Oh, it will keep working in countries where evolution is just a theory.
Bert
Employer has not be heard of for about ever
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 1
He is a Jesuit, supposedly more the thinking type of priest. Let's see how long it takes him to figure out that his employer never shows up at the office, never gives any instruction, and doesn't pay his salary. How long will it take him to doubt the existence of his employer and tell the world about that?
So, we could have the full sequences of many many people of different origin, not to mention of many different animals. While it would require quite a bit of data-crunching, I hope that it allows us to look back into our distant past, learning more about evolution.
Bert And if it brings some intolerant religious folks to take their favorite myth book a little less serious, that is a very very nice bonus.
Is the killing of the unborn babies worth than the death of even more unborn babies? Nature aborts many unborn babies, usually because of some defect. That's nice because people prefer healthy babies anyway because that suits them (and the babies) better. In the case of a relative, her pregnancies went wrong because she was too sensitive to all the hormone swings going on (she only conceived her kids after those hormones were tamed with suppositories. Do you want to entertain a case where the earlier miscarriages were death by negligence by her/her doctors?).
It works like this: When a woman has her period, or a man masturbates, potential life goes down the drain. Nobody gives a damn. If woman A doesn't wants to have a baby, is late, but she then resumes having her period, she will be happy about that. She had been pregnant, but it stopped. If woman B wants to have a baby, is late, but then resumes having her period, she will be sad about that. Now, take the case of woman B if in another attempt she has a miscarriage after 7 months. Do you think she is as sad about that situation as she was in the first instance of being late? I think it is safe to say there will be a difference in sadness. She will be sadder in the second case. So, there is a gradual change in perception during the stages of pregnancy. In the beginning, the starting human life is not so valuable. The older it gets, the more it becomes so. Unfortunately, one has to draw the line somewhere. If the line were drawn at 8 months, I would agree with you. But that is not where the line is. Any baby has the right to be welcome, in an environment that can support its needs.
Bert Not a sociopath. Just more interested in meeting the needs of every baby that is born
"So you are actually for outlawing speech then. Seems like whenever someone starts off by saying they are anti-censorship, it really means they are pro-censorship."
They are free to believe what they want. They are just not free to coerce anyone to join their club. And it should be free for others to call out lies spread.
If I have a religion promoting human sacrifices or messing with underage virgins, I don't think it takes you take long to realize that there are limits to what a religion can propagate. If only religious people were convinced that their god is all powerful, and that he can handle it in the afterlife. But nooo, they can't resist their urge to act on what they know their god exactly wants.
Patent attorney here. If I don't make sure that enough info is in the application, the Examiner may call me out on that. It is not allowed to provide the information later on. It is a fatal flaw and the patent application is dead. The applicant will not be amused and could hold me liable. I do make sure that more than enough examples are present. As I say: the inventor's grandmother has to be able to understand it.
Bert Patents: Open source information (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/) before the term was coined.
"In order to be found in violation of this patent, your violation must satisfy all the claims listed on the patent. "
Very wrong. If you satisfy only a single *independent* claim you violate the patent. The dependent claims (that is, the ones that refer to one above, are there for the patentee/applicant for limitation of the independent claim should that not be patentable).
You violate an independent claim if you do EVERYTHING that is in that *independent* claim. If you do, the case is clear-cut. If you don't, you ma If only it were that easy: There could be some leeway in the interpretation of the claim that makes that the claim is interpreted a bit broader.
Do mind that a patent can have more than one independent claim (three is not uncommon in the US).
If you infringe an independent claim, it is worthwhile to figure out whether more relevant prior art exists than considered during the patent procedure. A list of the prior art considered is found on the front page of the patent. There is a chance that the patent got granted broader than warranted. It could be that you don't infringe after limitation of the claim.
Bert Patent attorney (not a lawyer; that's something different).
You can buy drainage pipes for the shower that are basically heat exchangers. Cold water is passed through them (in countercurrent with the water draining from the shower) before it goes to the shower head. Of course, you still have to add some hot water in the mixing faucet, but thermal energy is saved.
"Until Apple came along, hardware and software companies armed themselves with patents to ward off threats from trolls, or as a defensive measure alone. "
It is not a defense again trolls. Your own patents don't give you any right to do what you're doing. A patent gives a right to forbid others. So, if you infringe a troll's patent, your own patent portfolio won't help. As a troll doesn't do anything productive himself, he won't be infringing so you can't check your own patent portfolio to get leverage in that area.
"Worse, they are using these patents to try and secure billions as 'security money' instead of competing in the markets based on the superiority of their products."
I don't know how that would work, and I don't think that Apple's billions originate from much else than sales of their products and operation of their stores.
