if you patent something and nothing comes of that patent within a resonable time (one to two years?)then it should be revoked
Who decides what constitutes 'nothing comes of that patent'? Your idea would be good in a perfect world, but I fear in our flawed universe it would just result in additional beauracracy, lawyers making more money, more court time and unfortunately no change in the status quo.
I agree that it would be nice to offer ethical inventors and companies protection for their ideas. Thing is, the current system is already so broken that true innovaters like RIM are in danger of being run out of business by patent squatters like NTP Inc. There currently aren't enough resources to validate the patents that are already on the books - the patent office is currently in the process of invalidating NTP's patents. I don't think creating additional work for the patent office and asking them to determine if a company has validated their patent by makeing sure something comes from that patent after two years is going to work.
Yeah, that would be a pain but you could update it ONCE, check it periodically and then make noise about it after somebody else puts libelous material out there.
Come to think about it, there might be money in that idea. Start a service that will monitor your wikipedia listings daily and notify you if someone updates your entry with incorrect content.
There's a hint in the article, where they mention that someone edited the entry to correct a typo a few days after it was created. A journalist might very well expect an editor to do a responsible job and clean up the entry, which obviously didn't happen.
Fair enough - seems like somebody could have updated it. OTOH, why didn't he just update it himself. If someone then put the slanderous content back I could see him being upset, but the great thing about Wikipedia is anyone can edit it. Just update the listing with your real life story and move on with life.
If your face has been burnt off or chewed off there is probably extensive nerve damage anyway. It would probably be worth it not to frighten people when you went out in public.
Apparently they take the face off of a cadavre and then surgically put it on a live person, which makes sense, but as another poster referenced, reminds me of something like silence of the lambs.
Funny. Where do you think most organs for transplants come from? I'm pretty sure there aren't any living heart donors. It's OK to accept hearts, kidneys, lungs and corneas from cadavers, but faces cross the line. Not that I disagree with you, but it's interesting how our perceptions are tainted like that.
On top of that you now suggest that we PAY again for a Tivo AND it's mandatory subscription?
That was the point. Tivo is the next step in the cycle. We all pay for the convenience of being able to fast forward through commercials. Once everyone is hooked (which should be any day now) Tivo will start giving you some nice advertisements.
If lete people opt out of the system it's just going to cause problems.
Want to call me a liar? Of course you do, because if you had truly struggled with weight issues you'd understand what happens. But it's easier to let your prejudices come forward, because, after all, fat people lie right?
I wish your implication that I haven't struggled with weight issues were true. I wish I was just making this up and being an ass, but I'm not. Unfortunately I'm not what anyone would regard as thin, slender, lean, whatever - so if fat people lie, I'm probably a liar.
At one point, it was 33lbs. I kept a diary, went to a supervised program, and kept it off for about one year. Slowly it started - the LBs were coming back. Was I letting myself eat more? - no. I still kept the diary and I was still maintaining the 1500 calorie limit.
As I said in my previous post, just because 1500 calories created a deficit a year ago doesn't mean 1500 calories is less than what your body needs now. As men age our metabolism slows down, it's just a fact. Your gain on a limited diet of 1500 calories is quite possible. I'm not attempting to call you a liar or discredit your story, just stating a simple fact that if you expend more calories than you take in you will lose weight. It's a scientific fact. It's impossible not to.
Are you trying to tell me that if you stopped eating for the next month (not that I am advocating that type of plan)your bodyweight wouldn't change? Of course it would. Weight is directly tied to calorie intake.
I don't overeat, I am sedentary, but so aren't many others are the don't have weight problems. How come? Anyone have a glib answer for that?
Genetics.
Seriously though, there's no arguing it plays a part. Metabolic rate, food cravings and activity levels are all impacted by your genetic makeup. That's a fact that can be observed anywhere. What we all have to do is make choices that work with our genetic makeup to give us the results we want. Personally I would highly recommend weight training. It's been great for me, I am currently in the best shape of my life - bigger, faster and stronger. Outside of that there are always other choices you have. You could quit your job and find one that required more activity. You could change your 1500 calorie limit to a 1300 calorie limit. You could walk the dogs twice as far every morning. Thing is, there's ALWAYS a choice.
