Well, we're just having a case of using different measures for different people, haven't? "How Yagolah came to be doesn't need to be shown, but how life arose without gods does need to be shown". I'll not hold my breath either, but we'll find it out much before any single piece of evidence for the existence of gods comes up.
Bert Who thinks it is easier for lifeless mass to be generated from nothing than for gods to be generated from nothing
If the massive load of evidence collected since Darwin wasn't enough (with ERVs being the clincher, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), it will never be enough because people just shut it out.
Religion is there because it makes you feel good (if you have the ability to fall for it). However baseless, that is a tremendously powerful force in a shitty world. So, as long as people don't want to have their illusion challenged, they'll oppose it with all the denial they can muster.
Bert As some guy said once: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts
With high gas prices over here, there is a drive to develop technology to make cars run with less fuel. Chinese manufacturers desiring to sell their cars here will have to meet those standards and will use that same technology in their own country.
It is not that the tax money by having higher gas prices is gone. It is spent on other things deemed useful. If that meony were not derived from gas taxes, we'd have other taxes to pay for those things. I'd like to think that it is better to tax fuel than raise other taxes.
True but in exactly the same category as religion: Imposing an ideology on other people. We got rid of Stalin etc. But there are more ideologies to clean up. We do this by reason and education, stimulating people to check the facts (evolution, you name it).
Bert As to Mao etc., these guys know that a powerhouse can destroy their power. So, of course a dictator will attack religion. You want gullible people to listen to you, not to others.
And don't forget reputation. You do fraudulent stuff, your peers will find out. Sometimes quickly, sometimes it takes a while, but science is a self-correcting/self-cleaning mode of operating. Everything is looked at carefully, because there are two ways to become famous - discover something new - discover something is not correct (for more on this, read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)
The interesting thing is that it is fine to have an agenda. Scientific discoveries have been made by scientists thinking it was Yagolah's plan that they cure a disease/figure something out (of course, why didn't the deity tell it right away. Oh well). It is fine as long as you adhere to logic and stick to the facts. Try bending reality and it is you who veers off course.
That is not Novelty destroying, I think. The first claim says that they keys contain polysemous symbols. Not being a native speaker, I had to look that word up. This is what Wikipedia says:
A polyseme is a word or phrase with different, but related senses. Since the test for polysemy is the vague concept of relatedness, judgments of polysemy can be difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing words to new situations is a natural process of language change, looking at words' etymology is helpful in determining polysemy but not the only solution; as words become lost in etymology, what once was a useful distinction of meaning may no longer be so. Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin, however, so etymology is not an infallible test for polysemy, and dictionary writers also often defer to speakers' intuitions to judge polysemy in cases where it contradicts etymology. English has many words which are polysemous. For example the verb "to get" can mean "procure" (I'll get the drinks), "become" (she got scared), "have" (I've got three dollars), "understand" (I get it) etc.
The program you linked to only shows letters on the keys.
Unfortunately most brains aren't good at multitasking. Well, speaking for myself: Mine isn't. The good thing about a navigation system is that I can pay attention to the road and spend very little time worrying about where to go. I need an occasional glance at the screen to resolve an issue (Navigon isn't very good; TomTom is pretty good), other than that it isn't really a distraction. I've to spend less time watching road signs for directions as the information comes in audio form to me. The info also also always repeated, so I can ignore it if it doesn't suit me because of a complicated traffic situation that deserves my immediate attention.
Sure, and when it is the only information one has available, I'll act on it nonetheless. If I have to place a bet on a black guy winning a marathon or a white guy, I pick the black guy. Sure, he may turn out to be a wheelchair bound guy and the white guy a top athlete. But statistically I've made a wise choice. I do that with everything: White bread or brown bread? I'll choose the latter. Even though I've tasted excellent white bread in my life and horrible brown bread. Still, if it is the only info available, that's my choice. And I bet you do exactly the same in your life. Except that when you deal with something that is considered politically incorrect, you suppress logic/statistics. They do not stop to apply however. But you feel good by it and that is what counts. Everyone has only one life, after all.
The patent part has nothing to do with doing something with open source or not. If open source has feature X but you choose to implement feature X yourself and feature X turns out to be patented, you infringe too.
