NO corporate holdings of copyright or patent. Period. Let them pay license fees for those few years to the inventor
If a corporation employs people to invent things, paying their salaries and providing the equipment and materials, why shouldn't the corporation hold the patent?
"NO corporate holdings of land or vehicles" might not sound as good when you're standing on your populist soapbox making anti-corpoarate rants. But it has as much logical and economic justification.
You seem to be a believer in the "one man in a shed" theory of invention, which suffers from one majotr flaw: in this day and age, it's nonesense.
No. What he's saying is more like: temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms in a substance. If there aren't any molecules, the temperuture is undefined.
If you take the ideal gas law and rearrange it, you get T = pV/nR. n is the number of moles, which in a vaccuum is zero.
Is the patent in question one concerning "a process or method for constantly changing shipping dates and requiring the recipient to approve such changes on at least a daily frequency, usually with a deadline for approval which is in the past"?
Because if it is, Amazon are clearly in violation of it.
And yes, if there's a patent for not reading TFA, I think I may have infringed it.
Though what AlanS2002 says is true of the population as a whole, simply because the ones that aren't very good at the new thing tend not to survive.
The average speed of gazelles doesn't increase because getting chased regularly by cheetahs gives them a workout; it increases because it's generally the slow ones that get caught & eaten.
(in case you're a German, that means "duh, that's exactly the point I was making to the person I was replying to, whose post was all about speed).
Higher speeds do not make for more accidents.
Other things being equal, the faster traffic is, the less time you have to react to any unforseen circumstance. You know, reaction time constant, but higher speed = more distance during that time = less chance to brake/avoid the problem.
I seem to have missed the year 2000 edition though.
It was lost due to some kind of computer virus (I think it was a sed script, something like s/y/k/). My grandpa told me there was lots of things like that in those days when web didn't even have a number.
Let me guess - this town had, umm, about 45 inhabitants?
The only accident I saw while I was there, was a 'farmer' who sped through a blind intersection and clipped the bumper of another car (he was going nearly double the speed limit).
And what if he'd killed a family of four?
This is the problem. While "let everyone do as they please and punish them if there's bad consequences" sounds fine in theory, in practice it's pretty hard to replace a dead person killed by a psychopath who thinks the roads are his own private domain.
Whether you're likely to get more or less of that behaviour in a situation where there aren't any rules (i.e. might is right and you can't prove whose fault it is anyway) is left as an exercise for the reader.
European societies tend to focus more on manners and personal responsibility
Try stepping onto a pedestrian crossing in the two countries I mentioned above. Even if it's one with lights, the driver will happily knock you over and claim he saw the light when it was green. (He's not lying - he went down that same road last Tuesday...)
You seem to have a mythical, idealised view of Europe, probably caused by never having lived there.
It's an idiotic idea. Anyone who has seen traffic in Belgium or France knows they don't even obey the signs that are there. In Brussels they have to have 2 cops on every major junction just to avoid gridlock due to vehicles following nose-to-tail blocking the perpendicular road when the lights change. And even then it's still total chaos.
I, as a law abiding citizen on the other hand, should not be immediately thrown under suspicion just because my face is somewhat similar to a blurry CCTV image, which is what the false positive rate could cause.
Everyone's a law abiding citizens - at least until the first time.
I have a job that requires me to be in a certain place at a certain time, thats not exactly possible if I am being held for questioning because of something someone I have never met did something on the other side of town.
Which couldn't possibly happen because you drive a similar car (or a car with a similar plate), have a similar sounding name or anything...
Slashdot Mirror
"NO corporate holdings of land or vehicles" might not sound as good when you're standing on your populist soapbox making anti-corpoarate rants. But it has as much logical and economic justification.
You seem to be a believer in the "one man in a shed" theory of invention, which suffers from one majotr flaw: in this day and age, it's nonesense.
I think if Archimedes were alive today, he could easily do it - he'd just need a very large sheet of paper.
The tricky part is stopping the monkey from getting distracted with some theatre project he's working on with his buddies.
No. What he's saying is more like: temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms in a substance. If there aren't any molecules, the temperuture is undefined.
If you take the ideal gas law and rearrange it, you get T = pV/nR. n is the number of moles, which in a vaccuum is zero.
Is the patent in question one concerning "a process or method for constantly changing shipping dates and requiring the recipient to approve such changes on at least a daily frequency, usually with a deadline for approval which is in the past"?
Because if it is, Amazon are clearly in violation of it.
And yes, if there's a patent for not reading TFA, I think I may have infringed it.
Though what AlanS2002 says is true of the population as a whole, simply because the ones that aren't very good at the new thing tend not to survive.
The average speed of gazelles doesn't increase because getting chased regularly by cheetahs gives them a workout; it increases because it's generally the slow ones that get caught & eaten.
Is it Lamarkism?
It's both - it's Lamagicalism!
Try to walk into The White House, the Pentagon or NORAD and see how they like your logic. I suspect you might get more than a mild electric shock.
I can just picture Troy McClure saying it.
When his mom gets the bill, he's going to be totally grounded, like, forever.
(in case you're a German, that means "duh, that's exactly the point I was making to the person I was replying to, whose post was all about speed).
Other things being equal, the faster traffic is, the less time you have to react to any unforseen circumstance. You know, reaction time constant, but higher speed = more distance during that time = less chance to brake/avoid the problem.
No he wasn't. There is no speed limit in loony anarchist town - it's a restriction on individual freedom.
Perhaps he does, but it's equally true for windoze.
And what if he'd killed a family of four?
This is the problem. While "let everyone do as they please and punish them if there's bad consequences" sounds fine in theory, in practice it's pretty hard to replace a dead person killed by a psychopath who thinks the roads are his own private domain.
Whether you're likely to get more or less of that behaviour in a situation where there aren't any rules (i.e. might is right and you can't prove whose fault it is anyway) is left as an exercise for the reader.
Yes, because speed is the only factor contributing to dangerous driving.
You seem to have a mythical, idealised view of Europe, probably caused by never having lived there.
It's an idiotic idea. Anyone who has seen traffic in Belgium or France knows they don't even obey the signs that are there. In Brussels they have to have 2 cops on every major junction just to avoid gridlock due to vehicles following nose-to-tail blocking the perpendicular road when the lights change. And even then it's still total chaos.
Computers don't generate code. Software generates code. Now (without violating causality) who writes that software?