You should patent that idea. But it needs a snappy name - lemme see, it's a display that you can use without looking down - how about "a head-not-tilted-down display"?
Just as Linux and other open source projects aren't really "open" in terms of accepting everything anyone throws at them, so must Wikipedia find a way to become more selective in what it accepts. The Wiki itself is such a good idea that there's just got to be a way to make it work, but frankly I can't work out a paradigm that will save it from the issues it has now.
You could have a system where there's the substantive body of the text, and a separate section for comments, proposed amendments etc. People could even suggest amendments to the amendments and comment on the comments. Of course you'd need some way to choose which comments & amendments get incorporated into the main text; and this is the really innovative part (maybe I should patent it) so listen up - readers could give points to the comments that are good or take them away from those that are whack. Even better - maybe if people make 'good' comments, they should get more points to give to (or take from) other comments as they see fit.
Seriously, though, if this were done, what would happen when a pro-patent Parliament is elected? Then you would probably be clamoring for Parliament to be stripped of its right to make laws.
At least we'd have to power to elect a different one - something we only have very indirectly with the council & not at all with the commission.
One way to solve the problem of patent abuse overnight - if the case is found to be groundless, then the plaintiff must pay - double the amount claimed, plus double defendant's costs and losses, the money to be split between the defendant and the patent office.
Don't know about catbert, but I remember Ratbert with his bolt-on brain (actually a piece of liver) which had an MBA from Harvard.
Anybody know of a site that indexes the Dilbert cartoons by kewords or subject? It's a bummer when you just know there's one for the stuation but you can't find it.
Angle shmangle - the light would have made a streak brighter than the background sky, not darker than it. Unless it was made of reversed polarity photons or something.
The difference is between natural selection and artificial.
Natural selection has no goal other than the survival (of genes); participation in the game is both an end and a means.
Artificial selection has external customers, for want of a better word, who set goals or targets; a logistics manager wants a shorter/cheaper truck route, a farmer wants a porkier pig, a 733t hax0r wants a better ethernet driver.
God: I refuse to prove that I exist. Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.
Man: Yes, but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? That proves you exist, ergo you don't. And anyway, what's the airspeed velocity of a fully laded swallow?
God: African or European?... er... wait... [poof!]
You must have access to a higher res version of the photo, because on the ones linked from TFA I can barely see the lightpole, let alone the shape of the top.
which requires you to purchase 1 core book and at least 15 supplements to really understand what the core book is talking about. By the time you've figured it out, they release a totally new core book.
Slashdot Mirror
You should patent that idea. But it needs a snappy name - lemme see, it's a display that you can use without looking down - how about "a head-not-tilted-down display"?
Nah, it would never work.
One way to solve the problem of patent abuse overnight - if the case is found to be groundless, then the plaintiff must pay - double the amount claimed, plus double defendant's costs and losses, the money to be split between the defendant and the patent office.
Anybody know of a site that indexes the Dilbert cartoons by kewords or subject? It's a bummer when you just know there's one for the stuation but you can't find it.
However, if it's darker than the background sky, then slower will indeed equal darker.
My bad, OE was resizing the pictures.
Reply after overriding that feature:
There's still no difference, asshat.
Angle shmangle - the light would have made a streak brighter than the background sky, not darker than it. Unless it was made of reversed polarity photons or something.
- By what objective criteria did we (assuming you are a primate; I am) do so?
- As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all of its own
.Natural selection has no goal other than the survival (of genes); participation in the game is both an end and a means.
Artificial selection has external customers, for want of a better word, who set goals or targets; a logistics manager wants a shorter/cheaper truck route, a farmer wants a porkier pig, a 733t hax0r wants a better ethernet driver.
God: I refuse to prove that I exist. Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.
... er ... wait... [poof!]
Man: Yes, but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? That proves you exist, ergo you don't. And anyway, what's the airspeed velocity of a fully laded swallow?
God: African or European?
That or you're full of bullshit.
In Soviet Russia, our new monkey-spanking monkey overlords only welcome old people!!!
Having executive hair is a bonus too.
In Soviet Russia, a dictionary should consult you!!!
These have as much relevance to real world programming as keepie-uppie does to an actual game of soccer.
Hmmm. Just like everywhere else, in fact.
The search isn't acessible from the front page. When I pointed this error out, tech support gave me a rude response. YMMV.