it is unsafe doesn't mean we shouldn't live it. Take the greek gods and heroes. In the Iliad, two soldiers discuss why they are honored so much and what would happen if they could not die. Their answer: they would go home and not fight anymore and they would not send others to fight. Why? Because death gives life urgency. It shows you have only x amount of time on earth so you better make the best of it. They risked death so that they could know life. If they cannot die then there is no point in doing anything. That is why the gods sat around at Olympus all day and watched and manipulated humanity but never did much beyond that: they could not die so neither could they know what it was truly like to live. If you cannot die than any one day is just like any other. Every day is the same. If you cannot die than life has no urgency and no importance. It becomes a stagnant existance. Now what does this have to do with the space program? Just becuase something is unsafe doesn't mean we shouldn't risk it. Life was meant to be lived. Life is not infinite and it was not meant to be spent lying around all day doing nothing. The ancient greeks had a word for people who did: the word that would evolve into the english word 'idiot'. No guts, no glory, and no knowledge of what life truly is.
Now if you want to talk about the finicial problems of manned space flight, then you'll have a pretty good argument. From a finicial aspect, space exploration in all its forms is foolish. But there is more to life than money. The dream has faded though: who wants to dream about walking around the block a million times? No, we dream of true exploration. Manned spaceflight as it stands now is too little risk and too much safety for no real benefit. No one dreams of exploring someplace they have already been countless time before. No one dreams of exploring where they know they are totally safe. Who wants to go on a rollercoaster if they know without a doubt that it is totally safe (in fact one of the key aspects of rollercoaster design is to keep up the illusion one is not safe)? We weren't born in bubbles with helmets glued on our heads. Since the dawn of time man has looked to the stars, not becuase he wants to simply know whats there but becuase he wants to go there. Space is a dream and we must chase our dreams or we become stagnant. "There are certian things men must do to remain men." (Star Trek)
Who cares if your rocket explodes? Be a man, face the pain!
But seriously, safety and the beneifts you get from risk are indirectly porportional. The more you focus on saftey and reduce risk, the less benefits you will see until the point where you have no risk but get zero benefits from it. Simply put, no guts, no glory.
Who cares? I mean who really cares anymore? We got Darth Ashcroft and his stromtroopers marching all over the constitution, RFID tags being plugged into everything, Microsoft trying to stop you from using your own computer, the RIAA trying to stop you from listening to anything without you paying them, and the industry monopolizing ideas. When you look at all that, who really cares if a bunch of staties want to go around smelling other peoples farts with mega phones?
Nothing can exist in space-time without being four dimensions. We have no way of finding out whetehr or not a 2 dimesnional object moves in time or for that matter a one dimensional object like a singularity. Secondly, an object can exist is some dimensions and not in others. They are numebered for convience. Think of it like a list of properties: Does it have width? Does it have Heigth? Does it have length? Is its existance consistent? Dimension is a description of a mutually exclusive attribute. The dimensions are not heiracrhial. There are higher dimensional objects that have no width heigth or depth. It is simply easier to say the 2 dimensional or three dimensional or ten dimensional. In real physics you can't get away with that becuase if you say its five dimensional the question is which dimensions?
