We'll start getting unqualified people? That ship has sailed. And unqualified people are coming at a higher rate from H1B than citizens...although both rates are crazy high.
$7M: 100 scientists $50k a year + benefits $2M: 10 scientists $100k a year + benefits $1M: 3 scientists $250k a year + benefits. $10M: capital expenditures $10M: travel and other related expenses (including exorbitant parties) $20M: laundered for some other use $30M: management $20M: political special interest
It is a decent, but non scientific, philosophical question. We can prove dinosaurs wandered the earth millions of years ago and we can prove the current chain of hominids wandered the earth 2 million years ago through now. However, you can't prove or disprove that similar hominids wandered the earth at the time of the dinosaurs. It is like proving ghosts don't exist. One could ask, "where are the bones?". Maybe they we just haven't found them or maybe they dissolve/erode easily or maybe aliens took them away.
No argument you can make against dinosaurs and hominids living side-by-side can be "disproven". It is only "unsubstantiated".
The generalization by the GP is right on. You are talking about outliers that actually see value in risk. Those are few and far between. Those ideas are usually only espoused by those people without bosses.
I think it is unusual that they (USPTO) didn't rubber stamp it like everything else. They actually used a brain and made an informed decision. Most of these go through approved and are only invalidated on a challenge later down the road. Much like patents...
The interesting part about Budweiser was when it conflicted with a Budweiser in the now Czech Republic. Budweiser tried to gain rights in Europe but the real Budweiser was far older and proved it. A compromise was reached; Budweiser in North America is from Anheuser-Busch; Budweiser everywhere else is from the Czech Republic brewer.
If you are spending $9,000 to destroy some data, you are probably overvaluing data destruction vs simpler methods. This is probably done by companies that think someone is going to spend the time/money to break into their data for the useless information that is likely there. Most big companies can't even find their own data, let alone some hacker trying to piece things together.
To the Catholic Church, marriage is about procreation. It has far less to do with gay marriage than most think. They would be against a man and woman marrying that are infertile.
It is rather short-sighted and pessimistic for him to say. The technology is already there. The only things holding it back are intricate details and liability concerns. The latter being the bigger issue.
It isn't quite as much if the IT admins are redundant. They should have 4 people that know the same stuff. But that costs money...money the management doesn't want to spend, because they can just call you at 10 PM while you are at a bar or on vacation.
You missed the point or likely I wasn't clear. You have medical records that you store encrypted and you want to send them to a doctor. You want to send the records to a specific doctor and only give them access. You don't want to share a key. You also only give them access for a week... DRM could serve this legitimate purpose.
Even if such a mythical company existed, you can't pick that one because ideas change; people change; companies change. For the same reason, you can't grant party X the power to do M, because party Y will use that power to do N. What may seem "good" now will never remain that way.
But DRM is useful in controlling the sharing of that information. Your medical records covered by HIPPA could be sent to a doctor and allow that doctor to view them under controlled circumstances. Likewise, it could be used for your tax documents at your own convenience; to keep yourself from sharing it elsewhere. Think of SEC and other government regulations (like HIPPA) for these uses.
And oil companies would probably make 50 cents of profit if they got rid of their waste and the US government probably charges 50 cents per gallon in order to make the 39 cents...so they lose.
The analogy would be to design vehicles where it is not possible for a driver to decide to drive into a tree. That would mean the driver shouldn't even have that decision as an option.
In the case of a car, you change the whole concept. You could chop down all trees as one solution. Or you can make it impossible to drive "off road". Then you are in the realm of rail-like vehicles. Then there is the issue of falling off the rail. That can be addressed with roller-coaster like locking onto the rail...or automatic speed limits on turns.
This could go on and on and on...but the point has been made. It is true that there should be no reason why we need seat belts. And it is true that they are an invention because of the lack of safety design.
Parent post has one such task. There is also anything you want the phone to do instead of the cloud; maybe bringing together weather, traffic, calendar, your location, and other services to determine any alerts that may be important to you. But for the most part, cores good (4 is probably the best); Hz not so much
There is also an explicit contract between the mobile carrier and the person buying a discounted phone. If this case nulls these private contracts, there is no reason why it wouldn't null NDAs and other private contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
I love out a loophole to gambling is a "sweepstakes". Oh the irony...or should I say hypocrisy?
It was their "FRIST POST", except their spelling mistake was the whole post.
We'll start getting unqualified people? That ship has sailed. And unqualified people are coming at a higher rate from H1B than citizens...although both rates are crazy high.
