5-10 years is too short. The original term was 14. Maybe there should be a sliding scale depending on how much money can be proven to have been spent on the development. There's nothing wrong with relying on a patent to remain profitable; if the company invested a chunk of money developing something new, they deserve to get the use of it for a while, partly to help them pay for developing the next new thing. But they DON'T deserve to stop the entire universe from developing another thing in parallel that sort-of-looks-like the first thing (as opposed to directly copying, which is using work someone else paid for, which is the point of the patent).
Yes, ink-jet costs are ludicrous when you know the technology behind them, but the precision for price is so much better than the old days. Besides, we all finally dumped our LPT: cabled dot-matrix and ASCII printers, so there's not much choice.
Laser just doesn't justify at home, and color laser is much higher.
Maybe "you've only committed a crime" if you've broken the law. The *letter* of the law, possibly with an exact limit. If you've come close to the line but not passed it, it's not a crime. And if the going standard is testing, and someone has been tested over and over and over and passed, can you toss out that standard on the aesthetic grounds that "nobody can be that good so he must have been cheating"?
Similarly, reminds me of a time I was laid off. My name was already on a patent application, my code was already in production, and I had been the most outspoken about a higher-up who had been counterproductive. Who was HR going to back - an engineer or a VP?
Yes, he said liars, and I agree. Birthers wanted a long-form certificate, got one, and decided it must be fake. How many people must have colluded to cheat vs. how many people are claiming that they *think* something is wrong? Isaac Asimov has a character in "The Evitable Conflict" say, in response to accusations that a person is secretly a robot, "Instead of saying "I've never caught him eating or sleeping", you claim "He never eats! He never sleeps!"" (paraphrased).
Personally I've always figured that something about going through chemotherapy had given Armstrong an advantage - mental certainly, in that anything he went through afterwards couldn't be worse, but physically as well in that he had been stripped down to skin and bone and built himself back up very deliberately. And maybe something about the allowable medical treatment that he continued to need that was supposedly calculated to be fair was miscalculated. I'm suggesting that maybe he was skating just right up to the margins of legality, without quite stepping over it.
The quality level where the pattern matches across the pockets and the front. Abstract or floral patterns. Plain tan khakis.
If there's any safety hazard in the area, closed shoes.
Confused. Faramir *is* shown resisting the power of the ring, despite clearly being tempted, just as Aragorn is - and, in his way, Samwise. I'll agree he could have been given more respect . . .
>>> why didn't he make 6 or more movies out of LotR?
Because the movie industry runs on real money.
It's easy to forget that the 2nd and 3rd movies weren't committed until after the industry financial people saw the reaction to the first one. It's also easy to forget, if like me you've been reading these books every few years since the 1960s, that most of the world hasn't, and didn't miss the details as much as we did.
Finally, when you compare the simplifications that Peter Jackson made for the mass audience with the *original* level of other "high fantasy" like (barf alert) Twilight (oh, you already forgot the reviewers who lumped all of the supernatural magic stuff in the same category?) , perhaps you can join me in forgiving him. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your individual points; just letting them fade behind the mass of visuals and quality that makes up the work as a whole. (Besides, the elf and the dunedain and the dwarf in "real life" would be swapping short jokes and hairy jokes and whatever other trash talk you'd hear in any locker room, and overemphasizing the naughty childishness of Merry and Pippin at the beginning makes their recognition-of-reality all the more visible when it happens. It's a movie, not a book, and the storytelling style is different.)
The place I've always missed automatic control is starting up from a stoplight. People aren't paying attention, and even when they are, they aren't even ready to start moving until the person in front of them has gone far away. And then people who were too far back and tried to zoom through in time have to slam to a stop when they realize it's not yellow any more. With automatic control, especially if the cars talk to each other, the *right" number of cars for the timing interval will all move through together like a train, and the rest of the cars will idle up during the red light. Oh, wait, that requires the intersection talking to the cars too, about the timing.
On the other hand, which of Larry Niven's stories mentions the death penalty for operating a vehicle under manual control . . . (once we have really good organ transplant tech, that is). Maybe the slippery slope is too close . . .
Disagree with analogy. Yes, light switches should be made simple and safe enough that a child can use it. OTOH we don't embed the wires and connectors in epoxy; we leave them securely covered for safety but *available* so that the *experts* can come in and access them when necessary - say,when the light switch needs to be replaced.
We can replace a simple light switch with a timer; we can access a CLI from a batch file or auto-timed job. This is not comparable to a GUI at all.
++. Anything with a GUI requires that a live person be there monitoring it all the time. That's what computers are for. The GUI should be the *additional interface".
We saw this kind of problem years ago. And then the vendor didn't understand why we were ticked off when they inserted commands in the *middle* of menus, changing all of the numbering; and changed menu and window titles to boot. Didn't even understand "It makes all of our test and setup OBSOLETE, and by the way it makes YOUR OWN documentation obsolete too".