"A patent regime does not sit well with the FOSS philosophy"
I'm a patent attorney and I agree with the issue that there should be no patents on software. Patents are there to avoid people from innovating because it is cheaper to copy than to invest in research and development. That doesn't hold for software area, where people are innovating anyway. Also, in contrast to a regular patent, a software patent doesn't teach the person skilled in the art (a developer) very much. Finally, once a patented product is sold the patentee no longer has any control over it. People are free to do with it what they want. Not so with software. And with software, it probably won't run on your machine, and won't interact with what you want, and you're not free to modify it.
I also agree with the lubricous amounts of money for damages in case of infringement.
Thanks. Back in the early nineties I bought a neural network program to play with. I couldn't get it to learn anything (except for the XOR etc. examples) even when it was so easy (range of boiling points of hydrocarbons depending on the number of carbon atoms. Predict the boiling point of the next one). So when I read about advances in computing power I knew that wasn't the reason. Your remark on back propagation could be the explanation because that was what this network did.
You think everyone in a household needs his own vacuum cleaner? Each his own living room to be heated? Lots of stuff (such as food) is cheaper in bigger packages. Etc. etc. etc.
Do you know there are countries where it is an offense to show on TV a tiny bit of a normally covered body part anyone has and/or has seen before, but showing violent movies and dead people is not?
So yes, an open lifestyle is Evil whereas crushing someone's skull is fine (as long as it is not yours or mine).
Bert Warning: There was sarcasm in this post (albeit not directed to the parent poster).
I'd rather have that baker bake and that mechanic repair cars. Would you want an unqualified person to do your job? The problem is that you can become a politician without qualifications. They don't need a pass a test to show they're capable of logical reasoning, have a modicum of knowledge etc.
The conversion of Nitrogen to C14 is caused by a neutron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_dating. Being not charged, it tends to be rather insensitive to magnetic fields.
"We have no idea how much carbon14 was around in the past. By assuming anything its just pseudo science. But if we tell the truth then anyone claiming another truth wins so we have to lie."
ACs (C=xtian/Coward? Oh well) are not likely to educate themselves. Should you want to do a Truth or Dare: Do google where C14 comes from. You'll be surprised.
(And don't you really understand counting? Tree ring counting? Varves counting. If you fell a tree, you can count the rings? You can do a C14 determination for each ring? You can use other (older) trees with overlapping age ranges and hence overlapping ring patterns to continue getting values for older ages? You can go on doing that? You can do the same for varies, which is what the Japanese did. And being scientists, they cross-reference such values for various sources. And when you do that real science, all your post is reduced to BS.
Bert "By assuming anything its just pseudo science." But assuming your holy book is correct, doesn't make it a pseudo religion, does it? Nope, it is the one true religion. All the other thousands of gods have been made up, but yours is real. Yup.
...that their favorite deity is all powerful. That he would sort it out once the bad guy is dead. But noooo, the deity is not powerful enough. He needs this puny follower to do it. If only they really believed their deity was all powerful, they could rest assured that justice would be done in the end.
What religion needs to be defended? Only very weak ones, I can only assume. One without a real god behind it, otherwise they'd pray the desired results into reality instead of having to pick up a gun.
"As for evidence God exists? It's everywhere... *literally*. You might simply not see it because you aren't looking for it..."
If you are looking for it and see Yagolah everywhere, please take a picture for me in such a case. For example, if you see a rainbow tagged "Jesus", post the picture. So I can check that it wasn't Thor or something. Don't want to risk pissing a god off by praying to the wrong one or using the wrong name.
An important aspect in the defense of creationism is lying/making up facts that you could debunk yourself. Here we observe the AC doing it in action.
"Scientists have been breeding fruit flies for millions of generations of them"
The shortest generation time for fruit flies is 10 days (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster) That's 36 generations per year. If scientists have bred fruit flies for 100 years, that's 3600 generations. That is a bit short of "millions".
Now, in the real world, the population of a species is much, much larger than what scientists have in a lab. Only of some endangered species (tigers, panda's?) we may have more animals in captivity than in the real world. Despite the relatively small numbers, a large number of mutations has arisen nonetheless. With selection pressure, these could eventually lead to new species.
Not that any of the above will change your mind. Brainwashing from an early age: That's highly effective. You're probably proud of your delusion and will try to forget this confrontation with facts and logic as soon as possible so that it doesn't have any effect on your "thinking".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it will keep working in countries where evolution is just a theory.
Bert
He is a Jesuit, supposedly more the thinking type of priest. Let's see how long it takes him to figure out that his employer never shows up at the office, never gives any instruction, and doesn't pay his salary. How long will it take him to doubt the existence of his employer and tell the world about that?
Bert
So, we could have the full sequences of many many people of different origin, not to mention of many different animals. While it would require quite a bit of data-crunching, I hope that it allows us to look back into our distant past, learning more about evolution.
