Personally, I find epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics more interesting than this article. It also explains the "mysterious process" of cell types.
Back in grad school, someone accidentally erased every user file on our group's Mac. Including my thesis! Unerasing was a nightmare (our mac "guru" wasn't much help). We got the data back, but none of it had the correct data fork associated with it. Everything got treated as an ascii text file.
nevermind. I was remembering and old article talking about the genetic uniqueness of yeast. Guess it's still considered a fungus.
On the other hand, why are you and I getting worked up about something that was meant as a joke?
It already does. Consider this: The youth are our future. We send youth to college. College revolves around booze. Booze is a waste product of bacteria. Therefore our future revolves around bacteria waste.
I'm not a regular gamer, so cheat codes are a great way to extract a little fun. An hour or two of grinding is ok, if it's fun. But if things drag on, time to cheat, get some fun out of this beast of a game, then stick it in a closet.
He did qualify his statement by saying he's a scientist. Heck, I can remember in grad school realizing I hadn't SEEN a woman in 3 weeks. At which point XX chromosomes == babe.
You can keep your clue. Dude, I've seen more bogus patents that you'll ever want to. But, they are presumed still valid. Not a big deal. You're thinking WTF? The trick is the claim is limited by prior art. Boolean logic. Claims cover what is stated in them as defined in the specification, but not prior art. They can cover effectively a null set. The patent holder is left holding an empty bag.
Oh, and nice job with your own circular logic. Again, go learn about patents and stop regurgitating nonsense because it serves your preconceptions. Yes, the system has flaws. But you don't seem to know enough to understand what they are.
Richard Feynman used to drive a van with funny squiggle grafitti on it. They are very similar to figures used to describe quantum chromodynamics. By coincidence, Feynman was a physicist noted for developing the figures. What are the odds?
Upgrades are patentable, as long as they contain a new, non-obvious element. The patent claims will be limited by prior art, which might make the claims so narrow as to be worthless. But they can still be valid claims.
Example: Imaging being the first to look at umbrellas and think "Hey, I'm going to add a loop on the handle to help carry it." The function of the umbrella is still the same. But by adding the new element, you have something patentable. Now your patent can only prevent people from putting a loop on umbrellas. All other designs are fair game for anyone. But if that loop turns out to be a great boon to humanity (because people are tired of holding umbrellas the conventional way), it may be very narrow but valuble. And your umbrella company may become rich. But it's still just an upgrade. And protectable.
To all of you shooting from the hip: STOP! You're just making a fool of yourself. Read the claims. Read them in light of the description of the patent. And learn patent terminology. Then you can make some general statements. And if it's only a publication (like this navy one), not a patent, don't even bother with that. If you must draw a conclusion, and you're sure this is about a firewall, then at least go the step to know they are claiming a type of firewall. Which is perfectly legit (as long as it contains a new, non-obvious element). If you think otherwise, go learn about patents, come back, and then we'll talk.
PS:plurality is a very common patent term. It means more than one (duh!). Not even worth making a comment about, but someone felt compelled to jabber about it.
Or how about an actual affidavit?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 13.htm Nothing pretty about that.
But... note that most chemicals are poisonous. Feedstocks have lots of uses. No sinister revelation there. It's not like we custom designed and built chemical plants for chemical munitions in Iraq like some European countries. The biological sources were a dumb mistake, and not authorized. There's a biological supply company that would sell to anyone with a credit card for legitimate research. Obviously that was a stupid loophole, but not a special one for Iraq. I'm not disputing the US was involved. But it seems peculiar that the US seems to be the only nation taking any blame. And we certainly weren't the ones getting rich selling to them (cough France & USSR cough).
Not to debate your logic, but the problem lies in that the only word Americans know for a broad conflict is 'war'. War on Poverty, War on Terror, Cold War, Flame War, etc. You further compound the mistake by attacking the conflict because it doesn't fit the fundimental definition of 'war.' Get past the semantics.
Oddly, it wasn't the US that provided the chemical or conventional weapons to Iraq. Conventional weapons were mostly of the Warsaw Pact variety or of French origin (AK47,T60,Exocet, etc). Chemical weapons depended heavily on German and Dutch sources. Delivery systems were home grown variants of Soviet design.
The US did provide satellite intellegence and agricultural loan guarantees to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. We made things easier for them to get conventional weapons, but we didn't supply them.
We had a system like this on a student run server in 1991 at NMSU. The server was continually trying to crack passwords. When it did, you got an automatic email telling you of the crack and to change your password.
I thought it had two things going for it. Suceptible passwords were weeded out and in theory your password should be cracked by a friendly before someone else.
I was working the IT help desk at our very large company in 1995 when some guy calls the help desk needing to hook up a Zip-drive to a SCSI connection to review some important files. He had had the Zip-drive shipped along with the disks from the company we were in negotiations with. My response was "What's a Zip-drive?"
Wait, I've got that mixed up. I was the one calling and it was the dork at the help desk who didn't know what a Zip-drive was. The story gets me confused because the engineer was the one who had to explain things to the IT wiz.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoopie!
Personally, I find epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics more interesting than this article. It also explains the "mysterious process" of cell types.
By that standard, so was the V2. No passengers though.
How about Wan Hu legend in the 16th century?
Sounds similar to moldvite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavite
It looked wrong even as I wrote it. now I remember.
Back in grad school, someone accidentally erased every user file on our group's Mac. Including my thesis! Unerasing was a nightmare (our mac "guru" wasn't much help). We got the data back, but none of it had the correct data fork associated with it. Everything got treated as an ascii text file.
