I'd give it -3 overrated. And this thread has been interesting - I have learnt a few things about this that I wasn't quite aware of - such as the actor's guild conditions that prevented the recordings continued use, and so contributed to their destruction. I was aware of the official programs to recover missing copies, but am not surprised at BigBadBus' notes below about archivists lack of concern for the official programs.
BBC destroyed the only copies of most of those episodes decades ago. The only existing copies are some that were sent overseas and temporarily lost, so they were not recovered and destroyed. Others only exist in the form of home-made speaker-to-microphone reel-to-reel audio tapes.
You make this point yourself. If the developer of a closed source package gets bored of it, or it is not profitable (which itself is a high bar for a most producers!), or both, they will drop it. Anyone who came to rely on it is completely stuck, as they cannot fix the most trivial or sexy bugs. They have to live with it until advancing technology and other changes make the program fail completely, and they will have to retrain.
If it is open source, then at least you can recompile and/or port to a new OS. You have the option of paying someone to fix a problem. You have none of those options if the closed-source producer of a package arbitrarily decides to drop it.
When a voter selects a vote above the line, they are choosing for their numbering of all the candidates to be as the party has outlined to the electoral office. It is a short-cut - a useful one, because there is often over 100 candidates for the senate.
You can choose not to use the shortcut, and number alllllll the boxes below the line. You might just get finished before the count is done.
They are trying to hit an earth-sun lagrange point. If they do so, the object leaves its solar orbit and enters an unstable earth orbit. They then need to give it another few burns to stabilize the orbit (and keep it away from the lagrange point, which would allow it to leave earth orbit and resume orbiting the sun) . If they miss, then it travels on, on a different orbit, with roughly the same chance of hitting the earth as it ever did.
The FAA almost never comes out with flat 'pilot error' as a cause. They always go as far as they can to answer the next why - Why did the pilot make this decision, and why did the craft respond so poorly to the sub-optimal inputs. And then why those issues happened, etc. They will often start the process at the human error and try to find the design and corporate failures that caused it.
This is so very easy to deal with. Rip at least 3 copies and diff them. The minor tweaks will stand out a mile, and you then have a clean copy you can (and, if they start pulling tricks like this, Should!) distribute widely.
Testing for cancers in a population at this time is all about establishing exactly what cancers existed before the problem. so you can accurately determine what effect the plant's failure will cause.
As the numbers seem slightly high, I suspect regression toward the mean will cause a drop in the number. That will cause confusion in the masses!
The story is quite simple. The propeller pushes against the air, its positive effect is affected by the difference in speed between the craft and the air. The propeller is driven by the wheels, so its negative effect on the craft is due the the difference in speed between the craft and the ground.
If you have a wind, the craft-to-ground speed is different from the craft-to-air speed. The vehicle can extract energy from this difference - like any sailboat, really - and pull ahead of the wind.
1. Force equations? The force backwards on the wheels is proportional to the groundspeed, the force forwards on the propeller is proportional to the airspeed. If groundspeed exceeds airspeed, as it does travelling downwind, there is an unbalanced force. If losses could be eliminated, the craft could travel at infinite speed (until relativism takes effect!) 2. If you give it a shove, without wind, airspeed == groundspeed, so there is no unbalanced force. Losses are all there is, so it slows down.
Of course, if you are like me you begin to think about the speed rating of the tyres and bearings, but that is beyond the scope of the stupid question.
A treadmill is motion is no different to a still surface being affected by a wind. The ground is moving relative to the air, and vice versa. The movement of the treadmill would drive the wheels, the wheels would drive the propeller, and it would move forward relative to the air.
Rolling out new copper in this day and age would be madness. But the decision to rely on wireless as anything other than a short-term emergency measure is wrong. They should, of course, be rolling out new fiber as a matter of urgency.
As long as the raw materials are priced in tens of dollars per kilogram, printing out random stuff is always going to be too expensive. Really, it is bulk plastic. It should be priced nearer 40 kilograms per dollar than 40 dollars per kilogram.