Bert Patent agent and opposed to patents on software
That wouldn't explain the high percentage of the US population in jail.
Bert Who remembers an item by Michael Moore (or an assistant of his, if I recall correctly), where a guy couldn't become a cop because there is an intelligence test for cops and if you're too smart you can't be hired. The last sentence of the cops' spokesman before the door is closed is priceless: We're there to protect crime. The reporter is flabbergasted: Did he really say that?
No, prior art means stuff known before the filing date (or priority date). The invention disclosed in the patent application may still be New and Inventive.
Prior art may be detrimental to patentability, of course. It may be necessary to restrict the scope of the claims. But as a patent attorney has usually limited the independent claims such that they are at least Novel over the prior art, the prior art submitted by the applicant may be less interesting than the prior art the Examiner discovers and the applicant was not aware of.
Relevant publications have to be submitted by law. If they are in the file submitted anonymously, then I don't think that the applicant has to re-submit them. Or could submit them by reference to something in the file.
There is a similar situation where you receive a search report containing copyrighted articles.
For reasons of efficiency and cost, this should be solved at patent office level. Just raise the search fees a bit. If every patent attorney has to arrange for it, the cost gets excessive because of the administrative load (finding who to pay, how to pay, actually pay, monitor payment, and accounting).
Slashdot Mirror
It's 2012. Time to switch to a heat pump then.
Bert
Any evidence that there is a "why"?
Bert
Well, we're just having a case of using different measures for different people, haven't? "How Yagolah came to be doesn't need to be shown, but how life arose without gods does need to be shown". I'll not hold my breath either, but we'll find it out much before any single piece of evidence for the existence of gods comes up.
Bert
Who thinks it is easier for lifeless mass to be generated from nothing than for gods to be generated from nothing
If the massive load of evidence collected since Darwin wasn't enough (with ERVs being the clincher, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), it will never be enough because people just shut it out.
Religion is there because it makes you feel good (if you have the ability to fall for it). However baseless, that is a tremendously powerful force in a shitty world. So, as long as people don't want to have their illusion challenged, they'll oppose it with all the denial they can muster.
Bert
As some guy said once: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts
With high gas prices over here, there is a drive to develop technology to make cars run with less fuel. Chinese manufacturers desiring to sell their cars here will have to meet those standards and will use that same technology in their own country.
It is not that the tax money by having higher gas prices is gone. It is spent on other things deemed useful. If that meony were not derived from gas taxes, we'd have other taxes to pay for those things. I'd like to think that it is better to tax fuel than raise other taxes.
Bert
I read it today on the news (NOS teletekst) and had to LOL over your last sentence.
Bert
Don't know why you call yourself killjoy!
True but in exactly the same category as religion: Imposing an ideology on other people. We got rid of Stalin etc. But there are more ideologies to clean up. We do this by reason and education, stimulating people to check the facts (evolution, you name it).
Bert
As to Mao etc., these guys know that a powerhouse can destroy their power. So, of course a dictator will attack religion. You want gullible people to listen to you, not to others.
When you throw a dice, your first throw may be a six. Why are you trying to do statistics with a single event?
Bert
I think the study is full of holes
Bert
Never seen it? Here it is
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=roy%20scheider%20helicopter%20movie&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0085255%2F&ei=vNR5T_u5K6Oi0QWun8m4DQ&usg=AFQjCNH2niYl3uTQmBWgJQwutDlBSckFsw
Bert
And don't forget reputation. You do fraudulent stuff, your peers will find out. Sometimes quickly, sometimes it takes a while, but science is a self-correcting/self-cleaning mode of operating. Everything is looked at carefully, because there are two ways to become famous
- discover something new
- discover something is not correct (for more on this, read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)
The interesting thing is that it is fine to have an agenda. Scientific discoveries have been made by scientists thinking it was Yagolah's plan that they cure a disease/figure something out (of course, why didn't the deity tell it right away. Oh well). It is fine as long as you adhere to logic and stick to the facts. Try bending reality and it is you who veers off course.
