So going with Apple is like going to a bar with a very high cover charge and open drink bar. Once you've paid through the nose to get in, it's the same drinks as everywhere else in a fancier glass, but at no charge.
I've been using a UMA enabled Nokia 6086 for years. My carrier, Cincinnati Bell, just charges $10/month for the service (on top of the usual $30/mo). The sound quality is indistinguishable. And UMA calls count as local calls (which are unlimited minutes to any other Cincinnati Bell phone). In other words, if I'm in France and make a UMA call to my wife in Japan, and we are both using UMA, it's counts as a local Cincinnati USA call. No additional charges.
1 caveat - you may have to enter a WEP key, which is a pain. But the phone stores that access point.
Oh, and the phone acts as a wifi detector. All with a cheap, fairly obsolete phone.
I hear that Nicolaus Otto has made great strides in the confined ignition of distillates. But work by Rudolf Diesel my lead to a even more efficient version.
Cause: "to get rid of the junk that appears on these multipage articles." Effect: "move the cursor up to the address bar and deliberately click the 'READER' button."
No one held a gun to your head, but you were certainly sound like you were forced. We're all forced to do things we'd rather not do.
How about when you share a computer, like my wife and I do? We don't close the other person's session, we just open a new tab. I almost wish didn't run adblock. What demographic does titanium billet, computer parts, + (whatever girly stuff my wife is into at the time) put you in?
Fair enough. Your description of pharmokinetics isn't half bad. I still stand by the statement that quantity matters, not concentration. i.e. 1 ml of 100% vs 100 ml of 10%. Getting worked up the way some people are about concentration, not dumping heads and tails, etc etc misses the main point that if you drink beer concentrate, it's pretty much the same as drinking beer (and exactly the same if you drank some water with it).
To tell the truth, I've wondered about the methanol level in some of the strong beers. The type of yeast and other chemistry affects yield of ethanol and methanol. It's been optimized for centuries to minimize bad beer. That probably includes minimizing methanol to avoid hangovers. So I've been curious how messing with tradition might produce more unwanted organic compounds.
It's not technology leaps, it's market segmentation.
Segment 1: Color, plus some feature, minus others. $500
Segment 2: Grey-scale, plus some features, minus others. $200
Segment 3: Color, plus keyboard, plus some features, minus others. $300
And so on.
Concentration of methanol has nothing to do with it. It's quantity.
1 pint of distilled beer is exactly the same as 10 pints of normal beer except for removing 90% of the water. Drinking either will get you just as drunk, just as hung over, etc. Ok, some difference due to hydration levels, but methanol is the least of your concerns.
Oh, I don't have a side. I just try to educate people about patents one step at a time. This seemed a good opportunity. I'm by no means a patent expert, but deal with them (patents and experts) enough to get frustrated at all the misinformation out there.
I wouldn't be surprised if Salk was treating it as a trade secret. More out of hubris than anything else. Scientists all too often keep technologies secret as part of the "I'm smarter than you" game to win recognition, influence and grant money. But I'm more inclined to agree with you that they weren't deliberately keeping it a secret, they just hadn't disseminated the technique either.
Here's a story you'll appreciate: I developed some technology for an employer. Much of it they patented. Some they decided not to. A couple times they designated the ideas as trade secrets and gave me a nice wooden plaque... that describes the trade secret. Suitable for hanging on my wall, even though I don't work there anymore.
You see, there is a very popular movie sequel out this summer called Iron Man 2 based on a comic book of the same name. It's about a rich guy who builds a suit that flies and beats up bad guys.
In an attempt to parody the movie, some people replaced "Man" with "Baby" and made a short clip that resembles the movie in many ways, including the suit and fighting bad guys.
The known or used part still pertains to public knowledge. That's the purpose of patents: to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets. If the invention was being used secretly, a second party can independently discover the invention and patent it. The first party can't come back and say "sorry, invalid patent, we were using that before you." Patent law would respond "tough shit, you should have filed then".
We won't go into interferences, first to invent, swearing back, etc. It gets even more complicated. But those only come into play if both parties filed.
It would seem that Salk Institute can prove that it is prior art (i.e. that they published this technique prior to any patent filings by StemCells), invalidating the patent claim by StemCells.
Two small changes from what you wrote, but critical. Prior art must be public and predate patent filings (not necessarily predate claims).
It's my job to write, review, and use protocols that involve in vitro and in vivo testing. In vivo covers animal and human testing. By no means an expert, but at least very familiar with testing for safety and efficacy.