Although the choir starts singing on the large downward movement of the baton, that is not the cue the choir is using - if the started singing after seeing the downward movement, they would always be late. They are actually taking their cue from the very subtle upward movement just before the downward sweep.
Even detecting this would be difficult.
The size of this movement, and the delay between this movement and the drop, whether a movement is the of the 'get ready' upward sweep... all very difficult and confusing things. And the nature of the movements will change depending on conductor, the nature of the music, or even the conductors mood. The human brain sorts all of these things out just fine.
The best idea is one I read from another poster here - have the neighbour of blind singer give them their cue.
In this case, a patent would have been reasonable.
Actually it would not have been reasonable, as the existing drug was public knowledge at the time drugs became patentable. As such, it counted as "prior art".
My reason for stating that a patent would be 'reasonable' is that they would have been given a patent if the current laws stood when the drug was developed. Perhaps "not unreasonable" would be the correct term.
Your drug and process example also hints at a failure in the patent process:
35 U.S.C. 112 says
Specification.
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Oh, hear here. But that law has not been followed for years. The art of writing a patent these days is the art of making the wording so complex that it provides the reader with no benefits, and so ambiguous that you can extend it to cover things others invent later. "Full, clear, concise and exact". Yeah. That's why we need 'claim construction' arguments to work out what a patent means.
In this case, the original patent could not be granted because India's laws did not recognize patents on drugs at the time. Now India has passed laws recognizing patentable drugs, the company wanted a patent, and claimed one for the existing drug, unpatented because of previous laws, slightly changed.
In this case, a patent would have been reasonable. But if allowed, it would be a precedent that would have been used for evergreening other drug patents in the future. So it was quite rightly disallowed.
There are more egregious examples of evergreening, for instance, where a party gains a patent on a drug, and, just before the drug's patent expires, a second patent is applied for covering an essential process or precursor for making the drug. This second patent works if they have been careful to make sure that information about the process or precursor has been kept as a trade secret, which means simply that everyone that has been informed about it has signed an NDA.
How about "No, it doesn't, because before they finished development MegaResourcedCorp had been selling their unlicensed product for 6 months, and had been given other patents that prevent anyone (including the original inventor) from producing a competing product."
Hemp does not contain much free sugar. Almost all of it is converted into cellulose, which is still proving difficult to break down into sugars for conversion to fuels.
The summary (and probably the article as well) does not make this clear. Invert sugars are mixtures of glucose and fructose, generated by applying acids, heat or enzymes to sucrose.
So the sentence should be read "...meaning sucrose as well as (glucose, fructose and other minor sugars,) called invert sugars.
SpaceX built and lauched the rocket into an initial orbit, had a problem with the capsule's booster's supply of propellant that they were able to fix, and delivered the capsule to the right point, orbiting alongside ISS within reach of it's Canadarm, a little later than originally scheduled.
In what way did SpaceX not succeed? And who, in your opinion, was the party who 'saved' this mission?
I agree that, while SpaceX is establishing a good record of recovering from issues, it would be better if they could develop a record of not having issues!
As coins sold by this machine are instantly available on the public key it provides as a QR code, It would by loaded up with private keys preloaded with certain amounts. In this case, stealing this device would be lust like stealing a normal ATM - you could demolish it at your leisure and extract the cash.
There are, however, ways to secure digital devices against this type of attack - Eftpos machines have their keys stored in a memory chip that is erased if the chip detects interference. Externally, they have normally closed switches that open if the case is disturbed, forcing the chip to erase itself. Some of these switches are blind keys on the keypad, held down by the case. They also surround the chip with very fine, fragile conductors potted into the epoxy surrounding the chip. Any attempt to gain physical access to this chip will break these conductors and, again, erase the security keys.
This sort of setup could erase the private keys held inside the device if it is tampered with. This would, of course, require an off site copy of the keys, which would itself be a security target.
Of course, this device just a Raspberry Pi with a bit of hardware, so this sort of thing hasn't been done, However, it certainly is on option for future devices.