Now hold on, I didn't ever say genetics don't play a part. I have a sister that is 5'10" and about 115lbs. She had a baby last year and dropped the baby weight in about two months. Genetically she is definitely predispositioned to be thin. That's just a fact. She is also inherently active - one of these people that bounces around all the time, plus seems to not be wired to actually like food. Genetics play a big part, but aren't an excuse not to suck it up and do something about your situation.
Your example is interesting to me because of your losing 35 lbs in two months. As you said that was big time overkill. Personally, I think the WORST thing anyone can do is attempt to lose weight that fast. There's just no way a routine like you described will be sustainable and statistically someone that drops that kind of weight that fast will gain it back plus some. I wish you luck in your ongoing efforts. Keep in mind that fitness is a journey, not a destination. Find choices you can live with and make goals you can keep long term.
The learners go on well into their 80's remaining mentally sharp, free from any worries of senility or Alzheimers. I'm just citing what *I* see, and expressing it in my own layman's terms.
I agree with your post except for this statement. There are documented cases of Alzheimers in very intelligent people. I belive one woman was a prolific writer and wrote a book as her mind degenerated. Otherwise, good point.
Look at it this way, if you are typical and eat 3 meals a day, over the course of a week there will be 21 meals. Divide $35/21 Meals leaves 60 cents/meal.
What am I going to buy for 60 cents?
Guess I should rephrase. Any american that is not on Government subsidized food programs will starve on $35/week on their food bill, plus FWIW I have found that it's MORE expensive to eat healthy food than it is to eat junk. Cost is not a good indicator of an individual's dietary choices.
Personal responsibility is something woefully lacking in todays society. Maybe I'm just the strong willed.
No, you bring up an excellent point. For months I didn't buy soda for the exact same reason. I would come home from work and have one or two or three. The best way for me to control it was to not buy it. Now I'm at the point where I can keep some soda in the cupboard and maybe drink one a week. I'm not really down with the buddhist, but would agree that there are very simple ways to boost willpower and set yourself up for success.
I'd give anything to be 200lbs again, but it's going to be a struggle and may never happen. I don't overeat, but I do have a sedentary job. Going to a gym is not an option - bad knees, you see.
This is an interesting statement. I have struggled with weight issues my whole life. Two years ago I decided to make a change. Thing is, many people SAY they would 'do anything' to be at Xlbs, but it's just not true. They only way to actually make this happen is to commit to making a change - no matter what and follow through by making quality lifestyle changes that will help them lose fat and keep it off.
Bottom line is you DO overeat. You may not eat an extrodinary amount, but if you took in less calories than you burned your body would use up the nutrients in the other tissues of your body. You would lose weight. If you are gaining weight, you are consuming more calories than your body needs.
Bottom line is, if you are serious about achieving that 200lbs mark there is only one way to do it, get serious. It will mean making difficult choices like eating foods you don't like, giving up some things (soda, beer, ice cream, whatever...), not going out as much as you used to, etc... but it can be accomplished. Just remember weight is not something you will get under control in a day. Set realistic goals and when you have a bad day don't beat yourself up about it.
Don't assume fat people have a choice. Most would rather be slender, but nature is working against us.
Nonsense. EVERYONE has a choice. We may not be willing to make the choices that are required - or follow through with them, but there are very few people in this world that could not improve their overall health by adjusting their diet or increasing their activity level.
But when you look across a large number of major retailers and consistently come up with lower results than the supposed wholesale cost, then something fishy is going on.
Even when looking at online retailers other than Pricewatch, a 20GB hard drive is at the end of it's life cycle. It's likely that the drives aren't currently being manufactured any remaining 20GB drives on retailers shelves are just additional stock from the production run. Part of this is a supply and demand curve. Who buys a new 20GB drive at the consumer level? Nobody, not when a 20GB unit is $44 and I can buy one that's 120GB for $60. There's no demand for new 20GB drives on a consumer level, but Microsoft is creating a huge demand for them in their new Xbox. I'm sure that most hardware manufacturers make their money from OEMs. Microsoft is buying in bulk, but there are only a handful of reputable hard drive manufacturers out there that could meet their demand. It's a two edged sword, Microsoft has a HUGE order to fill, but a very limited number of vendors to fill it. Unless one of those vendors is in serious financial trouble they aren't going to undercut the others to get the business.
