If they are trying to make a replacement for a single transistor, fine. But aiming for a whole computer made of chemical components for 1.8M euros seems ridiculous.
Sounds like just enough money to be pissed away in a year, and milked for another grant with "amazing progress" reports just before the funds run out.
I fail to see why you need chemical based computers in order to construct artificial intelligence.
One could build the system out of tinker toys and achieve the same results, at different speeds and different costs.
There is nothing that signifies intelligence which is provided by one construction method that is not present in another. Electrical, Optical, Mechanical, Chemical, Pneumatic... They are all just a means to an end.
Well then what part of orbital dynamics suggest the inner planets would have crashed into the sun?
After all, accretion would happen mostly from the "back" side (hemisphere opposite the orbital direction). The planetoid wouldn't "catch" anything in its orbit, but would be over taken by things on more elliptic orbits.
Therefore the impacts would be accellerative, and puhs the planetoid to a higher orbit.
So where did the original assumption that they would spiral into the sun come from?
This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk of hard derbies, leaving nothing but the gas, which was ultimately blown outward by the pressure of the sun as the disk was swept clear of big chunks.
The gas giants would accumulate at a much slower rate, and almost by definition must be far younger than the rocky planets.
Then there are the oddball moons of the outer planets. Captured planetoids forming late, almost falling into the sun because the disk was pretty much cleared by that time, but being slung outward and captured by chance?
My job is less that of a social organizer and more oriented around technical support.
I'm very responsive to new users and new problems, but when it becomes obvious that rather than look at TFM they will send a poorly worded email explaining exactly half of their problem which will require multiple further emails till the issue can even be understood, it is clear that a few moments, or hours, to think about the situation is best for everybody.
By the way, its not an attitude, it is self preservation. Good as I am, I can not do everybody's job.
I guess I'm Net generation. Except that doesn't sound right for anyone I know of my age group. Furthermore, I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter.
For work issues, I don't even answer email immediately, because I have no intention of serving as a brain trust for people who will not think. I let them age. The more I get from a single source the more I let them age.
For recreational use, I still prefer an email for anything other than the "What time will you arrive" question via text.
Thinking carefully, I can not come up with a single person I care to follow on twitter, but it is nice for breaking news issues if you are a news junkie.
I think we are breeding the first generation of the BORG. People who can't think and can't act without first checking in with the collective.
Quote TFA: "The standard is for a technology called magnetic induction, in which power is transferred between metal coils built into the device and the charging mat when they are placed close to each other. "
The patent is probably much more specific than you are imagining.
How would that affect the Prior Art issue?
If I have prior art of a hinge and you put a hinge in the accelerator pedal of a car can you patent it?
Your claim is far more specific than the prior art, yet prior art (whether it be patented or not) is supposed to trump patent-ability. Use of the hinge would be an obvious application of the prior art and not patentable.
There is also the fact that it did not explode, and perhaps never could actually explode. Nobody has demonstrated that it a similar device could in fact explode. We have vague statements to this effect, but that's all.
If you wanted to sell something, and you wanted the public to line up like sheep to accept yet another humiliation, what better TIME and what better way than a "near miss" at Christmas? Hire dome gullible but not to bright Jihadist-wanna-be and tell him he won't feel a thing.
Meanwhile a Saudi Prince is injured by an ass-bomb and we will need yet more invasive measures to detect that.
Sooner or later people are simply going to say "I will not fly under these conditions."
Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.
So I can not use a cell phone and may get alzheimers or I can use a cell phone and not get alzheimers but could get brain cancer...... time to flip a coin.
Or perhaps just Read all the way to the bottom of TFA....
Yes, I showed my grandson, first grader, tinker toys. I have no clue what it was that he built, but it was cool. I didn't have to build it for him. He learned physical skills, structural balance, load bearing capabilities, cantilever limitations, and the beauty of non-symmetrical structures.
Of course, I never told him what these engineering topics really meant. Why spoil the fun?
The latest and greatest techno-glitter is often not what's needed.
You were headed in the right direction, but some how missed the destination.
What proof is there that any technological solution is productive or effective? Why bemoan a shrinking screen size when shrinking goals explains shrinking results.
Pencil and Paper generally don't distract the student from the task at hand. And the budget for those can be managed with pocket change.
Slashdot Mirror
>But Vegas runs by Vegas' rules.
Not after the law suits come in.
That's what I was thinking too.
If they are trying to make a replacement for a single transistor, fine. But aiming for a whole computer made of chemical components for 1.8M euros seems ridiculous.
Sounds like just enough money to be pissed away in a year, and milked for another grant with "amazing progress" reports just before the funds run out.
I fail to see why you need chemical based computers in order to construct artificial intelligence.
One could build the system out of tinker toys and achieve the same results, at different speeds and different costs.
There is nothing that signifies intelligence which is provided by one construction method that is not present in another. Electrical, Optical, Mechanical, Chemical, Pneumatic... They are all just a means to an end.
Say now...
I save my best spellink for peopl whu pay me...
Well, yeah, I've wasted some youth at the pool table...
But of many thousands of hits by smaller objects one would expect it to sort of average out...