Contamination of a organisms genetics with pieces of virus DNA happens in nature ALL THE TIME. It is only because this is a GMO crop that it was tested, and found.
When the testing is finished, this may well be found to be a bit of perfectly natural, happened in the field, no-scientists-required genetic mangling.
The only difference with GM is it is done in a carefully controlled manner with a known goal, and carefully tested to determine any unwanted side effects. Random, uncontrolled genetic modification, whose consequences are totally unknowable, is completely natural.
As it is, one of the later posters linked to an article that actually looked at the research paper in question. It searched the known genomes for known toxic genomes, and found nothing. It found one possible thing that might be allergenic, looked at it further and ruled it out as well.
In the end, they found a possible cause for a GMO to be less effective - stunted growth, late flowering - and concluded that this is something that geneticists should look out for.
To finish, we have yet another study that shows how GM is completely safe. And how the media is totally untrustworthy when it comes to providing information. OH, and the article makes my point about natural virus proteins, too.
What would you think is an appropriate penalty for what Aaron did? He connected a computer to a public network, and retrieved publicly available data. He may have done this in a way and to an extent that the managers of these networks were uncomfortable with. Personally, I'd say that banning him from the library would have been too harsh.
Demanding jail time and felony convictions? It is so far beyond the pale that I think we are to be permitted our anger!
And, yes, he could have read them, one by one? But could he have done a global search using arbitrarily complex queries? Fed them into a neural network? Indeed, done anything actually interesting with them? Not unless he got heaps of them onto a hard drive.
And they go to extreme efforts to reduce it. Muscle strength spent flexing the crank is wasted. Same thing for crank weight. They go to extreme lengths to shave grams off their bikes, and even more to reduce weights of moving parts.
The idea that this is a great, new, magic crank because it's flexible and heavy is ridiculous!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd give it -3 overrated. And this thread has been interesting - I have learnt a few things about this that I wasn't quite aware of - such as the actor's guild conditions that prevented the recordings continued use, and so contributed to their destruction. I was aware of the official programs to recover missing copies, but am not surprised at BigBadBus' notes below about archivists lack of concern for the official programs.
Namely, destruction of all extant copies.
BBC destroyed the only copies of most of those episodes decades ago. The only existing copies are some that were sent overseas and temporarily lost, so they were not recovered and destroyed. Others only exist in the form of home-made speaker-to-microphone reel-to-reel audio tapes.
You make this point yourself. If the developer of a closed source package gets bored of it, or it is not profitable (which itself is a high bar for a most producers!), or both, they will drop it. Anyone who came to rely on it is completely stuck, as they cannot fix the most trivial or sexy bugs. They have to live with it until advancing technology and other changes make the program fail completely, and they will have to retrain.
If it is open source, then at least you can recompile and/or port to a new OS. You have the option of paying someone to fix a problem. You have none of those options if the closed-source producer of a package arbitrarily decides to drop it.
That is exactly the system.
When a voter selects a vote above the line, they are choosing for their numbering of all the candidates to be as the party has outlined to the electoral office. It is a short-cut - a useful one, because there is often over 100 candidates for the senate.
You can choose not to use the shortcut, and number alllllll the boxes below the line. You might just get finished before the count is done.
They are trying to hit an earth-sun lagrange point. If they do so, the object leaves its solar orbit and enters an unstable earth orbit. They then need to give it another few burns to stabilize the orbit (and keep it away from the lagrange point, which would allow it to leave earth orbit and resume orbiting the sun) . If they miss, then it travels on, on a different orbit, with roughly the same chance of hitting the earth as it ever did.
The FAA almost never comes out with flat 'pilot error' as a cause. They always go as far as they can to answer the next why - Why did the pilot make this decision, and why did the craft respond so poorly to the sub-optimal inputs. And then why those issues happened, etc. They will often start the process at the human error and try to find the design and corporate failures that caused it.
