I was just trying to make clear that patenting a layout of something is just plain stupid! I can think of many ways to put things next, above, under,... eachother. The point is that you shouldn't be able to patent one of the possibilities...
Layout is not necessarily trivial. Just look at the layout of your keyboard, it's designed to work in a specific way to improve productivity.
Basically, globalization in combination with monopoly rights are the monopoly holders wet dream
Monopoly rights in itself is any company's dream, globalization or not. Globalization helps to increase competition by reducing the cost for new supplier to enter the market.
Theories are always based on existing data, for the purpose of making predictions about the unknown. When a theory is made where there is no data, the tendency is to try to make the data - when it becomes available - fit the theory.
It is true people often attempt to make data fit a theory. However, there is a need in science to make assumptions when there is no data. As we make discoveries, we remove assumptions and insert facts. With no evidence, Einstein assumed the universe was static and developed the idea of dark energy. Upon the discovery of an expanding universe, the theory was abandoned. Now with an accelerating universe, the theory has been picked up again.
The theory should evolve to fit facts, facts should never be coerced into fitting theories. The former is science, the latter is religion.
No the former is science, the latter is bad science (plenty of bad science gets published)
If they can back their ideas up, great, but damnit, replacing tried-and-tested theories with something for which the best they can cite is a lack of evidence?! That may be how religions work, but that is NOT how science is done and I would thank them for keeping their paws off if they're not willing to meet the standards of their discipline.
That is how science works. People often develop and publish alternate theories based on gaps in current knowledge. Sometimes they are rejected and forgotten, sometimes they are rejected and revisited in the future.
Big name and buzz can help, but it's certainly not required
Based on 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001 (couldn't find 2004) I'd disagree. It's all sequels and big name tiles - The Sims, Warcraft, Age of *.
There really were very few games worth playing released last year (that is, of the games released early enough to have any real impact on sales for last year), and the few that were are all on the top 10 list.
I agree with that last part, most of the great games of 2006 were released late in the year (save for Galactic Civilizations 2 which didn't make the top 10 sales). Even then next year's list will still be dominated by the same names: Sims (3 or 4 spots), Warcraft, and Command & Conquer.
If it were ethical, portions of the radio spectrum would be handed out to those who will best serve society, not those who pay the most money in an auction.
Are you really so disconnected from reality that you think all cops should also be programmers as a regular part of their job?
Are you so disconnected that you think jobs are perfectly straight forward? No, not all cops need to be programmers. Giving people the ability to leverage their talents to improve productivity is what a good employer does. The fact that he used company time and that the product of his labor was directly related to his job, gives good reason for the software to be considered a work for hire. It's good policy that if there is any question as to ownership, to explicitly negotiate that ahead of time; or at the very least have a clear firewall between your work and your personal pursuits.
Building software for policework is no more in the normal scope of employment than the building of any of those others.
Improving efficiency is within the scope of anybody's job. The software the officer developed is directly related to what he does everyday, and was developed for that purpose.
But the police are not in the business of creating software. So, even when provided resources and paid time to do the work, it does not necessarily follow that the result is a work for hire.
However, the software is designed to handle policework, which is his business.
I've fought this fight in the IT sector for more than 5 years now.
And 20 years ago people were fighting it in the manufacturing sector, and in the end the job losses for that specific segment were more than offset by the overall economic gain of the country. Cheap computers manufactured overseas led to the boom of the IT industry.
Fair enough if the US wants to keep it's general populace crippled with the imperial units - but science really is better off with metric.
Yes metric works really nicely, that's why science in the US is done in metric. It doesn't matter what system you use for everyday life as long as people are familiar with it. People understand what a pint of beer is, so why change?
Re:Is it even possible for YouTube to comply?
on
YouTube Blocked in Brazil
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit.
Welcome to the 21st century -- everybody's privacy is now forfeit.
Except that environmentalists interests are for the general welfare of the planet and its inhabitants, not for the increased wealth of acorporation and its stockholders. A rather significant difference, wouldn't you agree?
Some environmentalists take the welfare of the planet to the extreme where they put it above the welfare of it's inhabitants.
Scientific evidence shows that neither liberals nor conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned.
Studies show that's what appeals to voters and why they are elected.
If you'd like to really run with it, you might even hope that candidates will be chosen according to merit and intellect rather than popularity and purchased academic honors.
Leadership is more than having ideas, it's about convincing people to go along with them; you can't eliminate the social aspects of running a society. Just as you can't eliminate the wealthy from strong influence of government. Members of the educated and wealthy lead revolutions, the lower classes are merely pawns rallied to the cause.
I beg to disagree. The men responsible for the Bill of Rights, which took effect in 1791, were still around a few years later when our country was physically invaded by foreign troops.
They were also around to pass the Alien & Sedition acts. National security vs freedom is something that will always be debated.
I didn't say it did. Your apparent lack of empathy for animals is still a sociopathic trait and is really creepy IMO.
I don't go out of my way to torture animals. I just don't break down crying and thinking it's barbaric to harvest them as resources (food, skins, jello, etc)
Unless you are willing to say you think it's random chance that - given broad equal opportunities - some people do far better than others then you've got to accept that grown adults hold chief responsibility for the way they turn out.
I agree people are responsible for how they turn out. My disagreement with you is passing judgement on people that are productive contributing members of society. Your sense of superiority and dismissing of people as "failures" is sociopathic.
Yes, indeed. That's not even remotely the thing as torturing an animal purely to make food 'tastier', however.
