If we're all moving to NM, I'm calling dibs on my mom's house. I'll take the bathroom! The kitchen is a close second choice. I'll charge for access to the toilet. I'll be rich!
Good analogy. The early centuries of Islam had quite a bit of success with jihad. So it's a great buzzword to some. I think Americans will be sticking with "war" for now.
It's a problem of history and symantics. Americans, and probably others, associate the word "war" with a concerted effort to destroy something they don't and shouldn't like (i.e. Nazis). So "war on poverty","war on drugs", etc makes quick sense to people. Unfortunately it's not quite the right word, conveys the wrong connotations, and is cliche. But no one has come up with anything better. Not that there's a shortage of candidates.
But if you think of one, you'll make big bucks as a speech writer.
I would like to announce that I will gladly handle the paperwork so that anyone can take advantage of tax exempt status. Just assign me all your copyrights so that we can proceed. Uh, nevermind the fine print...
Just teasing. I know that's not what's going on here. But hopefully people will check the fine print just in case.
I guess if the electrical and phone grids are fair game, digital communications are too. And if it saves a few lives because folks surrender because they can't email grandma, check the weather, or connect to iTunes (whereas it used to take a bullet to the head) then it's a good thing, right?
People love Apple because they're supposed to. Everything from the color schemes to how new products get introduced is designed to "enhance the brand identity." Do you like Coke or Pepsi? Not a whole lot of difference, but you likely have a preference. Same with Ford vs Chevy, Nike vs Adidas, and so on. Me, I hate Apple because their crappy file system destroyed my masters thesis years ago. Oh, and their crappy UI today. Again, it's perceptions. But perceptions turn into purchases (or not).
Growing up in Albuquerque, I got a chance to tour the machine they are using. Almost 20 years ago! One of the coolest aspects, besides the famous light show, is that they built the original machine for something like $10 mil and keep finding new uses for it. It's just a giant capacitor, so scientists keep thinking of new uses. I forget the orginal use. Light ion fusion reactor or something. Then it was converted to a heavy ion reactor. Now the Z-pinch configuration. It might have had a few incarnations in between. But it's great to see such a useful tool being resused for great science and that doesn't cost a billion dollars.
Oh, and Trekkies: the control room is, or was, has connections to the bridge of the Enterprise, including a places for Kirk et al with nameplates.
Except for a typo, that was a very effective, one might say valid, bit of international communication. Oh, wait. Maybe you meant "not the only valid means." Still, I wouldn't say that you are illiterate for such a slip. And I'll take your word on your hygiene.
Since sleep and dreaming are linked with learning, it could be the other way around. Rather than making a decision in your sleep that you will be satisfied with when away, you could be learning to accept the decision you made while awake (consciencely or unconsciencely). The next day you wake up believing you made a decision in your sleep but really just imprinted your previous decision more firmly.
That isn't to say you can't figure stuff out while asleep. I'm still glad my brain decided to solve a differential equation while sleeping. I sure wasted enough time working on it awake.
So who know. Maybe it's a constantly changing mix of solving and acceptance.
Correct! I was rather impressed at the time they we talking about cutting edge technology. It sort of offset the fact that Michael Knight got his new face because he has a metal plate in his forhead.
For a lot of folks, myself included, HDCP will negate the Blu-Ray. If you get downgraded content for not having the correct cables and TV, what's the point? Sure, next time I buy an HDTV it'll have more than component input. But by the time that happens players will be cheap and people will be looking forward to the PS4.
I had the same setup plus the cartrige reader with Flight Simulator. Ahh the hours spent flying to and fro on our 12 inch B&W tv. Oh, and I still have the stuff with the original packaging! Hope to sell it for the $100 I originally paid.
It will cost an extra $500 to get set up to sign your malware in order for it to install. Good thinking Microsoft. That extra 12.5% tax will make it totally uneconomical.
I've never been comfortable with software being patentable AND copywriteable. I think there are valid arguments for either. But they tend to be mutually exclusive arguments that rely on examples. Ok, so then let the publisher decide: you want to copywrite or patent? Copywrite and you get long protection, but others can implement your idea. Patent and you get broad protection, but others can literally copy portions of your software as long as they are missing an element from you patent.
I think it would be fun to watch people try to decide.