One thing that leads me to believe that the hard drives are more expensive than we might think is the size. Why would anyone put a 20GB drive in anything when 160-250 GB drives are commonplace. If the wholesale prices are congruent with retail prices doubling or tripling the hard drive size should only increase the cost by less than $10. Xbox may not even be the best example of this, I'm not sure how much drive space is really needed. OTOH, new DirectTV Tivo is a good example of this. Value is tied directly to hard drive size, and it only has a 70GB drive. If wholesale drives are so much cheaper than retail, why wouldn't it have a 200GB drive?
I really don't understand why people complain about Slackware, frankly I find all those so call "easy" distro like Redhat and others confusing as hell. Why do people continue to perpetuate this Slackware myth?
Because all of us Slackers like it that way. It used to be enough - just using Linux made you a tech God. These days Linux use is much more common. Slackware is just another way to separate us true Geeks from the posers - and that's the way we like it.
That's just not true. Slackware has changed significantly in the last 5 years. It still has flaws, true, but the installer, number of packages, community support and upgradeability has come a long way since "the 90's". It may not be the trendy geekster-hip distro it once was, but Patrick hasn't been sitting around twiddling it's thumbs.
One thing I find funny is how often a Slackware article is posted to slashdot. I should run some searches and see which distro has articles posted about it most often - I bet Slackware's up there. Not bad for a dead distrobution.
He's referring to bulk prices, though. So a $60 hard drive in the store can be had for $20 in bulk.
No kidding? I figured Microsoft was buying everything piecemeal from their local Walmart. Seriously though, there is power in buying in bulk, but that doesn't mean things are free. There are still minimal costs and the hardware providers will want to make a profit. There is also a difference in costs between something that's built to sell directly to a consumer and a product that's built for resale.
If Microsoft is really paying $51 for a quality 20GB hard drive, then they need their heads checked.
Really? Why? Just checked newegg and the cheapest drive out there is $44. Come to think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen hard drives much cheaper than that. When prices on a particular model drop much below $50 they generally dissappear. My guess would be there are inherent costs involved where manufacture of the drive itself starts to dictate a minimum price.
This entire "analysis" smacks of someone attempting to apply retail prices to bulk hardware.
OTOH, this thread sounds like someone attempting to apply prices of discount consumer goods from online stores to a the products used in a manufacturing facility. I haven't worked in manufacturing in a while, but when I did I was shocked at how prices on items bought in bulk were not always cheaper than what a 'retail' discount version was. Even if Microsoft is using low quality components, they have got to have some kind of warranty period. I'm not sure what the warranty period on a new xbox is, but if it's 30 days they want those components to last through the 30 days of hard use. I'm sure their deal with the component manufacturers includes some kind of defect reimbursement - so even if the components are low quality the manufacturer is going to sell at a price where they can absorb the defects.
I may be completely wrong in my thinking here, so if you are familar with the intimate workings of a large computer manufacturing business' purchasing department, please correct me.
20GB hard drive for $53 and DVD-ROM drive for $21. I can get better prices than this. Me. On one unit. Microsoft is talking about millions of units. I know that these are thin margin markets, but the exclusive contract from Microsoft is a huge win for any supplier.
You may be correct, but I've had some of those $10 DVD-ROM drives. They aren't worth bringing home. Xbox is a consumer level product, so Microsoft needs high quality components. If that $20 hard drive conks out in 2 or 3 years or quits working the first time the dog knocks the machine over, Microsoft is going to have a ton of angry customers. Keep in mind that the discount products that you and I buy to stick in our personal computers and upgrade every year or two are not the same level of quality componenets that need to be installed on a consumer device that's intended for use by the masses for at least several years.
Thing is, for me it's not so much the money as it is the platform. AFAIK I can't buy a Linux version of Photoshop - so Gimp is the only good graphics program available for my development platform of choice. I would probably drop Gimp altogether and layout $500-$600 for Photoshop if they had a Linux version.
Slashdot Mirror
if you patent something and nothing comes of that patent within a resonable time (one to two years?)then it should be revoked
Who decides what constitutes 'nothing comes of that patent'? Your idea would be good in a perfect world, but I fear in our flawed universe it would just result in additional beauracracy, lawyers making more money, more court time and unfortunately no change in the status quo.