A sample size of 16 is not extraordinarily small. It's actually very common. Because it depends on they type of study, the type of statistics, and the confidence you're aiming for. Large animal studies are expensive. Sometimes more so than human studies. Not to mention there is a strong push to limit the number of animals used to the absolute minimum for ethical reasons (which results in the interesting phenomena of using one animal for two unrelated tests. For example, these same sheep might have had bullet proof vests strapped to them next and shot. Two different tests, but only 1 set of animals. But that a whole different story).
For a lot of tests, 1 to 5 animals is pretty common. They are often screening tests, looking for any evidence of a problem. Going up to 10 animals gives you some useful data for statistical analysis. 16 is not an unreasonable number. At some point, your statistical error drops below the error of using an animal model (i.e. 1 actual meth head might tell you more than 100 sheep).
The massive studies you are thinking of are when you are comparing two treatments. Trying to prove the superiority of one treatment over another takes a huge amount of data. Those are the ones you hear about on the news, which might be where your confusion comes from.
Also, most studies are funded by companies. They are the ones most interested in knowing and showing the results. I have yet to see bad results hidden. The reasoning there is if you are selling bad product, best to find out first and fix it or stop selling it. Bad results don't stay hidden, so it's stupid to try. When publishing good results, you fully disclose the methodology and any conflicts. It's science, so if the study is done right, conflicts don't matter. It can be replicated.
Your projecting your needs onto teens. Worst kind of marketing mistake. Not sure if you've noticed, but teens haven't been buying smart phones. Text messaging, sending pictures/audio/video, those are their core needs. Most cheap phones do that. Toss in the ability to browse Facebook or whatever, play some music, store embarrassing pictures of friends and you've got them covered.
Email and dozens of apps are extras not really needed. So why would a teen get an iPhone, much less a Blackberry? If you've got the money, sure, go for a true smart phone for the coolness factor if that's your thing. If money matters, these are very cleverly positioned. If anything kills them, it's the MS connection.
Re:This is not quite true.
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If being required to pay out 85% for medical care is the only restriction, then it actually will encourage an increase in medical costs. Look at it this way: If what they pay out doubles, they can charge double and keep double. Staff is a fixed cost, so all that extra dough becomes profit.
Slashdot Mirror
So going with Apple is like going to a bar with a very high cover charge and open drink bar. Once you've paid through the nose to get in, it's the same drinks as everywhere else in a fancier glass, but at no charge.
Jesus saves, Buddha makes incremental backups.
I've been using a UMA enabled Nokia 6086 for years. My carrier, Cincinnati Bell, just charges $10/month for the service (on top of the usual $30/mo). The sound quality is indistinguishable. And UMA calls count as local calls (which are unlimited minutes to any other Cincinnati Bell phone). In other words, if I'm in France and make a UMA call to my wife in Japan, and we are both using UMA, it's counts as a local Cincinnati USA call. No additional charges. 1 caveat - you may have to enter a WEP key, which is a pain. But the phone stores that access point. Oh, and the phone acts as a wifi detector. All with a cheap, fairly obsolete phone.
I hear that Nicolaus Otto has made great strides in the confined ignition of distillates. But work by Rudolf Diesel my lead to a even more efficient version.
Wow, that didn't take long!
Under Breaking News on BBC: "Barack Obama calls for clean energy push"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10313921.stm
Cause: "to get rid of the junk that appears on these multipage articles."
Effect: "move the cursor up to the address bar and deliberately click the 'READER' button."
No one held a gun to your head, but you were certainly sound like you were forced. We're all forced to do things we'd rather not do.
I'm not criticizing, more like sympathizing.
How about when you share a computer, like my wife and I do? We don't close the other person's session, we just open a new tab. I almost wish didn't run adblock. What demographic does titanium billet, computer parts, + (whatever girly stuff my wife is into at the time) put you in?
Nevermind, I'm on Slashdot. Duh!
No, send a couple Zimbabwe trillion dollar bills, then demand half a trillion in change.
No, they just want more Easter Eggs embedded in software.
Fair enough. Your description of pharmokinetics isn't half bad. I still stand by the statement that quantity matters, not concentration. i.e. 1 ml of 100% vs 100 ml of 10%. Getting worked up the way some people are about concentration, not dumping heads and tails, etc etc misses the main point that if you drink beer concentrate, it's pretty much the same as drinking beer (and exactly the same if you drank some water with it).
To tell the truth, I've wondered about the methanol level in some of the strong beers. The type of yeast and other chemistry affects yield of ethanol and methanol. It's been optimized for centuries to minimize bad beer. That probably includes minimizing methanol to avoid hangovers. So I've been curious how messing with tradition might produce more unwanted organic compounds.
It's not technology leaps, it's market segmentation. Segment 1: Color, plus some feature, minus others. $500 Segment 2: Grey-scale, plus some features, minus others. $200 Segment 3: Color, plus keyboard, plus some features, minus others. $300 And so on.
http://www.wordworld.com/ Then again, the actual claims of the patent may be something entirely different than the summary.