Re:Think of rampant inefficiencies.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I wouldn't count on it. A french philopsher in the mid 1800's computed that the amount of work we actually need to do is only 2-3 hours a day and yet we still work our asses off. The problem is progress and the overly rich. All our life styles require x amount of work per day to sustain. However, the problem is that some people's life styles are so outrageous that there are simply not enough hours in the day for that person to possibly sustain there life style themsleves. Guess who makes up the difference. You see Aquilera acting like a whore and living like a king, remmeber, omeone has to do the necessary work to produce stuff so that she can do that. In our society, we call it money. We buy a cd. We pay way more than what that cd is actually worth. Assuming the time they each spend wroking to create that cd is equal to the time spent of alll the people that purchase that cd, and that the peopel who created that cd is equal to the number of people who purchase it, then the amount you would have to pay woudl be equal to the amount that you worked (aka your total income for that time.) In other words, the amount they work should equal the amount you work and (in a perfect soiciety) the cd they created would be worth the amount of work your equivalent group did. So wahts' wrong? It isn't. The amount you spend to purchase that product is far more valuable than the actual work and effort put into that product. Quite simply, your paying them more than the work tehy are doing for society is worth. Hence, they are using taht extra wealth to consume more of societies overall wealth than they are contributing to it. Someone has to make the difference up. [The actual argument would be a lot more complex tahn this of course but you get the general gist of what I am getting at.] In addition to this, there is the mater of progress. In order to stay as we are, we could work only a mere fraction as much as we do now. However, if we want to progress, we have to put in a little more time beyond what is required to sustain us. Now look at progress over the last 1000 years. As the amount of work we do increases so does the speed of progress (though not as much as it could and should be increasing due to the amount of work we put in.) By working more we also create more wealth and hence raise our standard of living (ie. progress.)
The question we have to ask ourselves is when is enough. When do we have enough material goods that progress can slow down to a more comfortable level? The problem is we don't. That's is what they thought in the fifties: taht certainly by now we would have all we could ever want and so we could move to sustaining ourselves instead of trying to aquire more and go farther. And quite simply our greed is unquenchable. No matter how much we have, we want more. 100 years ago they thought we would be able to settle for the heaven we live in (and many of us do live in a fantasy land - especially the gated community types) but the fact is we are starting to reach the phyical limits of what can be achieved. The world can't support 6 billion Americans. There isn't enough resources on earth. The question is can we even sustain the level of living at we are at now? By using sweatshops and taking advantage of the third world, are we actually as an entire scoiety taking mroe than we contribute (even though we contribute a great deal - and if the answer is yea than there is the matter of europe who has the same standard of living and works even less which would mean they are contributing less but taking the same amount as we are.) We need to stop looking at the world wealth and the work done through symbols like money an start looking at the actual wealth. We need to start rewarding ppl for the work they actually do. Aquilera does not deserve the life style she has. Probably neither do any of us. We have to stop being greedy. we cannt maintain a ridiculous standard of living. If we try the number of poor will increase, whether you see it or not (when every family in india goes with one less meal it isn't so obvious as
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is the ruling couldn't be appealed by M$ but it can be rendered null and void by a ruling in another case that affects the patent itself. In other words, if the patent is revoked, all the cases that dealt with the upholding of that patent must be re-examined (read 'undone'). In computer science terms we would say that even if the outcome resolution of the interaction between two processes is terminated, the effects of that resoution would have to be re-examined if one of those processes(the patent) was suddenly discovered to have been executing incorrectly.
Didn't they do that in Unix with virtual terminals? Things that woudl appear on one terminal could be redirected to appear in the current terminal...
What I meant was a computer that used both electricity and light. From what I understand, the first electric computer used electric relays like the ones used in phones (cheaper than vaccum tubes whch had only been invented the same years as the germans began building the machine) and was described as being an electronic computer. When ENIAC was built using vacuum tubes, it was described as being a digital computer. What ever word you want to use to designate that the computer functions using electricity and transistors instead of light is up to you at this point.
Actually the future of computing is probably a hybrid computer - part electronic (or digital - whatever term you like) and part optical.
They're probably sending you form letters dude. One of their understaffers scanned the letter for a total of 10 seconds looking for catch words, found one, and mailed you back a form letter stating the senators official position on that catch word/topic.
Yep, Mr. Smith was the only good politician ever to come out of Tennessee.
Yep, write a letter to your senator and watch him laugh immediately before wiping his ass with it. No money, no influence. You can pretty much buy votes these days so what does it matter what the voters think?
I'm just saying our definition of freedom is still a lot better than others definition of freedom. The orginal poster stated that are ideal of freedom is no better tahn a dictators ideal of freedom. Since you agree with my example, you must then agree with the fact our ideal of freedom is somewhat better. Even on our more evil side we aren't too bad.