Bert
And if it brings some intolerant religious folks to take their favorite myth book a little less serious, that is a very very nice bonus.
If I can't find what I'm looking for in 0.254 seconds, I'm out of that store again.
Bert
Spoiled brat
Who bets that there are ads in the store
that his employer is a figment of human imagination?
Bert
Is the killing of the unborn babies worth than the death of even more unborn babies? Nature aborts many unborn babies, usually because of some defect. That's nice because people prefer healthy babies anyway because that suits them (and the babies) better. In the case of a relative, her pregnancies went wrong because she was too sensitive to all the hormone swings going on (she only conceived her kids after those hormones were tamed with suppositories. Do you want to entertain a case where the earlier miscarriages were death by negligence by her/her doctors?).
It works like this: When a woman has her period, or a man masturbates, potential life goes down the drain. Nobody gives a damn. If woman A doesn't wants to have a baby, is late, but she then resumes having her period, she will be happy about that. She had been pregnant, but it stopped. If woman B wants to have a baby, is late, but then resumes having her period, she will be sad about that. Now, take the case of woman B if in another attempt she has a miscarriage after 7 months. Do you think she is as sad about that situation as she was in the first instance of being late? I think it is safe to say there will be a difference in sadness. She will be sadder in the second case. So, there is a gradual change in perception during the stages of pregnancy. In the beginning, the starting human life is not so valuable. The older it gets, the more it becomes so. Unfortunately, one has to draw the line somewhere. If the line were drawn at 8 months, I would agree with you. But that is not where the line is. Any baby has the right to be welcome, in an environment that can support its needs.
Bert
Not a sociopath. Just more interested in meeting the needs of every baby that is born
"So you are actually for outlawing speech then. Seems like whenever someone starts off by saying they are anti-censorship, it really means they are pro-censorship."
They are free to believe what they want. They are just not free to coerce anyone to join their club. And it should be free for others to call out lies spread.
If I have a religion promoting human sacrifices or messing with underage virgins, I don't think it takes you take long to realize that there are limits to what a religion can propagate. If only religious people were convinced that their god is all powerful, and that he can handle it in the afterlife. But nooo, they can't resist their urge to act on what they know their god exactly wants.
Bert
Patent attorney here. If I don't make sure that enough info is in the application, the Examiner may call me out on that. It is not allowed to provide the information later on. It is a fatal flaw and the patent application is dead. The applicant will not be amused and could hold me liable. I do make sure that more than enough examples are present. As I say: the inventor's grandmother has to be able to understand it.
Bert
Patents: Open source information (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/) before the term was coined.
"In order to be found in violation of this patent, your violation must satisfy all the claims listed on the patent.
"
Very wrong. If you satisfy only a single *independent* claim you violate the patent. The dependent claims (that is, the ones that refer to one above, are there for the patentee/applicant for limitation of the independent claim should that not be patentable).
You violate an independent claim if you do EVERYTHING that is in that *independent* claim. If you do, the case is clear-cut. If you don't, you ma If only it were that easy: There could be some leeway in the interpretation of the claim that makes that the claim is interpreted a bit broader.
Do mind that a patent can have more than one independent claim (three is not uncommon in the US).
If you infringe an independent claim, it is worthwhile to figure out whether more relevant prior art exists than considered during the patent procedure. A list of the prior art considered is found on the front page of the patent. There is a chance that the patent got granted broader than warranted. It could be that you don't infringe after limitation of the claim.
Bert
Patent attorney (not a lawyer; that's something different).
You can buy drainage pipes for the shower that are basically heat exchangers. Cold water is passed through them (in countercurrent with the water draining from the shower) before it goes to the shower head. Of course, you still have to add some hot water in the mixing faucet, but thermal energy is saved.
Google: shower heat exchanger
Bert
"Until Apple came along, hardware and software companies armed themselves with patents to ward off threats from trolls, or as a defensive measure alone. "
It is not a defense again trolls. Your own patents don't give you any right to do what you're doing. A patent gives a right to forbid others. So, if you infringe a troll's patent, your own patent portfolio won't help. As a troll doesn't do anything productive himself, he won't be infringing so you can't check your own patent portfolio to get leverage in that area.
"Worse, they are using these patents to try and secure billions as 'security money' instead of competing in the markets based on the superiority of their products."
I don't know how that would work, and I don't think that Apple's billions originate from much else than sales of their products and operation of their stores.
"A patent regime does not sit well with the FOSS philosophy"
I'm a patent attorney and I agree with the issue that there should be no patents on software. Patents are there to avoid people from innovating because it is cheaper to copy than to invest in research and development. That doesn't hold for software area, where people are innovating anyway. Also, in contrast to a regular patent, a software patent doesn't teach the person skilled in the art (a developer) very much. Finally, once a patented product is sold the patentee no longer has any control over it. People are free to do with it what they want. Not so with software. And with software, it probably won't run on your machine, and won't interact with what you want, and you're not free to modify it.
