The dicussion on this topic was very light in the article. This to me is a more difficult and lasting problem than the techological hurdles. The ecomonic, social and even political aspects of this will be a huge mess to wade through.
His supposition is that people will decide to forgo having children in order to keep population down. Is that going to be legally enforced?
Does not lend credibility to our arguments. The DDT link to the decline of birds has been debunked as well as the supposed carcinogen http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ddt_100. htm#ref6/. How many people have suffered and died from amalria because DDT was pulled of the market by flawed logic and environmentalists with an agenda?
I'm not arguing that DDT has no effect on humans or birds, only that the orginal premises are flawed and there is no proof of a harmful effect. Judicious use of DDT has not been shown to cause problems in humans or animals. Until it has, it's flawed logic to support your arguments about global warming with unproven statements about DDT.
The same can be said about the causes of global warnming. Is global warming happening? Probably. But you can't say that humans are the singular cause of it or even the majority cause. There's likely a contributory effect but no one knows what that is. A recent find by a glaciologist points to a similar warming thousands of years ago http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelplant.htm/. Before the man could have had an effect. What was that warming caused by?
It's easy to go with an emotional response but don't try to base your arguments on flawed logic.
If so, the 'IsNot' operator is obvious and therefore not a good candidate to be patented. Of course what MS is really trying to do here is patent a representation of logic.
Hope, curiosity and adventure are 'wants' that we strive to satisfy. You're right we will probably always have the homeless. We should work to help our fellow man/woman but does that mean we should give up our pursuit of satisfying curiosity and technological development?
This is nothing more than automation of a manual process. Prior art doesn't even need to be considered in this case.
From the USPTO:
Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
This doesn't qualify as invention or discovery of a new process.
what the benefits would be if we converted half of our energy needs from oil to nuclear.
Not only would pollution become less of a concern, but the political and economic benefits would be huge. Less dependence on oil would mean less involvement in oil-rich nation entanglements and the economic benefit from cheaper energy would be a huge boost to the economy.
Yes there are hurdles to overcome but I don't consider them insurmountable. I think the biggest problem we have now is FUD and ignorance surrounding the safety and disposal issues. Those are really technical issues that could be addresses given enough resources. It's also a political lightning rod but something we should tackle now before we are forced to address it as a result of a oil supply disaster.
I'd like to see more money spent on energy saving designs and technology.
For example, a LOT of energy is lost transmitting power over power lines. We should actively look at ways to reduce some of this loss.
We need to encourage energy saving designs through coporate tax rebates or reductions. We are a very innovative people. We need to leverage that.
Bottom line, our energy needs are going to grow. We need to start by reducing the rate of growth and find alternate sources of energy.
I'm all too aware of the issues you point out because it is part of my job to uncover these types of things. Your point is taken:-)
The cost for banks doesn't necessarily show up against my checking or savings account though. But it does have to show up in their receivables somehow. That tends to bite people who borrow from my bank. Since I'm not obligated to borrow money from the bank I have a checking account with, I am free to shop for those services from the lowest bidder. It's incumbent on the bank to drive it's costs down so that they derive the greatest profit.
The only thing I think I need to be worried about is if the government gets involved. Increased costs of laws, regulations, enforcement, prosecution and punishment, etc is where I think I get dinged.
The fact that they run Windows and are open to attack or whether or not someone has access to your money? For me it's the latter. How they implement access to my money doesn't really concern me unless my account is not protected. If someone uses their equipment to access my acount without my authorization, then they are responsible for making restitution. If I have problems accessing my account I can vote with my money and move it to another bank.
Me thinks that the average Slashdotter is a little to close to the problem in this case.
BTW, when was the last time anyone heard of someone successfully hacking an ATM to gain access to an account? Maybe it's happened but I haven't heard of it. If it has happened, I'm sure the bank and FBI has kept it pretty quiet. The bank would also be prone to make the accoount good very quickly.
The paper is published by a individual that lives in another town and is the mayor of that town. This individual set up shop in Crawford while Bush was running for President. The large majority of the town does not agree with this "outsider."
While I admire your faith, I don't think that access to the website materially affects the access to information that is provided by the site. As mentioned in other responses, the information on political sites tends to be slanted and a true evaluation of the positions of a particular political candidate is more accurately represented elsewhere.
