No, no, no. The article concludes that molecularly it is difficult to classify glass as either "solid" or "liquid." But it states unambiguously that there is no evidence that glass at room temperature flows at all, fast, slow, or otherwise.
Ok, funny, yes, but...wouldn't the highest quality human proteins come from cultured human meat? Would the eating of cultured human meat be cannibalism? The prospect of eating cruelty-free human burgers is at the same time disgusting and fascinating.
You can do the exact same thing in pratically any other OS. Yes! Even Linux! Permissions are only as secure as the environment is willing to respect them. Next time, you might want to enable Windows data encryption. Lose the key and you'll NEVER recover those files.
The switching capacity of these nanostructures is, in comparable to that of today's silicon transistors.
Does anybody have a guess as to what this means? Is this supposed to say that the switching capacity is comparable to today's silicon transistors (which would be good)? Or is it supposed to say that the switching capacity is incomparable to today's silicon transistors?
Either way, this sounds promising, provided that this increased switching capacity is a result not just of massively parallel switching but also faster switching.
That's not how I read the statutes, though I couldn't find any cases directly on point. Do you know of any published cases from the federal circuit or supreme courts?
I assume if two people, organisations or companies directly compete to make a device, then patent law applies and the first person to have patented the device wins.
Nope, in the U.S. only, the first person to have invented the device wins, regardless of who filed first.
But what happens if two people design something similar with no knowledge of the others progress and a patent is filed by one before the other?
The case is going to hinge on documentary evidence as to who completed work on the invention first. From 35 USC 102(g)(1):
In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
These invention priority cases can get very messy, however, and the U.S. is probably soon going to change to "first to file."
You can patent things that already exist, if you can prove that you invented it first. What Microsoft needs to win this case is some documentary proof that they invented their AutoDJ system before Apple invented theirs. When the patent applications were actually filed is not as relevant.
Wow, no need to be a jackass. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are stupid.
In any case, I disagree with your interpretation of section 1008, which says only that no civil action may be brought for noncommercial copying by a consumer. Obviously, the RIAA would argue that your providing copies to friends is not noncommercial, because it displaces copies that might otherwise be sold at retail, and I think that's a winning argument.
Unless you can point to some case law that says otherwise, I'm pretty sure this is how it would come down.
It's not, as you pointed out. You can give your friend your book, and you can give your friend your CD. What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.
When president Carter was president, we had "Conjunction Junction", we had a push to adopt a metric system, we had recycling and bills to push car MPG ratings.
We also had historically very high levels of inflation and very low levels of growth, and the overhanging threat of nuclear annhiliation.
But it's pointless to discuss politics. I wasn't trying to "blame" anybody, only describe what I believe to be reality; we can't accurately predict the major achievements of the future until we are capable of comprehending them. But, as a corollary, not every achievement that can be comprehended will or should be achieved.
It would be helpful, however, if you and others would accept the fact that simply because your childhood dreams of achievement have not come to pass, does not mean that all that has been achieved is therefore worthless.
Then again, perhaps it is human nature to appreciate the value only of what we have not.
Returning fewer pages does not necessarily mean poorer search results - after all, a good search will present the maximum number of relevant pages, but no others. Google only wins if all of the extra results it shows are actually relevant. By the methods of this test and your analysis, I could write a search engine that returns its entire index as the result set for every search, and it would be the best websearch ever! Billions of results on every search!
I would like to see an objective qualitative assessment.
Really, what happened was that most sci-fi writers at the time guessed completely wrong at what the major focus of innovation, engineering, and research would be. It's not their fault, of course - after all, the things they envisioned are perfectly rational extensions of the most modern trends of their times, and conveniently, made for good stories as well.
But for each unit of research, much larger results were found elsewhere - namely, in computers and communications. What most sci-fi writers didn't predict (until the trends became obvious) were personal computers cheaper than televisions, and a massive distributed network rapidly assimilating all human knowledge. The average person has an amount of computing power at his disposal simply unimaginable - or worse, impossibly unbelievable - to the sci-fi writers and futurists of the space age.
I predict that sci-fi writers and futurists who center their stories around extrapolations of today's advances in computing power are similarly missing the next unimagined leap in technology, the seeds of which almost certainly exist today.
Homicide rates are regarded as a key balanced metric for violent crime (ie, not heavily influenced by variants of law).
I'm not so sure about that. Nobody can argue that the United States has ridiculously high rates of homicide. But that's far from clear as to other violent crimes. For example: This report (warning: pdf) is dated, but since crime levels in the United States have trended down while crime rates in the UK/Wales have trended up, its conclusion is probably still valid.
Hey, idiot. Get a clue. 640 years is not his sentence, it's the maximum he could receive. It's so high because even though the maximum per conviction is small, the number of crimes committed was huge. But I promise you, he will NOT get sentenced to 640 years. He won't get sentenced to life in prison. I'll consider it a heavy sentence if he gets more than 10 years.
Next time, instead of working yourself into an indignant rage and looking like an uninformed asshat, at least take the time to know what you're talking about.