I spit on your grave, OS7!
nevermind. I was remembering and old article talking about the genetic uniqueness of yeast. Guess it's still considered a fungus. On the other hand, why are you and I getting worked up about something that was meant as a joke?
If you want to get nit picky, it isn't a fungus either.
Wow, evidence of Tnuctipun technology here on Earth.
It already does. Consider this:
The youth are our future.
We send youth to college.
College revolves around booze.
Booze is a waste product of bacteria.
Therefore our future revolves around bacteria waste.
I'm not a regular gamer, so cheat codes are a great way to extract a little fun. An hour or two of grinding is ok, if it's fun. But if things drag on, time to cheat, get some fun out of this beast of a game, then stick it in a closet.
I'm glad someone gets the joke. The story is part of it.
He did qualify his statement by saying he's a scientist. Heck, I can remember in grad school realizing I hadn't SEEN a woman in 3 weeks. At which point XX chromosomes == babe.
An odd thought occured skimming your post. Not a real opinion, but a funny take on things.
Maybe society views marriage as bad. And folks are just trying to quarantine it to heterosexuals to limit the damage. Mightly noble of them, eh?
You can keep your clue. Dude, I've seen more bogus patents that you'll ever want to. But, they are presumed still valid. Not a big deal. You're thinking WTF? The trick is the claim is limited by prior art. Boolean logic. Claims cover what is stated in them as defined in the specification, but not prior art. They can cover effectively a null set. The patent holder is left holding an empty bag.
Oh, and nice job with your own circular logic. Again, go learn about patents and stop regurgitating nonsense because it serves your preconceptions. Yes, the system has flaws. But you don't seem to know enough to understand what they are.
Richard Feynman used to drive a van with funny squiggle grafitti on it. They are very similar to figures used to describe quantum chromodynamics. By coincidence, Feynman was a physicist noted for developing the figures. What are the odds?
You're right: it should have been handled in the title. I doubt that my rant would have much effect on people going nuts. But it felt good ranting.
Upgrades are patentable, as long as they contain a new, non-obvious element. The patent claims will be limited by prior art, which might make the claims so narrow as to be worthless. But they can still be valid claims.
Example: Imaging being the first to look at umbrellas and think "Hey, I'm going to add a loop on the handle to help carry it." The function of the umbrella is still the same. But by adding the new element, you have something patentable. Now your patent can only prevent people from putting a loop on umbrellas. All other designs are fair game for anyone. But if that loop turns out to be a great boon to humanity (because people are tired of holding umbrellas the conventional way), it may be very narrow but valuble. And your umbrella company may become rich. But it's still just an upgrade. And protectable.
To all of you shooting from the hip: STOP! You're just making a fool of yourself.
Read the claims. Read them in light of the description of the patent. And learn patent terminology. Then you can make some general statements. And if it's only a publication (like this navy one), not a patent, don't even bother with that.
If you must draw a conclusion, and you're sure this is about a firewall, then at least go the step to know they are claiming a type of firewall. Which is perfectly legit (as long as it contains a new, non-obvious element). If you think otherwise, go learn about patents, come back, and then we'll talk.
PS:plurality is a very common patent term. It means more than one (duh!). Not even worth making a comment about, but someone felt compelled to jabber about it.
Oh, they get blame for smearing the definition too.
Or how about an actual affidavit? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 13.htm Nothing pretty about that.
... note that most chemicals are poisonous. Feedstocks have lots of uses. No sinister revelation there. It's not like we custom designed and built chemical plants for chemical munitions in Iraq like some European countries. The biological sources were a dumb mistake, and not authorized. There's a biological supply company that would sell to anyone with a credit card for legitimate research. Obviously that was a stupid loophole, but not a special one for Iraq. I'm not disputing the US was involved. But it seems peculiar that the US seems to be the only nation taking any blame. And we certainly weren't the ones getting rich selling to them (cough France & USSR cough).
But
Not to debate your logic, but the problem lies in that the only word Americans know for a broad conflict is 'war'. War on Poverty, War on Terror, Cold War, Flame War, etc. You further compound the mistake by attacking the conflict because it doesn't fit the fundimental definition of 'war.' Get past the semantics.
Oddly, it wasn't the US that provided the chemical or conventional weapons to Iraq. Conventional weapons were mostly of the Warsaw Pact variety or of French origin (AK47,T60,Exocet, etc). Chemical weapons depended heavily on German and Dutch sources. Delivery systems were home grown variants of Soviet design.
The US did provide satellite intellegence and agricultural loan guarantees to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. We made things easier for them to get conventional weapons, but we didn't supply them.
We had a system like this on a student run server in 1991 at NMSU. The server was continually trying to crack passwords. When it did, you got an automatic email telling you of the crack and to change your password.
I thought it had two things going for it. Suceptible passwords were weeded out and in theory your password should be cracked by a friendly before someone else.
I was working the IT help desk at our very large company in 1995 when some guy calls the help desk needing to hook up a Zip-drive to a SCSI connection to review some important files. He had had the Zip-drive shipped along with the disks from the company we were in negotiations with. My response was "What's a Zip-drive?"
Wait, I've got that mixed up. I was the one calling and it was the dork at the help desk who didn't know what a Zip-drive was. The story gets me confused because the engineer was the one who had to explain things to the IT wiz.
"It holds 100 meg." "Cool!"