I hae yet to meet the person that does not have a strong opinion one way or the other about Bush. Those that like him know his policies. Those that don't get their information form other sources.
It's not like any of them visit the site. And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason. It's not like they are using Bush's site as a reference. They should be more concerned if Moore's or Soro's site is blocked.
Using John Kerry's Senate voting history to say that he supported or opposed any given thing is like trying to upconvert a low-bitrate signal... you end up guessing to make data you don't really have.
So if I vote AGAINST Kerry I can claim I voted for him? I'm soooo confused!
Bottom line, his vote is what it is.
If he knew that he wanted to be president he should have known he might have to run on his record.
'Should' be regulated? I think the point is, where does government draw the line? The campaign finance law left a lot of room open for regulation and so where the line gets drawn is still an open question.
As much as people would like to say that money != speech, regulating money will regulate speech in some fashion because it's open to interpretation where one stops and the other starts. Technology enables speech and money enables technology.
As to what gets banned, who gets to decide what constitutes speech? I interpret the Constitutional defintion of speech as communication. There are written and spoken words. Does it matter how they are conveyed?
There are so many hurdles to overcome besides the % content of ethanol that engines support. There's the whole GM issue around modifying the grain, the politics of ethanol subsidies, the time-frame for making it happen, etc. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, only that the barriers are pretty high.
Naturally occur in nature and the mutations that have an advantage survive. Seems that man is artificially creating these mutations and giving them a leg up on naturally occuring mutations. Is this a good thing?
P>The article notes that US ethanol production only accounts for 2% of our gasoline needs and the expectation is that in 2012 it will only account for 2.5%.
It won't replace gasoline in any case. Current gasoline engines can only safely ingest gasoline with a maximum of 10% ethanol. At best this will be nothing more than a minor fuel supplement for quite a few years.
This type of sanity checking is especially useful for training junior programmers. It can be very instructive for a senior programmer to sit down with a junior progammer and go through their code together. The primary purpose of a review should be to have a second set of eyes on the code but it is very valuable for training and communication as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The dicussion on this topic was very light in the article. This to me is a more difficult and lasting problem than the techological hurdles. The ecomonic, social and even political aspects of this will be a huge mess to wade through.
His supposition is that people will decide to forgo having children in order to keep population down. Is that going to be legally enforced?
I use Outlook because it does have an integrated calendar and there are decent spam plugins but it is a bloated, slow app.
Does not lend credibility to our arguments. The DDT link to the decline of birds has been debunked as well as the supposed carcinogen http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ddt_100. htm#ref6/. How many people have suffered and died from amalria because DDT was pulled of the market by flawed logic and environmentalists with an agenda?
I'm not arguing that DDT has no effect on humans or birds, only that the orginal premises are flawed and there is no proof of a harmful effect. Judicious use of DDT has not been shown to cause problems in humans or animals. Until it has, it's flawed logic to support your arguments about global warming with unproven statements about DDT.
The same can be said about the causes of global warnming. Is global warming happening? Probably. But you can't say that humans are the singular cause of it or even the majority cause. There's likely a contributory effect but no one knows what that is. A recent find by a glaciologist points to a similar warming thousands of years ago http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelplant.htm/ . Before the man could have had an effect. What was that warming caused by?
It's easy to go with an emotional response but don't try to base your arguments on flawed logic.
agreed but in either case it's still obvious. It's really equivalent to shorthand or simply automation of a common manual process.
If so, the 'IsNot' operator is obvious and therefore not a good candidate to be patented. Of course what MS is really trying to do here is patent a representation of logic.
Hope, curiosity and adventure are 'wants' that we strive to satisfy. You're right we will probably always have the homeless. We should work to help our fellow man/woman but does that mean we should give up our pursuit of satisfying curiosity and technological development?
This is nothing more than automation of a manual process. Prior art doesn't even need to be considered in this case.
From the USPTO: Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
This doesn't qualify as invention or discovery of a new process.
what the benefits would be if we converted half of our energy needs from oil to nuclear.
Not only would pollution become less of a concern, but the political and economic benefits would be huge. Less dependence on oil would mean less involvement in oil-rich nation entanglements and the economic benefit from cheaper energy would be a huge boost to the economy.
Yes there are hurdles to overcome but I don't consider them insurmountable. I think the biggest problem we have now is FUD and ignorance surrounding the safety and disposal issues. Those are really technical issues that could be addresses given enough resources. It's also a political lightning rod but something we should tackle now before we are forced to address it as a result of a oil supply disaster.