I also agree with the lubricous amounts of money for damages in case of infringement.
Bert
Emotional responses are partly learned, I believe. Think of muslims or christians or macho's that are easily offended by something.
Bert
Thanks.
Back in the early nineties I bought a neural network program to play with. I couldn't get it to learn anything (except for the XOR etc. examples) even when it was so easy (range of boiling points of hydrocarbons depending on the number of carbon atoms. Predict the boiling point of the next one). So when I read about advances in computing power I knew that wasn't the reason. Your remark on back propagation could be the explanation because that was what this network did.
Bert
You think everyone in a household needs his own vacuum cleaner? Each his own living room to be heated? Lots of stuff (such as food) is cheaper in bigger packages. Etc. etc. etc.
Bert
You must have voted for Clinton back then. He was the one who got the government's finances healthy, after Reagan and Bush sr.
Do you dare to take a look at the facts, in particular the graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton
Bert
Do you know there are countries where it is an offense to show on TV a tiny bit of a normally covered body part anyone has and/or has seen before, but showing violent movies and dead people is not?
So yes, an open lifestyle is Evil whereas crushing someone's skull is fine (as long as it is not yours or mine).
Bert
Warning: There was sarcasm in this post (albeit not directed to the parent poster).
Then going public like he did was all that was needed. Not his resignation.
Bert
I'd rather have that baker bake and that mechanic repair cars. Would you want an unqualified person to do your job? The problem is that you can become a politician without qualifications. They don't need a pass a test to show they're capable of logical reasoning, have a modicum of knowledge etc.
Bert
Aren't you assuming he's free to answer that question? ;-)
Bert
The conversion of Nitrogen to C14 is caused by a neutron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_dating. Being not charged, it tends to be rather insensitive to magnetic fields.
Chance that you're religious: above average.
Bert
"We have no idea how much carbon14 was around in the past. By assuming anything its just pseudo science. But if we tell the truth then anyone claiming another truth wins so we have to lie."
ACs (C=xtian/Coward? Oh well) are not likely to educate themselves. Should you want to do a Truth or Dare: Do google where C14 comes from. You'll be surprised.
(And don't you really understand counting? Tree ring counting? Varves counting. If you fell a tree, you can count the rings? You can do a C14 determination for each ring? You can use other (older) trees with overlapping age ranges and hence overlapping ring patterns to continue getting values for older ages? You can go on doing that? You can do the same for varies, which is what the Japanese did. And being scientists, they cross-reference such values for various sources. And when you do that real science, all your post is reduced to BS.
Bert
"By assuming anything its just pseudo science."
But assuming your holy book is correct, doesn't make it a pseudo religion, does it? Nope, it is the one true religion. All the other thousands of gods have been made up, but yours is real. Yup.
...that their favorite deity is all powerful. That he would sort it out once the bad guy is dead. But noooo, the deity is not powerful enough. He needs this puny follower to do it. If only they really believed their deity was all powerful, they could rest assured that justice would be done in the end.
What religion needs to be defended? Only very weak ones, I can only assume. One without a real god behind it, otherwise they'd pray the desired results into reality instead of having to pick up a gun.
Bert
"As for evidence God exists? It's everywhere... *literally*. You might simply not see it because you aren't looking for it..."
If you are looking for it and see Yagolah everywhere, please take a picture for me in such a case. For example, if you see a rainbow tagged "Jesus", post the picture. So I can check that it wasn't Thor or something. Don't want to risk pissing a god off by praying to the wrong one or using the wrong name.
Bert
An important aspect in the defense of creationism is lying/making up facts that you could debunk yourself. Here we observe the AC doing it in action.
"Scientists have been breeding fruit flies for millions of generations of them"
The shortest generation time for fruit flies is 10 days (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster) That's 36 generations per year. If scientists have bred fruit flies for 100 years, that's 3600 generations. That is a bit short of "millions".
Now, in the real world, the population of a species is much, much larger than what scientists have in a lab. Only of some endangered species (tigers, panda's?) we may have more animals in captivity than in the real world. Despite the relatively small numbers, a large number of mutations has arisen nonetheless. With selection pressure, these could eventually lead to new species.
Not that any of the above will change your mind. Brainwashing from an early age: That's highly effective. You're probably proud of your delusion and will try to forget this confrontation with facts and logic as soon as possible so that it doesn't have any effect on your "thinking".
Bert
"Funny how the "holy" wars continue under a Democratic president. Expand, even."
Yes, expanded, certainly. The invasion in Libya is a good example, not to mention the invasion of Syria.
Those invasions have cost the US people a lot of tax payer money.
Bert