This is so very easy to deal with. Rip at least 3 copies and diff them. The minor tweaks will stand out a mile, and you then have a clean copy you can (and, if they start pulling tricks like this, Should!) distribute widely.
Testing for cancers in a population at this time is all about establishing exactly what cancers existed before the problem. so you can accurately determine what effect the plant's failure will cause.
As the numbers seem slightly high, I suspect regression toward the mean will cause a drop in the number. That will cause confusion in the masses!
The story is quite simple. The propeller pushes against the air, its positive effect is affected by the difference in speed between the craft and the air. The propeller is driven by the wheels, so its negative effect on the craft is due the the difference in speed between the craft and the ground.
If you have a wind, the craft-to-ground speed is different from the craft-to-air speed. The vehicle can extract energy from this difference - like any sailboat, really - and pull ahead of the wind.
1. Force equations? The force backwards on the wheels is proportional to the groundspeed, the force forwards on the propeller is proportional to the airspeed. If groundspeed exceeds airspeed, as it does travelling downwind, there is an unbalanced force. If losses could be eliminated, the craft could travel at infinite speed (until relativism takes effect!)
2. If you give it a shove, without wind, airspeed == groundspeed, so there is no unbalanced force. Losses are all there is, so it slows down.
Of course, if you are like me you begin to think about the speed rating of the tyres and bearings, but that is beyond the scope of the stupid question.
A treadmill is motion is no different to a still surface being affected by a wind. The ground is moving relative to the air, and vice versa. The movement of the treadmill would drive the wheels, the wheels would drive the propeller, and it would move forward relative to the air.
Rolling out new copper in this day and age would be madness. But the decision to rely on wireless as anything other than a short-term emergency measure is wrong. They should, of course, be rolling out new fiber as a matter of urgency.
As long as the raw materials are priced in tens of dollars per kilogram, printing out random stuff is always going to be too expensive. Really, it is bulk plastic. It should be priced nearer 40 kilograms per dollar than 40 dollars per kilogram.
Although the choir starts singing on the large downward movement of the baton, that is not the cue the choir is using - if the started singing after seeing the downward movement, they would always be late. They are actually taking their cue from the very subtle upward movement just before the downward sweep. Even detecting this would be difficult. The size of this movement, and the delay between this movement and the drop, whether a movement is the of the 'get ready' upward sweep... all very difficult and confusing things. And the nature of the movements will change depending on conductor, the nature of the music, or even the conductors mood. The human brain sorts all of these things out just fine. The best idea is one I read from another poster here - have the neighbour of blind singer give them their cue.
That explains why we are all being pushed onto a schizophrenic mess that nobody wants called Windows 8.
In this case, a patent would have been reasonable.
Actually it would not have been reasonable, as the existing drug was public knowledge at the time drugs became patentable. As such, it counted as "prior art".
My reason for stating that a patent would be 'reasonable' is that they would have been given a patent if the current laws stood when the drug was developed. Perhaps "not unreasonable" would be the correct term.
Your drug and process example also hints at a failure in the patent process:
35 U.S.C. 112 says
Specification. The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450 So if an essential process or precursor for making the drug was held back in the original patent application, the original patent should not have been granted.
Oh, hear here. But that law has not been followed for years. The art of writing a patent these days is the art of making the wording so complex that it provides the reader with no benefits, and so ambiguous that you can extend it to cover things others invent later. "Full, clear, concise and exact". Yeah. That's why we need 'claim construction' arguments to work out what a patent means.
In this case, the original patent could not be granted because India's laws did not recognize patents on drugs at the time. Now India has passed laws recognizing patentable drugs, the company wanted a patent, and claimed one for the existing drug, unpatented because of previous laws, slightly changed.
In this case, a patent would have been reasonable. But if allowed, it would be a precedent that would have been used for evergreening other drug patents in the future. So it was quite rightly disallowed.