The chinese would have just taken them out and shot them months ago.
I'd agree but who then goes out and gets the same model, just a different car and a coupel extra hood ornaments. The OSP needs to be a real techinical leap before it can justify putting the money it will take to build it into it. As it looks now, it isn't much better than the shuttles and the shuttles are 20 years old!
And when we get the OSP built, what is NASA going to use it for? What if the senate decides to scrap the shuttles and send NASA completely back to the drawing board with a mission to go to mars? Thena ll the moeny spent between now and then was wasted on a design that is going to be scraped.
"The old semi-dead people in the senate may not realize this"
When Gilgamesh wanted to go kill Humbaba, the elders of the sity said he didn't know what he was getting into and told him not to go. He did anyway and even after 5000 years we still remember his name. Anyone remember the names of the elders?
I got the worse cold this january than I have ever gotten in my life. This must mean that the diseases are getting more deadly! See the problem with your logic. Just becuase of one isloated incident with a raft does not indicate a trend. If you take a small enough sample set (or a biased enough sample set) you will get whatever results you want.
In addition, life itself is unsafe and just becuase it is unsafe doesn't mean we shouldn't live it. Take the greek gods and heroes. In the Iliad, two soldiers discuss why they are honored so much and what would happen if they could not die. Their answer: they would go home and not fight anymore and they would not send others to fight. Why? Because death gives life urgency. It shows you have only x amount of time on earth so you better make the best of it. They risked death so that they could know life. If they cannot die then there is no point in doing anything. That is why the gods sat around at Olympus all day and watched and manipulated humanity but never did much beyond that: they could not die so neither could they know what it was truly like to live. If you cannot die than any one day is just like any other. Every day is the same. If you cannot die than life has no urgency and no importance. It becomes a stagnant existance. Now what does this have to do with the space program? Just becuase something is unsafe doesn't mean we shouldn't risk it. Life was meant to be lived. Life is not infinite and it was not meant to be spent lying around all day doing nothing. The ancient greeks had a word for people who did: the word that would evolve into the english word 'idiot'. No guts, no glory, and no knowledge of what life truly is.
Now if you want to talk about the finicial problems of manned space flight, then you'll have a pretty good argument. From a finicial aspect, space exploration in all its forms is foolish. But there is more to life than money. The dream has faded though: who wants to dream about walking around the block a million times? No, we dream of true exploration. Manned spaceflight as it stands now is too little risk and too much safety for no real benefit. No one dreams of exploring someplace they have already been countless time before. No one dreams of exploring where they know they are totally safe. Who wants to go on a rollercoaster if they know without a doubt that it is totally safe (in fact one of the key aspects of rollercoaster design is to keep up the illusion one is not safe)? We weren't born in bubbles with helmets glued on our heads. Since the dawn of time man has looked to the stars, not becuase he wants to simply know whats there but becuase he wants to go there. Space is a dream and we must chase our dreams or we become stagnant. "There are certian things men must do to remain men." (Star Trek)
Who cares if your rocket explodes? Be a man, face the pain!
But seriously, safety and the beneifts you get from risk are indirectly porportional. The more you focus on saftey and reduce risk, the less benefits you will see until the point where you have no risk but get zero benefits from it. Simply put, no guts, no glory.
Who cares? I mean who really cares anymore? We got Darth Ashcroft and his stromtroopers marching all over the constitution, RFID tags being plugged into everything, Microsoft trying to stop you from using your own computer, the RIAA trying to stop you from listening to anything without you paying them, and the industry monopolizing ideas. When you look at all that, who really cares if a bunch of staties want to go around smelling other peoples farts with mega phones?
Or you could just firewall realplayer after you install it. I have it permanently blocked by zonealarm and norton.
Haven't seen Superman 2, have you?
What are we looking at here? The Borg? The Darlecks? Or just the Cybermen?
I wonder if you can use these satalites to look at naked chicks. Maybe the paparizzi can get one...