I'd like to see more money spent on energy saving designs and technology. For example, a LOT of energy is lost transmitting power over power lines. We should actively look at ways to reduce some of this loss. We need to encourage energy saving designs through coporate tax rebates or reductions. We are a very innovative people. We need to leverage that. Bottom line, our energy needs are going to grow. We need to start by reducing the rate of growth and find alternate sources of energy.
I'm all too aware of the issues you point out because it is part of my job to uncover these types of things. Your point is taken :-)
The cost for banks doesn't necessarily show up against my checking or savings account though. But it does have to show up in their receivables somehow. That tends to bite people who borrow from my bank. Since I'm not obligated to borrow money from the bank I have a checking account with, I am free to shop for those services from the lowest bidder. It's incumbent on the bank to drive it's costs down so that they derive the greatest profit.
The only thing I think I need to be worried about is if the government gets involved. Increased costs of laws, regulations, enforcement, prosecution and punishment, etc is where I think I get dinged.
The fact that they run Windows and are open to attack or whether or not someone has access to your money? For me it's the latter. How they implement access to my money doesn't really concern me unless my account is not protected. If someone uses their equipment to access my acount without my authorization, then they are responsible for making restitution. If I have problems accessing my account I can vote with my money and move it to another bank.
Me thinks that the average Slashdotter is a little to close to the problem in this case.
BTW, when was the last time anyone heard of someone successfully hacking an ATM to gain access to an account? Maybe it's happened but I haven't heard of it. If it has happened, I'm sure the bank and FBI has kept it pretty quiet. The bank would also be prone to make the accoount good very quickly.
The paper is published by a individual that lives in another town and is the mayor of that town. This individual set up shop in Crawford while Bush was running for President. The large majority of the town does not agree with this "outsider."
ArticleWhile I admire your faith, I don't think that access to the website materially affects the access to information that is provided by the site. As mentioned in other responses, the information on political sites tends to be slanted and a true evaluation of the positions of a particular political candidate is more accurately represented elsewhere.
I hae yet to meet the person that does not have a strong opinion one way or the other about Bush. Those that like him know his policies. Those that don't get their information form other sources.
It's not like any of them visit the site. And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason. It's not like they are using Bush's site as a reference. They should be more concerned if Moore's or Soro's site is blocked.
but there are plenty of highly educated nuclear scientists and technicians that pronounce it "Nuke-you-ler." Don't ask me how I know :-)
So if I vote AGAINST Kerry I can claim I voted for him? I'm soooo confused!
Bottom line, his vote is what it is.
If he knew that he wanted to be president he should have known he might have to run on his record.'Should' be regulated? I think the point is, where does government draw the line? The campaign finance law left a lot of room open for regulation and so where the line gets drawn is still an open question.
As much as people would like to say that money != speech, regulating money will regulate speech in some fashion because it's open to interpretation where one stops and the other starts. Technology enables speech and money enables technology.
As to what gets banned, who gets to decide what constitutes speech? I interpret the Constitutional defintion of speech as communication. There are written and spoken words. Does it matter how they are conveyed?
campaign finance laws place no restrictions on polititcians, only select voters. Politicians are still free to lie. ;-)
by the new bureaucracy needed to regulate and enforce the Campaign Finance laws.
There are so many hurdles to overcome besides the % content of ethanol that engines support. There's the whole GM issue around modifying the grain, the politics of ethanol subsidies, the time-frame for making it happen, etc. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, only that the barriers are pretty high.
How long before someone drops some genetically altered seedlings in Europe? Then Europe won't be able to claim they grow non-GM grain.
Naturally occur in nature and the mutations that have an advantage survive. Seems that man is artificially creating these mutations and giving them a leg up on naturally occuring mutations. Is this a good thing?
In any case, the genie is out of the bottle
It won't replace gasoline in any case. Current gasoline engines can only safely ingest gasoline with a maximum of 10% ethanol. At best this will be nothing more than a minor fuel supplement for quite a few years.
This type of sanity checking is especially useful for training junior programmers. It can be very instructive for a senior programmer to sit down with a junior progammer and go through their code together. The primary purpose of a review should be to have a second set of eyes on the code but it is very valuable for training and communication as well.