There are more egregious examples of evergreening, for instance, where a party gains a patent on a drug, and, just before the drug's patent expires, a second patent is applied for covering an essential process or precursor for making the drug. This second patent works if they have been careful to make sure that information about the process or precursor has been kept as a trade secret, which means simply that everyone that has been informed about it has signed an NDA.
How about "No, it doesn't, because before they finished development MegaResourcedCorp had been selling their unlicensed product for 6 months, and had been given other patents that prevent anyone (including the original inventor) from producing a competing product."
Hemp does not contain much free sugar. Almost all of it is converted into cellulose, which is still proving difficult to break down into sugars for conversion to fuels.
The summary (and probably the article as well) does not make this clear. Invert sugars are mixtures of glucose and fructose, generated by applying acids, heat or enzymes to sucrose.
So the sentence should be read "...meaning sucrose as well as (glucose, fructose and other minor sugars,) called invert sugars.
SpaceX built and lauched the rocket into an initial orbit, had a problem with the capsule's booster's supply of propellant that they were able to fix, and delivered the capsule to the right point, orbiting alongside ISS within reach of it's Canadarm, a little later than originally scheduled.
In what way did SpaceX not succeed? And who, in your opinion, was the party who 'saved' this mission?
I agree that, while SpaceX is establishing a good record of recovering from issues, it would be better if they could develop a record of not having issues!
As coins sold by this machine are instantly available on the public key it provides as a QR code, It would by loaded up with private keys preloaded with certain amounts. In this case, stealing this device would be lust like stealing a normal ATM - you could demolish it at your leisure and extract the cash.
There are, however, ways to secure digital devices against this type of attack - Eftpos machines have their keys stored in a memory chip that is erased if the chip detects interference. Externally, they have normally closed switches that open if the case is disturbed, forcing the chip to erase itself. Some of these switches are blind keys on the keypad, held down by the case. They also surround the chip with very fine, fragile conductors potted into the epoxy surrounding the chip. Any attempt to gain physical access to this chip will break these conductors and, again, erase the security keys.
This sort of setup could erase the private keys held inside the device if it is tampered with. This would, of course, require an off site copy of the keys, which would itself be a security target.
Of course, this device just a Raspberry Pi with a bit of hardware, so this sort of thing hasn't been done, However, it certainly is on option for future devices.
Contamination of a organisms genetics with pieces of virus DNA happens in nature ALL THE TIME. It is only because this is a GMO crop that it was tested, and found.
When the testing is finished, this may well be found to be a bit of perfectly natural, happened in the field, no-scientists-required genetic mangling.
The only difference with GM is it is done in a carefully controlled manner with a known goal, and carefully tested to determine any unwanted side effects. Random, uncontrolled genetic modification, whose consequences are totally unknowable, is completely natural.
As it is, one of the later posters linked to an article that actually looked at the research paper in question. It searched the known genomes for known toxic genomes, and found nothing. It found one possible thing that might be allergenic, looked at it further and ruled it out as well.
In the end, they found a possible cause for a GMO to be less effective - stunted growth, late flowering - and concluded that this is something that geneticists should look out for.
To finish, we have yet another study that shows how GM is completely safe. And how the media is totally untrustworthy when it comes to providing information. OH, and the article makes my point about natural virus proteins, too.
What would you think is an appropriate penalty for what Aaron did? He connected a computer to a public network, and retrieved publicly available data. He may have done this in a way and to an extent that the managers of these networks were uncomfortable with. Personally, I'd say that banning him from the library would have been too harsh.
Demanding jail time and felony convictions? It is so far beyond the pale that I think we are to be permitted our anger!
And, yes, he could have read them, one by one? But could he have done a global search using arbitrarily complex queries? Fed them into a neural network? Indeed, done anything actually interesting with them? Not unless he got heaps of them onto a hard drive.
And they go to extreme efforts to reduce it. Muscle strength spent flexing the crank is wasted.
Same thing for crank weight. They go to extreme lengths to shave grams off their bikes, and even more to reduce weights of moving parts.
The idea that this is a great, new, magic crank because it's flexible and heavy is ridiculous!