I agree that it would be nice to offer ethical inventors and companies protection for their ideas. Thing is, the current system is already so broken that true innovaters like RIM are in danger of being run out of business by patent squatters like NTP Inc. There currently aren't enough resources to validate the patents that are already on the books - the patent office is currently in the process of invalidating NTP's patents. I don't think creating additional work for the patent office and asking them to determine if a company has validated their patent by makeing sure something comes from that patent after two years is going to work.
I always thought their MAIN focus was to provide us with search results so we could find stuff on the Internet, the ads are just a byproduct.
Yeah, that would be a pain but you could update it ONCE, check it periodically and then make noise about it after somebody else puts libelous material out there.
Come to think about it, there might be money in that idea. Start a service that will monitor your wikipedia listings daily and notify you if someone updates your entry with incorrect content.
There's a hint in the article, where they mention that someone edited the entry to correct a typo a few days after it was created. A journalist might very well expect an editor to do a responsible job and clean up the entry, which obviously didn't happen.
Fair enough - seems like somebody could have updated it. OTOH, why didn't he just update it himself. If someone then put the slanderous content back I could see him being upset, but the great thing about Wikipedia is anyone can edit it. Just update the listing with your real life story and move on with life.
Are we all going to end up looking like the Borg?
God, I hope so!
If your face has been burnt off or chewed off there is probably extensive nerve damage anyway. It would probably be worth it not to frighten people when you went out in public.
Apparently they take the face off of a cadavre and then surgically put it on a live person, which makes sense, but as another poster referenced, reminds me of something like silence of the lambs.
Funny. Where do you think most organs for transplants come from? I'm pretty sure there aren't any living heart donors. It's OK to accept hearts, kidneys, lungs and corneas from cadavers, but faces cross the line. Not that I disagree with you, but it's interesting how our perceptions are tainted like that.
On top of that you now suggest that we PAY again for a Tivo AND it's mandatory subscription?
That was the point. Tivo is the next step in the cycle. We all pay for the convenience of being able to fast forward through commercials. Once everyone is hooked (which should be any day now) Tivo will start giving you some nice advertisements.
If lete people opt out of the system it's just going to cause problems.
Well today, we pay for cable, the show, and have more commercials than ever before.
You should get Tivo!
Want to call me a liar? Of course you do, because if you had truly struggled with weight issues you'd understand what happens. But it's easier to let your prejudices come forward, because, after all, fat people lie right?
I wish your implication that I haven't struggled with weight issues were true. I wish I was just making this up and being an ass, but I'm not. Unfortunately I'm not what anyone would regard as thin, slender, lean, whatever - so if fat people lie, I'm probably a liar.
At one point, it was 33lbs. I kept a diary, went to a supervised program, and kept it off for about one year. Slowly it started - the LBs were coming back. Was I letting myself eat more? - no. I still kept the diary and I was still maintaining the 1500 calorie limit.
As I said in my previous post, just because 1500 calories created a deficit a year ago doesn't mean 1500 calories is less than what your body needs now. As men age our metabolism slows down, it's just a fact. Your gain on a limited diet of 1500 calories is quite possible. I'm not attempting to call you a liar or discredit your story, just stating a simple fact that if you expend more calories than you take in you will lose weight. It's a scientific fact. It's impossible not to.
Are you trying to tell me that if you stopped eating for the next month (not that I am advocating that type of plan)your bodyweight wouldn't change? Of course it would. Weight is directly tied to calorie intake.
I don't overeat, I am sedentary, but so aren't many others are the don't have weight problems. How come? Anyone have a glib answer for that?
Genetics.
Seriously though, there's no arguing it plays a part. Metabolic rate, food cravings and activity levels are all impacted by your genetic makeup. That's a fact that can be observed anywhere. What we all have to do is make choices that work with our genetic makeup to give us the results we want. Personally I would highly recommend weight training. It's been great for me, I am currently in the best shape of my life - bigger, faster and stronger. Outside of that there are always other choices you have. You could quit your job and find one that required more activity. You could change your 1500 calorie limit to a 1300 calorie limit. You could walk the dogs twice as far every morning. Thing is, there's ALWAYS a choice.