Kurt Russel's Newest movie: Escape from School
I can see it now: the teacher walks into class and there is one kid inside, shuffling the whole classes RFID's like a deck of cards.
Don't make your job your life. For some odd reason most peopel define themselves by what they do rather than who they are.
And I didn't even have to drag you through a fifteen minute fight for you to see it.
Nothing can exist in space-time without being four dimensions. We have no way of finding out whetehr or not a 2 dimesnional object moves in time or for that matter a one dimensional object like a singularity. Secondly, an object can exist is some dimensions and not in others. They are numebered for convience. Think of it like a list of properties: Does it have width? Does it have Heigth? Does it have length? Is its existance consistent? Dimension is a description of a mutually exclusive attribute. The dimensions are not heiracrhial. There are higher dimensional objects that have no width heigth or depth. It is simply easier to say the 2 dimensional or three dimensional or ten dimensional. In real physics you can't get away with that becuase if you say its five dimensional the question is which dimensions?
I wouldn't count on it. A french philopsher in the mid 1800's computed that the amount of work we actually need to do is only 2-3 hours a day and yet we still work our asses off. The problem is progress and the overly rich. All our life styles require x amount of work per day to sustain. However, the problem is that some people's life styles are so outrageous that there are simply not enough hours in the day for that person to possibly sustain there life style themsleves. Guess who makes up the difference. You see Aquilera acting like a whore and living like a king, remmeber, omeone has to do the necessary work to produce stuff so that she can do that. In our society, we call it money. We buy a cd. We pay way more than what that cd is actually worth. Assuming the time they each spend wroking to create that cd is equal to the time spent of alll the people that purchase that cd, and that the peopel who created that cd is equal to the number of people who purchase it, then the amount you would have to pay woudl be equal to the amount that you worked (aka your total income for that time.) In other words, the amount they work should equal the amount you work and (in a perfect soiciety) the cd they created would be worth the amount of work your equivalent group did. So wahts' wrong? It isn't. The amount you spend to purchase that product is far more valuable than the actual work and effort put into that product. Quite simply, your paying them more than the work tehy are doing for society is worth. Hence, they are using taht extra wealth to consume more of societies overall wealth than they are contributing to it. Someone has to make the difference up. [The actual argument would be a lot more complex tahn this of course but you get the general gist of what I am getting at.] In addition to this, there is the mater of progress. In order to stay as we are, we could work only a mere fraction as much as we do now. However, if we want to progress, we have to put in a little more time beyond what is required to sustain us. Now look at progress over the last 1000 years. As the amount of work we do increases so does the speed of progress (though not as much as it could and should be increasing due to the amount of work we put in.) By working more we also create more wealth and hence raise our standard of living (ie. progress.)
The question we have to ask ourselves is when is enough. When do we have enough material goods that progress can slow down to a more comfortable level? The problem is we don't. That's is what they thought in the fifties: taht certainly by now we would have all we could ever want and so we could move to sustaining ourselves instead of trying to aquire more and go farther. And quite simply our greed is unquenchable. No matter how much we have, we want more. 100 years ago they thought we would be able to settle for the heaven we live in (and many of us do live in a fantasy land - especially the gated community types) but the fact is we are starting to reach the phyical limits of what can be achieved. The world can't support 6 billion Americans. There isn't enough resources on earth. The question is can we even sustain the level of living at we are at now? By using sweatshops and taking advantage of the third world, are we actually as an entire scoiety taking mroe than we contribute (even though we contribute a great deal - and if the answer is yea than there is the matter of europe who has the same standard of living and works even less which would mean they are contributing less but taking the same amount as we are.)
We need to stop looking at the world wealth and the work done through symbols like money an start looking at the actual wealth. We need to start rewarding ppl for the work they actually do. Aquilera does not deserve the life style she has. Probably neither do any of us. We have to stop being greedy. we cannt maintain a ridiculous standard of living. If we try the number of poor will increase, whether you see it or not (when every family in india goes with one less meal it isn't so obvious as