Then again it boils down to: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." So ultimately what should be done is whatever Congress says should be done. We elect Congress, but we aren't Congress. So you and I don't get to decide.
It makes sense until you pay attention to "until a patent is granted." That screws the whole thing up. Effectively he's proposing that patents get published immediately instead of after 18 months. Yeah, publications don't carry the same weight, but people still pay attention to them.
IFF you have to decide between short and patents, then it starts sounding attractive. Maybe it needs some tweeks, but it's a start.
You file, you automatically get a short patent. Validity is tested only when it's challenged, then it gets a full review. Both parties get to speak so validity is more stringent. If it passes, cool, it was deserving of a patent anyway. If it doesn't, it's dead. After 4 years, it's dead either way.
If you keep the "4 years from commercialize" part, you better set a time limit on commercialization (1 year?). And you only get to have claims on that embodiment.
Still, I'd go for the long patent. It often takes 4 years before something starts selling well. 20 years of protection seems safer. Maybe I like this proposal because I'd like to see others take that path.
I believe the idea is to lure people to the shorter life patent by offering a quicker process. The time it takes for a patent to issue can be a negative for the fast movers.
Because the purpose of having nukes and missles is to threaten others, not use. They are leverage in high stakes situations. Now a terrorist group would just blow stuff up and would rather be sneaky. But a nation will want everyone to know what they can do (i.e. lob a nuke into your backyard). But they would never actually use it unless they figured they were doomed anyway.
Which leads to the correlary: You don't actually need the capability, just for everyone else to believe you have it. The Soviets played during the Cuban missle crisis. Russia could be playing this game with their new missle. The US could be with it's defence sheild. And Saddam certainly played it (he may not have had WMD, but used the uncertainty to appear more powerful than he actually was).
So weapons (and fake weapons) are just a way of coercing others into giving you what you want. Using them is just one way of doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're all moving to NM, I'm calling dibs on my mom's house. I'll take the bathroom! The kitchen is a close second choice. I'll charge for access to the toilet. I'll be rich!
Good analogy. The early centuries of Islam had quite a bit of success with jihad. So it's a great buzzword to some.
I think Americans will be sticking with "war" for now.
It's a problem of history and symantics. Americans, and probably others, associate the word "war" with a concerted effort to destroy something they don't and shouldn't like (i.e. Nazis). So "war on poverty","war on drugs", etc makes quick sense to people. Unfortunately it's not quite the right word, conveys the wrong connotations, and is cliche. But no one has come up with anything better. Not that there's a shortage of candidates.
But if you think of one, you'll make big bucks as a speech writer.
I would like to announce that I will gladly handle the paperwork so that anyone can take advantage of tax exempt status. Just assign me all your copyrights so that we can proceed. Uh, nevermind the fine print...
Just teasing. I know that's not what's going on here. But hopefully people will check the fine print just in case.
I guess if the electrical and phone grids are fair game, digital communications are too. And if it saves a few lives because folks surrender because they can't email grandma, check the weather, or connect to iTunes (whereas it used to take a bullet to the head) then it's a good thing, right?
People love Apple because they're supposed to. Everything from the color schemes to how new products get introduced is designed to "enhance the brand identity." Do you like Coke or Pepsi? Not a whole lot of difference, but you likely have a preference. Same with Ford vs Chevy, Nike vs Adidas, and so on.
Me, I hate Apple because their crappy file system destroyed my masters thesis years ago. Oh, and their crappy UI today. Again, it's perceptions. But perceptions turn into purchases (or not).
Wow, you must drive really fast dude! 21 miles in 45 femtosecond! What's your secret?
Ok, so it's not spying. But the explosion could be detected from orbit. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002
IANAL and may be totally off base, but wouldn't estopple apply if MS knew of violations and did nothing?
Growing up in Albuquerque, I got a chance to tour the machine they are using. Almost 20 years ago! One of the coolest aspects, besides the famous light show, is that they built the original machine for something like $10 mil and keep finding new uses for it. It's just a giant capacitor, so scientists keep thinking of new uses. I forget the orginal use. Light ion fusion reactor or something. Then it was converted to a heavy ion reactor. Now the Z-pinch configuration. It might have had a few incarnations in between. But it's great to see such a useful tool being resused for great science and that doesn't cost a billion dollars.