Bert
That is not Novelty destroying, I think. The first claim says that they keys contain polysemous symbols. Not being a native speaker, I had to look that word up. This is what Wikipedia says:
A polyseme is a word or phrase with different, but related senses. Since the test for polysemy is the vague concept of relatedness, judgments of polysemy can be difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing words to new situations is a natural process of language change, looking at words' etymology is helpful in determining polysemy but not the only solution; as words become lost in etymology, what once was a useful distinction of meaning may no longer be so. Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin, however, so etymology is not an infallible test for polysemy, and dictionary writers also often defer to speakers' intuitions to judge polysemy in cases where it contradicts etymology. English has many words which are polysemous. For example the verb "to get" can mean "procure" (I'll get the drinks), "become" (she got scared), "have" (I've got three dollars), "understand" (I get it) etc.
The program you linked to only shows letters on the keys.
Bert
Not to mention that you may start watching the screen frequently in anticipation when a new screen is about to appear and you need the info.
Bert
Unfortunately most brains aren't good at multitasking. Well, speaking for myself: Mine isn't. The good thing about a navigation system is that I can pay attention to the road and spend very little time worrying about where to go. I need an occasional glance at the screen to resolve an issue (Navigon isn't very good; TomTom is pretty good), other than that it isn't really a distraction. I've to spend less time watching road signs for directions as the information comes in audio form to me. The info also also always repeated, so I can ignore it if it doesn't suit me because of a complicated traffic situation that deserves my immediate attention.
Bert
What does patents have to do with it?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2644149&cid=38859291
Bert
Sure, and when it is the only information one has available, I'll act on it nonetheless. If I have to place a bet on a black guy winning a marathon or a white guy, I pick the black guy. Sure, he may turn out to be a wheelchair bound guy and the white guy a top athlete. But statistically I've made a wise choice. I do that with everything: White bread or brown bread? I'll choose the latter. Even though I've tasted excellent white bread in my life and horrible brown bread. Still, if it is the only info available, that's my choice. And I bet you do exactly the same in your life. Except that when you deal with something that is considered politically incorrect, you suppress logic/statistics. They do not stop to apply however. But you feel good by it and that is what counts. Everyone has only one life, after all.
Bert
No, like racism etc. sexism is treating a specific person based on a general notion, not on how that person actually performs.
Bert
The patent part has nothing to do with doing something with open source or not. If open source has feature X but you choose to implement feature X yourself and feature X turns out to be patented, you infringe too.
Bert
Patent agent and opposed to patents on software
Yes, here you can read up on that.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php
Bert
No strike necessary. All you have to do is to turn the cooling off.
Bert
That wouldn't explain the high percentage of the US population in jail.
Bert
Who remembers an item by Michael Moore (or an assistant of his, if I recall correctly), where a guy couldn't become a cop because there is an intelligence test for cops and if you're too smart you can't be hired. The last sentence of the cops' spokesman before the door is closed is priceless: We're there to protect crime. The reporter is flabbergasted: Did he really say that?
No, prior art means stuff known before the filing date (or priority date). The invention disclosed in the patent application may still be New and Inventive.
Prior art may be detrimental to patentability, of course. It may be necessary to restrict the scope of the claims. But as a patent attorney has usually limited the independent claims such that they are at least Novel over the prior art, the prior art submitted by the applicant may be less interesting than the prior art the Examiner discovers and the applicant was not aware of.
Bert
Relevant publications have to be submitted by law. If they are in the file submitted anonymously, then I don't think that the applicant has to re-submit them. Or could submit them by reference to something in the file.
There is a similar situation where you receive a search report containing copyrighted articles.
For reasons of efficiency and cost, this should be solved at patent office level. Just raise the search fees a bit. If every patent attorney has to arrange for it, the cost gets excessive because of the administrative load (finding who to pay, how to pay, actually pay, monitor payment, and accounting).
Bert
You didn't read the story where Google circumvented privacy settings in iOS?
http://webpolicy.org/2012/02/17/safari-trackers/
Bert
"When FF start to have problems with some content, I fire up IE and it handles everything no troubles."
That is self-selecting. When a page doesn't display correctly, it was probably tested for another browser.
Bert
Who uses FF when Safari has trouble displaying stuff, and finds that FF displays it fine.