Now hold on, I didn't ever say genetics don't play a part. I have a sister that is 5'10" and about 115lbs. She had a baby last year and dropped the baby weight in about two months. Genetically she is definitely predispositioned to be thin. That's just a fact. She is also inherently active - one of these people that bounces around all the time, plus seems to not be wired to actually like food. Genetics play a big part, but aren't an excuse not to suck it up and do something about your situation.
Your example is interesting to me because of your losing 35 lbs in two months. As you said that was big time overkill. Personally, I think the WORST thing anyone can do is attempt to lose weight that fast. There's just no way a routine like you described will be sustainable and statistically someone that drops that kind of weight that fast will gain it back plus some. I wish you luck in your ongoing efforts. Keep in mind that fitness is a journey, not a destination. Find choices you can live with and make goals you can keep long term.
Damn! And I thought they made up that Nip/Tuck episode.
The learners go on well into their 80's remaining mentally sharp, free from any worries of senility or Alzheimers. I'm just citing what *I* see, and expressing it in my own layman's terms.
I agree with your post except for this statement. There are documented cases of Alzheimers in very intelligent people. I belive one woman was a prolific writer and wrote a book as her mind degenerated. Otherwise, good point.
Now, that wasn't nice.
Look at it this way, if you are typical and eat 3 meals a day, over the course of a week there will be 21 meals. Divide $35/21 Meals leaves 60 cents/meal.
What am I going to buy for 60 cents?
Guess I should rephrase. Any american that is not on Government subsidized food programs will starve on $35/week on their food bill, plus FWIW I have found that it's MORE expensive to eat healthy food than it is to eat junk. Cost is not a good indicator of an individual's dietary choices.
Personal responsibility is something woefully lacking in todays society. Maybe I'm just the strong willed.
No, you bring up an excellent point. For months I didn't buy soda for the exact same reason. I would come home from work and have one or two or three. The best way for me to control it was to not buy it. Now I'm at the point where I can keep some soda in the cupboard and maybe drink one a week. I'm not really down with the buddhist, but would agree that there are very simple ways to boost willpower and set yourself up for success.
Food is cheaper than gym memberships.
What??? Where? My gym membership is $35/month. I would starve if I only spent $35/week on my food bill.
I'd give anything to be 200lbs again, but it's going to be a struggle and may never happen. I don't overeat, but I do have a sedentary job. Going to a gym is not an option - bad knees, you see.
This is an interesting statement. I have struggled with weight issues my whole life. Two years ago I decided to make a change. Thing is, many people SAY they would 'do anything' to be at Xlbs, but it's just not true. They only way to actually make this happen is to commit to making a change - no matter what and follow through by making quality lifestyle changes that will help them lose fat and keep it off.
Bottom line is you DO overeat. You may not eat an extrodinary amount, but if you took in less calories than you burned your body would use up the nutrients in the other tissues of your body. You would lose weight. If you are gaining weight, you are consuming more calories than your body needs.
Bottom line is, if you are serious about achieving that 200lbs mark there is only one way to do it, get serious. It will mean making difficult choices like eating foods you don't like, giving up some things (soda, beer, ice cream, whatever...), not going out as much as you used to, etc... but it can be accomplished. Just remember weight is not something you will get under control in a day. Set realistic goals and when you have a bad day don't beat yourself up about it.
Don't assume fat people have a choice. Most would rather be slender, but nature is working against us.
Nonsense. EVERYONE has a choice. We may not be willing to make the choices that are required - or follow through with them, but there are very few people in this world that could not improve their overall health by adjusting their diet or increasing their activity level.
...required George Bush I to fly to Iran on an SR-71
Let's not forget that George was a Navy pilot during the war. This might not be so far fetched...
But when you look across a large number of major retailers and consistently come up with lower results than the supposed wholesale cost, then something fishy is going on.
Even when looking at online retailers other than Pricewatch, a 20GB hard drive is at the end of it's life cycle. It's likely that the drives aren't currently being manufactured any remaining 20GB drives on retailers shelves are just additional stock from the production run. Part of this is a supply and demand curve. Who buys a new 20GB drive at the consumer level? Nobody, not when a 20GB unit is $44 and I can buy one that's 120GB for $60. There's no demand for new 20GB drives on a consumer level, but Microsoft is creating a huge demand for them in their new Xbox. I'm sure that most hardware manufacturers make their money from OEMs. Microsoft is buying in bulk, but there are only a handful of reputable hard drive manufacturers out there that could meet their demand. It's a two edged sword, Microsoft has a HUGE order to fill, but a very limited number of vendors to fill it. Unless one of those vendors is in serious financial trouble they aren't going to undercut the others to get the business.