No, but to punish you for dying they put you in what's known as "the hole." After spending a long time without food or water in a tiny hole six feet underground, most inmates won't want to die again any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no. The article concludes that molecularly it is difficult to classify glass as either "solid" or "liquid." But it states unambiguously that there is no evidence that glass at room temperature flows at all, fast, slow, or otherwise.
If it out of vision, it's probably just dust particles and tiny hairs on the surface of your eye.
Finally, maybe the Manwich will finally live up to its name.
Ok, funny, yes, but...wouldn't the highest quality human proteins come from cultured human meat? Would the eating of cultured human meat be cannibalism? The prospect of eating cruelty-free human burgers is at the same time disgusting and fascinating.
No, no, no, all other are wrong. The relevant film to view both for creative inspiration and possible pitfalls is this one.
Windows too.
You can do the exact same thing in pratically any other OS. Yes! Even Linux! Permissions are only as secure as the environment is willing to respect them. Next time, you might want to enable Windows data encryption. Lose the key and you'll NEVER recover those files.
Moore's law applies to transistor counts per square inch, not clock speeds. You're thinking of the "Law of Marketing."
Does anybody have a guess as to what this means? Is this supposed to say that the switching capacity is comparable to today's silicon transistors (which would be good)? Or is it supposed to say that the switching capacity is incomparable to today's silicon transistors?
Either way, this sounds promising, provided that this increased switching capacity is a result not just of massively parallel switching but also faster switching.
That's not how I read the statutes, though I couldn't find any cases directly on point. Do you know of any published cases from the federal circuit or supreme courts?
Nope, in the U.S. only, the first person to have invented the device wins, regardless of who filed first.
But what happens if two people design something similar with no knowledge of the others progress and a patent is filed by one before the other?
The case is going to hinge on documentary evidence as to who completed work on the invention first. From 35 USC 102(g)(1):
These invention priority cases can get very messy, however, and the U.S. is probably soon going to change to "first to file."You can patent things that already exist, if you can prove that you invented it first. What Microsoft needs to win this case is some documentary proof that they invented their AutoDJ system before Apple invented theirs. When the patent applications were actually filed is not as relevant.
In any case, I disagree with your interpretation of section 1008, which says only that no civil action may be brought for noncommercial copying by a consumer. Obviously, the RIAA would argue that your providing copies to friends is not noncommercial, because it displaces copies that might otherwise be sold at retail, and I think that's a winning argument.
Unless you can point to some case law that says otherwise, I'm pretty sure this is how it would come down.
It's not, as you pointed out. You can give your friend your book, and you can give your friend your CD. What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.
Really, it's not that hard to understand.
We also had historically very high levels of inflation and very low levels of growth, and the overhanging threat of nuclear annhiliation.
But it's pointless to discuss politics. I wasn't trying to "blame" anybody, only describe what I believe to be reality; we can't accurately predict the major achievements of the future until we are capable of comprehending them. But, as a corollary, not every achievement that can be comprehended will or should be achieved.
It would be helpful, however, if you and others would accept the fact that simply because your childhood dreams of achievement have not come to pass, does not mean that all that has been achieved is therefore worthless.
Then again, perhaps it is human nature to appreciate the value only of what we have not.
And of course Odell lake to train the young padawan Jedi that there is always a bigger fish - unless you're the Raibow Trout, of course.
Returning fewer pages does not necessarily mean poorer search results - after all, a good search will present the maximum number of relevant pages, but no others. Google only wins if all of the extra results it shows are actually relevant. By the methods of this test and your analysis, I could write a search engine that returns its entire index as the result set for every search, and it would be the best websearch ever! Billions of results on every search!
I would like to see an objective qualitative assessment.
Those are lauded in all of the history books as an application of peaceful economic pressure.
Peaceful, yes; lawful, no.
But for each unit of research, much larger results were found elsewhere - namely, in computers and communications. What most sci-fi writers didn't predict (until the trends became obvious) were personal computers cheaper than televisions, and a massive distributed network rapidly assimilating all human knowledge. The average person has an amount of computing power at his disposal simply unimaginable - or worse, impossibly unbelievable - to the sci-fi writers and futurists of the space age.
I predict that sci-fi writers and futurists who center their stories around extrapolations of today's advances in computing power are similarly missing the next unimagined leap in technology, the seeds of which almost certainly exist today.
Be sure to factor in a stay in a federal "pound-you-in-the-ass" prison for whoever writes the worm as one of the "means."
I'm not so sure about that. Nobody can argue that the United States has ridiculously high rates of homicide. But that's far from clear as to other violent crimes. For example: This report (warning: pdf) is dated, but since crime levels in the United States have trended down while crime rates in the UK/Wales have trended up, its conclusion is probably still valid.
You don't need to reboot to restart explorer. Just kill it and start a new instance. GOSH!
Next time, instead of working yourself into an indignant rage and looking like an uninformed asshat, at least take the time to know what you're talking about.
No, but to punish you for dying they put you in what's known as "the hole." After spending a long time without food or water in a tiny hole six feet underground, most inmates won't want to die again any time soon.
But not words representing numbers, written in many languages.