Many creatures suffer and die from production of computer equipment, mining and burning of coal, and smelting of copper for network wires, so you can enjoy your computer games? Just because it happens in 3rd world countries doesn't mean that it isn't happening, and the creatures exposed to acidic rivers, cyanide, and heavy metals enjoy a rather torturous death.
You might still think you'd be a winner in that scenario, but I would be astoundingly pissed at myself if I ever ended up in a job half as bad as that (e.g. telesales, traffic warden, burger flipper).
I would hate those jobs too. However, just because that's not the lifestyle choice you would take doesn't mean you are "better" or they are failures.
I have exactly squat in the way of qualifications or higher education
Why not? I left my home at 17 and worked my way through college because my parents couldn't afford to help me. Does that make you a failure? Of course not, just means we had different choices in life. As long as you are a contributing member in society then you are a success.
If you think that, try brutally kicking a dog in front of them or try and get them to watch a video of a slaughter house (cows, pigs, chickens) in action.
Watching a video of surgery on discovery channel makes people squeemish, doesn't mean they think it's wrong. I agree our society does overly sanitize things, and people should educate themselves about the food they eat, but I would expect most people would still accept the meat on their table just as generations before them did. As for dogs and cats, people have developed a special relationship with them, as they are often treated as family members rather than as animals.
I quite accept you might not care what happens to animals or even possibly other people - I've met several people with that attitude to animals and other people - it is sociopathic behaviour however (and generally frowned upon in western society).
I don't particularly care what happens to animals, that does not translate into me not caring about people. You are the one who passes judgement about people being failures because of what they do for a living.
When faced with a scenario like "Do you want to order (a) the veal (b) the free range game bird or the (c) vegetable bake?"
When faced with a scenario like "Do you want to" (a)Play World of Warcraft (b)Go outside and play Soccer (c)Go jogging
(a)Pollutes the environment in multiple ways (b)Has minimal environmental impact making the ball and field (c)Almost no impact
Why would anybody choose (a) over the equal (and in many ways better) alternatives? Because it's what they get more enjoyment from.
it's not like the minimum wage failures-at-life who work in rendering plants actually give a crap about animal welfare
what game are these people failing at? Life is about survival, if they work at the plant to make ends meet they are winning.
Typically, people say to themselves 'animals don't feel pain or fear like we do
Mostly people don't care.
I don't think anyone is claiming to be able to quantify life in a practical way (as if 1000 worms were equal to a single cow), but that doesn't invalidate choosing to be less, rather than more destructive
Where do you draw that line? You do realize the destruction caused in making your house, computer, clothes, etc. Wouldn't it be less destructive to just live on a farm and grow your own food?
but killing slowly moving crane flies with a bit of rolled up paper is like a level 60 ganking level 30's in Hillsbrad Foothills.
and where is the harm in that... they'll just respawn:P
Slashdot Mirror
No the former is science, the latter is bad science (plenty of bad science gets published)
I agree with that last part, most of the great games of 2006 were released late in the year (save for Galactic Civilizations 2 which didn't make the top 10 sales). Even then next year's list will still be dominated by the same names: Sims (3 or 4 spots), Warcraft, and Command & Conquer.
No, not all cops need to be programmers. Giving people the ability to leverage their talents to improve productivity is what a good employer does.
The fact that he used company time and that the product of his labor was directly related to his job, gives good reason for the software to be considered a work for hire.
It's good policy that if there is any question as to ownership, to explicitly negotiate that ahead of time; or at the very least have a clear firewall between your work and your personal pursuits.
Their's goes: Da da da da da da da
Mine goes: Da da da da da da da
It doesn't matter what system you use for everyday life as long as people are familiar with it. People understand what a pint of beer is, so why change?
Leadership is more than having ideas, it's about convincing people to go along with them; you can't eliminate the social aspects of running a society. Just as you can't eliminate the wealthy from strong influence of government. Members of the educated and wealthy lead revolutions, the lower classes are merely pawns rallied to the cause.
I would not eat it with a Wiimote
Fluorescent Green Bacon, not even a lick
But does the green bacon run Linux?
I agree people are responsible for how they turn out. My disagreement with you is passing judgement on people that are productive contributing members of society. Your sense of superiority and dismissing of people as "failures" is sociopathic.
Many creatures suffer and die from production of computer equipment, mining and burning of coal, and smelting of copper for network wires, so you can enjoy your computer games? Just because it happens in 3rd world countries doesn't mean that it isn't happening, and the creatures exposed to acidic rivers, cyanide, and heavy metals enjoy a rather torturous death.
Why not? I left my home at 17 and worked my way through college because my parents couldn't afford to help me. Does that make you a failure? Of course not, just means we had different choices in life. As long as you are a contributing member in society then you are a success.
Watching a video of surgery on discovery channel makes people squeemish, doesn't mean they think it's wrong. I agree our society does overly sanitize things, and people should educate themselves about the food they eat, but I would expect most people would still accept the meat on their table just as generations before them did. As for dogs and cats, people have developed a special relationship with them, as they are often treated as family members rather than as animals.
I don't particularly care what happens to animals, that does not translate into me not caring about people. You are the one who passes judgement about people being failures because of what they do for a living.
When faced with a scenario like "Do you want to"
(a)Play World of Warcraft
(b)Go outside and play Soccer
(c)Go jogging
(a)Pollutes the environment in multiple ways
(b)Has minimal environmental impact making the ball and field
(c)Almost no impact
Why would anybody choose (a) over the equal (and in many ways better) alternatives? Because it's what they get more enjoyment from.
Mostly people don't care.
Where do you draw that line? You do realize the destruction caused in making your house, computer, clothes, etc. Wouldn't it be less destructive to just live on a farm and grow your own food?
and where is the harm in that... they'll just respawn