Oh, and Trekkies: the control room is, or was, has connections to the bridge of the Enterprise, including a places for Kirk et al with nameplates.
Oh, wait. I thought we were playing buzzword bingo.
http://isd.usc.edu/~karl/Bingo/
Except for a typo, that was a very effective, one might say valid, bit of international communication.
Oh, wait. Maybe you meant "not the only valid means." Still, I wouldn't say that you are illiterate for such a slip. And I'll take your word on your hygiene.
I think you're just plotting to make Jesse "The Body" Ventura our next president.
The application is based on a provisional so the actual priority date is June 29th, 2000.
That isn't to say you can't figure stuff out while asleep. I'm still glad my brain decided to solve a differential equation while sleeping. I sure wasted enough time working on it awake.
So who know. Maybe it's a constantly changing mix of solving and acceptance.
UGS is also porting software. http://www.ugs.com/about_us/press/press.shtml?id=4 367
Personally, I'd like to see SolidWorks ported. Yes, I ditched Acad for solid modelers 12 years ago and would be very reluctant to go back.
Correct! I was rather impressed at the time they we talking about cutting edge technology. It sort of offset the fact that Michael Knight got his new face because he has a metal plate in his forhead.
Ok, for 10 points, can you tell me what famous tv show revolving around a black car featured magnetic memory as a plot point in its first episode?
For a lot of folks, myself included, HDCP will negate the Blu-Ray. If you get downgraded content for not having the correct cables and TV, what's the point? Sure, next time I buy an HDTV it'll have more than component input. But by the time that happens players will be cheap and people will be looking forward to the PS4.
I had the same setup plus the cartrige reader with Flight Simulator. Ahh the hours spent flying to and fro on our 12 inch B&W tv. Oh, and I still have the stuff with the original packaging! Hope to sell it for the $100 I originally paid.
It will cost an extra $500 to get set up to sign your malware in order for it to install. Good thinking Microsoft. That extra 12.5% tax will make it totally uneconomical.
I've never been comfortable with software being patentable AND copywriteable. I think there are valid arguments for either. But they tend to be mutually exclusive arguments that rely on examples. Ok, so then let the publisher decide: you want to copywrite or patent? Copywrite and you get long protection, but others can implement your idea. Patent and you get broad protection, but others can literally copy portions of your software as long as they are missing an element from you patent.
I think it would be fun to watch people try to decide.
Then again it boils down to: "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." So ultimately what should be done is whatever Congress says should be done. We elect Congress, but we aren't Congress. So you and I don't get to decide.
Sorry. Tangent...
It makes sense until you pay attention to "until a patent is granted." That screws the whole thing up. Effectively he's proposing that patents get published immediately instead of after 18 months. Yeah, publications don't carry the same weight, but people still pay attention to them. IFF you have to decide between short and patents, then it starts sounding attractive. Maybe it needs some tweeks, but it's a start. You file, you automatically get a short patent. Validity is tested only when it's challenged, then it gets a full review. Both parties get to speak so validity is more stringent. If it passes, cool, it was deserving of a patent anyway. If it doesn't, it's dead. After 4 years, it's dead either way. If you keep the "4 years from commercialize" part, you better set a time limit on commercialization (1 year?). And you only get to have claims on that embodiment. Still, I'd go for the long patent. It often takes 4 years before something starts selling well. 20 years of protection seems safer. Maybe I like this proposal because I'd like to see others take that path.
I believe the idea is to lure people to the shorter life patent by offering a quicker process. The time it takes for a patent to issue can be a negative for the fast movers.
Because the purpose of having nukes and missles is to threaten others, not use. They are leverage in high stakes situations. Now a terrorist group would just blow stuff up and would rather be sneaky. But a nation will want everyone to know what they can do (i.e. lob a nuke into your backyard). But they would never actually use it unless they figured they were doomed anyway.
Which leads to the correlary: You don't actually need the capability, just for everyone else to believe you have it. The Soviets played during the Cuban missle crisis. Russia could be playing this game with their new missle. The US could be with it's defence sheild. And Saddam certainly played it (he may not have had WMD, but used the uncertainty to appear more powerful than he actually was).
So weapons (and fake weapons) are just a way of coercing others into giving you what you want. Using them is just one way of doing that.