They are going to pay:
$7M: 100 scientists $50k a year + benefits
$2M: 10 scientists $100k a year + benefits
$1M: 3 scientists $250k a year + benefits.
$10M: capital expenditures
$10M: travel and other related expenses (including exorbitant parties)
$20M: laundered for some other use
$30M: management
$20M: political special interest
Or assume that it only continued....and has not been "enhanced".
It is a decent, but non scientific, philosophical question. We can prove dinosaurs wandered the earth millions of years ago and we can prove the current chain of hominids wandered the earth 2 million years ago through now. However, you can't prove or disprove that similar hominids wandered the earth at the time of the dinosaurs. It is like proving ghosts don't exist. One could ask, "where are the bones?". Maybe they we just haven't found them or maybe they dissolve/erode easily or maybe aliens took them away.
No argument you can make against dinosaurs and hominids living side-by-side can be "disproven". It is only "unsubstantiated".
The generalization by the GP is right on. You are talking about outliers that actually see value in risk. Those are few and far between. Those ideas are usually only espoused by those people without bosses.
I think it is unusual that they (USPTO) didn't rubber stamp it like everything else. They actually used a brain and made an informed decision. Most of these go through approved and are only invalidated on a challenge later down the road. Much like patents...
The interesting part about Budweiser was when it conflicted with a Budweiser in the now Czech Republic. Budweiser tried to gain rights in Europe but the real Budweiser was far older and proved it. A compromise was reached; Budweiser in North America is from Anheuser-Busch; Budweiser everywhere else is from the Czech Republic brewer.
If you are spending $9,000 to destroy some data, you are probably overvaluing data destruction vs simpler methods. This is probably done by companies that think someone is going to spend the time/money to break into their data for the useless information that is likely there. Most big companies can't even find their own data, let alone some hacker trying to piece things together.
Speaking of money: the valuation of money takes a leap of faith.
To the Catholic Church, marriage is about procreation. It has far less to do with gay marriage than most think. They would be against a man and woman marrying that are infertile.
It is rather short-sighted and pessimistic for him to say. The technology is already there. The only things holding it back are intricate details and liability concerns. The latter being the bigger issue.
It isn't quite as much if the IT admins are redundant. They should have 4 people that know the same stuff. But that costs money...money the management doesn't want to spend, because they can just call you at 10 PM while you are at a bar or on vacation.
That would be categorized as a capital gain...potentially a long term capital gain.
You missed the point or likely I wasn't clear. You have medical records that you store encrypted and you want to send them to a doctor. You want to send the records to a specific doctor and only give them access. You don't want to share a key. You also only give them access for a week... DRM could serve this legitimate purpose.
Even if such a mythical company existed, you can't pick that one because ideas change; people change; companies change. For the same reason, you can't grant party X the power to do M, because party Y will use that power to do N. What may seem "good" now will never remain that way.
But DRM is useful in controlling the sharing of that information. Your medical records covered by HIPPA could be sent to a doctor and allow that doctor to view them under controlled circumstances. Likewise, it could be used for your tax documents at your own convenience; to keep yourself from sharing it elsewhere. Think of SEC and other government regulations (like HIPPA) for these uses.
You want your medical records DRM'd; right? This isn't just about artists.
And oil companies would probably make 50 cents of profit if they got rid of their waste and the US government probably charges 50 cents per gallon in order to make the 39 cents...so they lose.
Now remember 50 phrases from 50 memorable novels and make sure you pick the right one for the right system.
The analogy would be to design vehicles where it is not possible for a driver to decide to drive into a tree. That would mean the driver shouldn't even have that decision as an option.
In the case of a car, you change the whole concept. You could chop down all trees as one solution. Or you can make it impossible to drive "off road". Then you are in the realm of rail-like vehicles. Then there is the issue of falling off the rail. That can be addressed with roller-coaster like locking onto the rail...or automatic speed limits on turns.
This could go on and on and on...but the point has been made. It is true that there should be no reason why we need seat belts. And it is true that they are an invention because of the lack of safety design.
Parent post has one such task. There is also anything you want the phone to do instead of the cloud; maybe bringing together weather, traffic, calendar, your location, and other services to determine any alerts that may be important to you. But for the most part, cores good (4 is probably the best); Hz not so much
There is also an explicit contract between the mobile carrier and the person buying a discounted phone. If this case nulls these private contracts, there is no reason why it wouldn't null NDAs and other private contracts.
I didn't know Republicans were so pro-copyright compared to Democrats... Neither did the Supreme Court... Because they are no different...