One thing that leads me to believe that the hard drives are more expensive than we might think is the size. Why would anyone put a 20GB drive in anything when 160-250 GB drives are commonplace. If the wholesale prices are congruent with retail prices doubling or tripling the hard drive size should only increase the cost by less than $10. Xbox may not even be the best example of this, I'm not sure how much drive space is really needed. OTOH, new DirectTV Tivo is a good example of this. Value is tied directly to hard drive size, and it only has a 70GB drive. If wholesale drives are so much cheaper than retail, why wouldn't it have a 200GB drive?
I really don't understand why people complain about Slackware, frankly I find all those so call "easy" distro like Redhat and others confusing as hell. Why do people continue to perpetuate this Slackware myth?
Because all of us Slackers like it that way. It used to be enough - just using Linux made you a tech God. These days Linux use is much more common. Slackware is just another way to separate us true Geeks from the posers - and that's the way we like it.
Slackware has not evolved.
That's just not true. Slackware has changed significantly in the last 5 years. It still has flaws, true, but the installer, number of packages, community support and upgradeability has come a long way since "the 90's". It may not be the trendy geekster-hip distro it once was, but Patrick hasn't been sitting around twiddling it's thumbs.
One thing I find funny is how often a Slackware article is posted to slashdot. I should run some searches and see which distro has articles posted about it most often - I bet Slackware's up there. Not bad for a dead distrobution.
He's referring to bulk prices, though. So a $60 hard drive in the store can be had for $20 in bulk.
No kidding? I figured Microsoft was buying everything piecemeal from their local Walmart. Seriously though, there is power in buying in bulk, but that doesn't mean things are free. There are still minimal costs and the hardware providers will want to make a profit. There is also a difference in costs between something that's built to sell directly to a consumer and a product that's built for resale.
If Microsoft is really paying $51 for a quality 20GB hard drive, then they need their heads checked.
Really? Why? Just checked newegg and the cheapest drive out there is $44. Come to think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen hard drives much cheaper than that. When prices on a particular model drop much below $50 they generally dissappear. My guess would be there are inherent costs involved where manufacture of the drive itself starts to dictate a minimum price.
This entire "analysis" smacks of someone attempting to apply retail prices to bulk hardware.
OTOH, this thread sounds like someone attempting to apply prices of discount consumer goods from online stores to a the products used in a manufacturing facility. I haven't worked in manufacturing in a while, but when I did I was shocked at how prices on items bought in bulk were not always cheaper than what a 'retail' discount version was. Even if Microsoft is using low quality components, they have got to have some kind of warranty period. I'm not sure what the warranty period on a new xbox is, but if it's 30 days they want those components to last through the 30 days of hard use. I'm sure their deal with the component manufacturers includes some kind of defect reimbursement - so even if the components are low quality the manufacturer is going to sell at a price where they can absorb the defects.
I may be completely wrong in my thinking here, so if you are familar with the intimate workings of a large computer manufacturing business' purchasing department, please correct me.
20GB hard drive for $53 and DVD-ROM drive for $21. I can get better prices than this. Me. On one unit. Microsoft is talking about millions of units. I know that these are thin margin markets, but the exclusive contract from Microsoft is a huge win for any supplier.
You may be correct, but I've had some of those $10 DVD-ROM drives. They aren't worth bringing home. Xbox is a consumer level product, so Microsoft needs high quality components. If that $20 hard drive conks out in 2 or 3 years or quits working the first time the dog knocks the machine over, Microsoft is going to have a ton of angry customers. Keep in mind that the discount products that you and I buy to stick in our personal computers and upgrade every year or two are not the same level of quality componenets that need to be installed on a consumer device that's intended for use by the masses for at least several years.
Thing is, for me it's not so much the money as it is the platform. AFAIK I can't buy a Linux version of Photoshop - so Gimp is the only good graphics program available for my development platform of choice. I would probably drop Gimp altogether and layout $500-$600 for Photoshop if they had a Linux version.
Sorry, 6 steps doesn't make a successfull business plan.