The point of taxation either way...should be to fund the govt to work....NOT to alter behavior.
Like cigarette taxes?:-)
Or else this is just a tax funding the uninsured-emergency-coverage part of the government (which is only done indirectly because hospitals can deduct the expense from income rather than the government actually paying cash for it).
You may think that you "bought" your cellphone, but really you're leasing it from the communications service company. They own it. So when it acts according to their wishes rather than yours, it is merely following priority. The fact that phones can be tied to service providers should make this abundantly clear.
This is being extended to computer hardware through the pressure to make motherboards run only software with expensive keys controlled by a monopoly.
No, making it forbidden - especially limited to an age range - would make it desirable. Far better, and more subtle, to skim a "mere" penny per ounce. I wonder if this was planned with Mayor Bloomberg in NYC; he proposes an outright ban on large sizes, then CA proposes a more reasonable idea that people can go along with, and Bloomberg can "back down" to it as a compromise.
When I was a kid, my European-educated mother thought it was crazy to be feeding kids fruit juice all the time, the then-current trend before soda moved from teenagers to children. Water, with maybe a squeeze of lemon juice, was what she put on the table. Iced tea (fresh, unsweetened) in the summer. Somehow I didn't feel deprived.:-)
Because that's what this whole cloud nonsense really means - going back to the hierarchy and control from which personal computing freed us.
Every time a game or program requires remote authentication, the reviews are scathing; yet somehow there is still a push to a paradigm of remote *everything*. This is completely inconsistent with the observed preferences of knowledgeable users. Of course, business management loves the idea - they see the control of centralization without even needing an in-house IT department. For anybody else, it means giving up the rights to your own computer.
They ARE doing their jobs, maintaining an enhanced familial / social network and more personal stimulation for the child.
OP does not include information about whether this is also assisting parents who find it difficult to travel (to visit in person which would be preferred) and/or expect limited time to interact with the child.
If/when you have a child, you can do it your way. When my son was born, my wife's parents lived in the next town (still do); my father was already dead and my mother lived far away (and has since died). Maybe with modern tech the relationship could have been closer. I certainly wouldn't begrudge OP the attempt.
Slashdot Mirror
5-10 years is too short. The original term was 14. Maybe there should be a sliding scale depending on how much money can be proven to have been spent on the development. There's nothing wrong with relying on a patent to remain profitable; if the company invested a chunk of money developing something new, they deserve to get the use of it for a while, partly to help them pay for developing the next new thing. But they DON'T deserve to stop the entire universe from developing another thing in parallel that sort-of-looks-like the first thing (as opposed to directly copying, which is using work someone else paid for, which is the point of the patent).
Yes, ink-jet costs are ludicrous when you know the technology behind them, but the precision for price is so much better than the old days. Besides, we all finally dumped our LPT: cabled dot-matrix and ASCII printers, so there's not much choice. Laser just doesn't justify at home, and color laser is much higher.
Maybe "you've only committed a crime" if you've broken the law. The *letter* of the law, possibly with an exact limit. If you've come close to the line but not passed it, it's not a crime. And if the going standard is testing, and someone has been tested over and over and over and passed, can you toss out that standard on the aesthetic grounds that "nobody can be that good so he must have been cheating"?
Similarly, reminds me of a time I was laid off. My name was already on a patent application, my code was already in production, and I had been the most outspoken about a higher-up who had been counterproductive. Who was HR going to back - an engineer or a VP?
And then lend them your copy of "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising".
Yes, he said liars, and I agree. Birthers wanted a long-form certificate, got one, and decided it must be fake. How many people must have colluded to cheat vs. how many people are claiming that they *think* something is wrong? Isaac Asimov has a character in "The Evitable Conflict" say, in response to accusations that a person is secretly a robot, "Instead of saying "I've never caught him eating or sleeping", you claim "He never eats! He never sleeps!"" (paraphrased).
Personally I've always figured that something about going through chemotherapy had given Armstrong an advantage - mental certainly, in that anything he went through afterwards couldn't be worse, but physically as well in that he had been stripped down to skin and bone and built himself back up very deliberately. And maybe something about the allowable medical treatment that he continued to need that was supposedly calculated to be fair was miscalculated. I'm suggesting that maybe he was skating just right up to the margins of legality, without quite stepping over it.
. . . so I have to figure it's the boxes of papers. After all, evidence is supposed to be tracked better than leaving it in a self-storage closet.
The quality level where the pattern matches across the pockets and the front. Abstract or floral patterns. Plain tan khakis. If there's any safety hazard in the area, closed shoes.
Confused. Faramir *is* shown resisting the power of the ring, despite clearly being tempted, just as Aragorn is - and, in his way, Samwise. I'll agree he could have been given more respect . . .
>>> why didn't he make 6 or more movies out of LotR?
Because the movie industry runs on real money.