> It's fairly easy for an object in orbit to catch up to an elliptically orbiting body.
Well, not really.
Elliptical orbiters are going much faster as the approach the orbits of the inner planets, and they exit faster too. Most of these are crossing paths.
Well then what part of orbital dynamics suggest the inner planets would have crashed into the sun?
After all, accretion would happen mostly from the "back" side (hemisphere opposite the orbital direction). The planetoid wouldn't "catch" anything in its orbit, but would be over taken by things on more elliptic orbits.
Therefore the impacts would be accellerative, and puhs the planetoid to a higher orbit.
So where did the original assumption that they would spiral into the sun come from?
This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk of hard derbies, leaving nothing but the gas, which was ultimately blown outward by the pressure of the sun as the disk was swept clear of big chunks.
The gas giants would accumulate at a much slower rate, and almost by definition must be far younger than the rocky planets.
Then there are the oddball moons of the outer planets. Captured planetoids forming late, almost falling into the sun because the disk was pretty much cleared by that time, but being slung outward and captured by chance?
a difference in concentration of information
Information wants to be free.
God help us if it ever becomes so.
My job is less that of a social organizer and more oriented around technical support.
I'm very responsive to new users and new problems, but when it becomes obvious that rather than look at TFM they will send a poorly worded email explaining exactly half of their problem which will require multiple further emails till the issue can even be understood, it is clear that a few moments, or hours, to think about the situation is best for everybody.
By the way, its not an attitude, it is self preservation. Good as I am, I can not do everybody's job.
A failure to out grow the "Are We There Yet" syndrome.
I guess I'm Net generation. Except that doesn't sound right for anyone I know of my age group.
Furthermore, I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter.
For work issues, I don't even answer email immediately, because I have no intention of serving as a brain trust for people who will not think. I let them age. The more I get from a single source the more I let them age.
For recreational use, I still prefer an email for anything other than the "What time will you arrive" question via text.
Thinking carefully, I can not come up with a single person I care to follow on twitter, but it is nice for breaking news issues if you are a news junkie.
I think we are breeding the first generation of the BORG. People who can't think and can't act without first checking in with the collective.
But I didn't get it wrong.
The example was chosen to show where GENERAL prior art trumps SPECIFIC patent applications.
GENERAL example of replacement advertising has been around in TV and WEB application for years (unpatented, not that it matters).
Google can not now say we are going to patent replacement advertising in street view, (a specific example).
That ship has sailed.
LOL, and true.
Do babies come with Induction coils?
Quote TFA:
"The standard is for a technology called magnetic induction, in which power is transferred between metal coils built into the device and the charging mat when they are placed close to each other. "
Its just a magnetic field folks.
The patent is probably much more specific than you are imagining.
How would that affect the Prior Art issue?
If I have prior art of a hinge and you put a hinge in the accelerator pedal of a car can you patent it?
Your claim is far more specific than the prior art, yet prior art (whether it be patented or not) is supposed to trump patent-ability. Use of the hinge would be an obvious application of the prior art and not patentable.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_04_1350
There is also the fact that it did not explode, and perhaps never could actually explode. Nobody has demonstrated that it a similar device could in fact explode. We have vague statements to this effect, but that's all.
If you wanted to sell something, and you wanted the public to line up like sheep to accept yet another humiliation, what better TIME and what better way than a "near miss" at Christmas? Hire dome gullible but not to bright Jihadist-wanna-be and tell him he won't feel a thing.
Meanwhile a Saudi Prince is injured by an ass-bomb and we will need yet more invasive measures to detect that.
Sooner or later people are simply going to say "I will not fly under these conditions."
Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.
So I can not use a cell phone and may get alzheimers or I can use a cell phone and not get alzheimers but could get brain cancer ...... time to flip a coin.
Or perhaps just Read all the way to the bottom of TFA....
Nah, that's crazy talk!!
That remains to be seen.
When repeated in other labs by different researchers we can begin to talk of "proof".
A life! A life! My Kingdom for a Life!
Yes, I showed my grandson, first grader, tinker toys. I have no clue what it was that he built, but it was cool. I didn't have to build it for him. He learned physical skills, structural balance, load bearing capabilities, cantilever limitations, and the beauty of non-symmetrical structures.
Of course, I never told him what these engineering topics really meant. Why spoil the fun?
Perhaps I'm hopelessly old school.
The latest and greatest techno-glitter is often not what's needed.
You were headed in the right direction, but some how missed the destination.
What proof is there that any technological solution is productive or effective? Why bemoan a shrinking screen size when shrinking goals explains shrinking results.
Pencil and Paper generally don't distract the student from the task at hand. And the budget for those can be managed with pocket change.
>Then they won't see the person who kills everyone waiting in line AT the security checkpoint.
Exactly.
Its not about protecting the passengers on the plane.
Its about preventing the plane from being used as a weapon.
>Would you be willing to take on an attacker with a 6+" knife of this sort?
Let me turn the question around:
If the choice was between possibly being stabbed and absolutely being vaporized in a crash, would YOU still choose to sit on your hands and die?