Concentration of methanol has nothing to do with it. It's quantity.
1 pint of distilled beer is exactly the same as 10 pints of normal beer except for removing 90% of the water. Drinking either will get you just as drunk, just as hung over, etc. Ok, some difference due to hydration levels, but methanol is the least of your concerns.
Distilling spirits is illegal. Distilling alternative fuels is legal.
You mean the same methanol that was in the normal beer to begin with?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/android-market-share-passes-iphones-npd-data-2010-05-10
Oh, I don't have a side. I just try to educate people about patents one step at a time. This seemed a good opportunity. I'm by no means a patent expert, but deal with them (patents and experts) enough to get frustrated at all the misinformation out there. I wouldn't be surprised if Salk was treating it as a trade secret. More out of hubris than anything else. Scientists all too often keep technologies secret as part of the "I'm smarter than you" game to win recognition, influence and grant money. But I'm more inclined to agree with you that they weren't deliberately keeping it a secret, they just hadn't disseminated the technique either. Here's a story you'll appreciate: I developed some technology for an employer. Much of it they patented. Some they decided not to. A couple times they designated the ideas as trade secrets and gave me a nice wooden plaque ... that describes the trade secret. Suitable for hanging on my wall, even though I don't work there anymore.
You see, there is a very popular movie sequel out this summer called Iron Man 2 based on a comic book of the same name. It's about a rich guy who builds a suit that flies and beats up bad guys.
In an attempt to parody the movie, some people replaced "Man" with "Baby" and made a short clip that resembles the movie in many ways, including the suit and fighting bad guys.
But with a baby.
If you are still confused, try google.
I'm waiting for Chrome 6 ... only because I like the sound of hexavalent chromium.
The known or used part still pertains to public knowledge. That's the purpose of patents: to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets. If the invention was being used secretly, a second party can independently discover the invention and patent it. The first party can't come back and say "sorry, invalid patent, we were using that before you." Patent law would respond "tough shit, you should have filed then".
We won't go into interferences, first to invent, swearing back, etc. It gets even more complicated. But those only come into play if both parties filed.
Two small changes from what you wrote, but critical. Prior art must be public and predate patent filings (not necessarily predate claims).
Guaranteed patent-free: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
Copy anything you want except the trademarks.
It's my job to write, review, and use protocols that involve in vitro and in vivo testing. In vivo covers animal and human testing. By no means an expert, but at least very familiar with testing for safety and efficacy.
A sample size of 16 is not extraordinarily small. It's actually very common. Because it depends on they type of study, the type of statistics, and the confidence you're aiming for. Large animal studies are expensive. Sometimes more so than human studies. Not to mention there is a strong push to limit the number of animals used to the absolute minimum for ethical reasons (which results in the interesting phenomena of using one animal for two unrelated tests. For example, these same sheep might have had bullet proof vests strapped to them next and shot. Two different tests, but only 1 set of animals. But that a whole different story).
For a lot of tests, 1 to 5 animals is pretty common. They are often screening tests, looking for any evidence of a problem. Going up to 10 animals gives you some useful data for statistical analysis. 16 is not an unreasonable number. At some point, your statistical error drops below the error of using an animal model (i.e. 1 actual meth head might tell you more than 100 sheep).
The massive studies you are thinking of are when you are comparing two treatments. Trying to prove the superiority of one treatment over another takes a huge amount of data. Those are the ones you hear about on the news, which might be where your confusion comes from.
Also, most studies are funded by companies. They are the ones most interested in knowing and showing the results. I have yet to see bad results hidden. The reasoning there is if you are selling bad product, best to find out first and fix it or stop selling it. Bad results don't stay hidden, so it's stupid to try. When publishing good results, you fully disclose the methodology and any conflicts. It's science, so if the study is done right, conflicts don't matter. It can be replicated.
Your projecting your needs onto teens. Worst kind of marketing mistake. Not sure if you've noticed, but teens haven't been buying smart phones. Text messaging, sending pictures/audio/video, those are their core needs. Most cheap phones do that. Toss in the ability to browse Facebook or whatever, play some music, store embarrassing pictures of friends and you've got them covered. Email and dozens of apps are extras not really needed. So why would a teen get an iPhone, much less a Blackberry? If you've got the money, sure, go for a true smart phone for the coolness factor if that's your thing. If money matters, these are very cleverly positioned. If anything kills them, it's the MS connection.
If being required to pay out 85% for medical care is the only restriction, then it actually will encourage an increase in medical costs. Look at it this way: If what they pay out doubles, they can charge double and keep double. Staff is a fixed cost, so all that extra dough becomes profit.