It's easy to forget that the 2nd and 3rd movies weren't committed until after the industry financial people saw the reaction to the first one. It's also easy to forget, if like me you've been reading these books every few years since the 1960s, that most of the world hasn't, and didn't miss the details as much as we did.
Finally, when you compare the simplifications that Peter Jackson made for the mass audience with the *original* level of other "high fantasy" like (barf alert) Twilight (oh, you already forgot the reviewers who lumped all of the supernatural magic stuff in the same category?) , perhaps you can join me in forgiving him. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your individual points; just letting them fade behind the mass of visuals and quality that makes up the work as a whole. (Besides, the elf and the dunedain and the dwarf in "real life" would be swapping short jokes and hairy jokes and whatever other trash talk you'd hear in any locker room, and overemphasizing the naughty childishness of Merry and Pippin at the beginning makes their recognition-of-reality all the more visible when it happens. It's a movie, not a book, and the storytelling style is different.)
The place I've always missed automatic control is starting up from a stoplight. People aren't paying attention, and even when they are, they aren't even ready to start moving until the person in front of them has gone far away. And then people who were too far back and tried to zoom through in time have to slam to a stop when they realize it's not yellow any more. With automatic control, especially if the cars talk to each other, the *right" number of cars for the timing interval will all move through together like a train, and the rest of the cars will idle up during the red light. Oh, wait, that requires the intersection talking to the cars too, about the timing.
On the other hand, which of Larry Niven's stories mentions the death penalty for operating a vehicle under manual control . . . (once we have really good organ transplant tech, that is). Maybe the slippery slope is too close . . .
Disagree with analogy. Yes, light switches should be made simple and safe enough that a child can use it. OTOH we don't embed the wires and connectors in epoxy; we leave them securely covered for safety but *available* so that the *experts* can come in and access them when necessary - say,when the light switch needs to be replaced.
We can replace a simple light switch with a timer; we can access a CLI from a batch file or auto-timed job. This is not comparable to a GUI at all.
++. Anything with a GUI requires that a live person be there monitoring it all the time. That's what computers are for. The GUI should be the *additional interface".
We saw this kind of problem years ago. And then the vendor didn't understand why we were ticked off when they inserted commands in the *middle* of menus, changing all of the numbering; and changed menu and window titles to boot. Didn't even understand "It makes all of our test and setup OBSOLETE, and by the way it makes YOUR OWN documentation obsolete too".
True capitalism is freedom . . . to starve.
The point of taxation either way...should be to fund the govt to work....NOT to alter behavior.
Like cigarette taxes? :-)
Or else this is just a tax funding the uninsured-emergency-coverage part of the government (which is only done indirectly because hospitals can deduct the expense from income rather than the government actually paying cash for it).
Concur. If you don't buy your own insurance, you pay a tax to pay for the "virtual insurance" of emergency care covering anyone brought in.
... may Roger Zelazny forgive me. :-)
You may think that you "bought" your cellphone, but really you're leasing it from the communications service company. They own it. So when it acts according to their wishes rather than yours, it is merely following priority. The fact that phones can be tied to service providers should make this abundantly clear. This is being extended to computer hardware through the pressure to make motherboards run only software with expensive keys controlled by a monopoly.
... of the Colonies, that is. Point is, strange things can happen.
No, making it forbidden - especially limited to an age range - would make it desirable. Far better, and more subtle, to skim a "mere" penny per ounce. I wonder if this was planned with Mayor Bloomberg in NYC; he proposes an outright ban on large sizes, then CA proposes a more reasonable idea that people can go along with, and Bloomberg can "back down" to it as a compromise.
:-)
When I was a kid, my European-educated mother thought it was crazy to be feeding kids fruit juice all the time, the then-current trend before soda moved from teenagers to children. Water, with maybe a squeeze of lemon juice, was what she put on the table. Iced tea (fresh, unsweetened) in the summer. Somehow I didn't feel deprived.
Well, email, but it's just whistling on the phone. Sort of.
Because that's what this whole cloud nonsense really means - going back to the hierarchy and control from which personal computing freed us.
Every time a game or program requires remote authentication, the reviews are scathing; yet somehow there is still a push to a paradigm of remote *everything*. This is completely inconsistent with the observed preferences of knowledgeable users. Of course, business management loves the idea - they see the control of centralization without even needing an in-house IT department. For anybody else, it means giving up the rights to your own computer.
They ARE doing their jobs, maintaining an enhanced familial / social network and more personal stimulation for the child.
OP does not include information about whether this is also assisting parents who find it difficult to travel (to visit in person which would be preferred) and/or expect limited time to interact with the child.
If/when you have a child, you can do it your way. When my son was born, my wife's parents lived in the next town (still do); my father was already dead and my mother lived far away (and has since died). Maybe with modern tech the relationship could have been closer. I certainly wouldn't begrudge OP the attempt.
Mother of god.
Which?
I wouldn't mind believing in an indifferent god, precisely because such a god wouldn't mind either.