"Unfortunately, the details are really sparse. Wikipedia notes that it holds the Austrian patent AM 7738/2003, but navigating the Austrian patent website didn't work very well (um... language barrier...). The only source cited by Wikipedia is a speech from a few years ago, which mentions in passing that a woman's church the town had patented it."
Any Austrian patent experts here that can verify this claim? I call BS.
I see you are schooled in the art of octoporn - considered a delicacy in some countries. From the Urban Dictionary:
Octoporn: Pornography that depicts an, in fact, real octopus being ejected from a human orifice. The act is classically accompanied by a copious amount of unappetizing muscular contractions. The resulting ejection is considered a delicacy in at least nine countries.
I would imagine that one reason fat guys are fat is precisely because they drive everywhere. Last time I was in California I made the heretical suggstion that we walk the, approx, 1 mile to the beach rather than drive. "No one walks here!" was the reply, so we stuffed the dog into the car to go to the beach to walk the dog and then drove home. Seriously. Closer to home, I see people in the gym running for ages on the treadmill - why didn't they just run to the gym rather than drive? It is madness. Someone did a neat well designed study where they got some office people to use the stairs rather than the lift - this small additional excercise had profound effects in the long term on cholestoerol, chubbiness and just plain feeling good. We seem to be in a lazy world. Personally, I ride my bicycle to work and back (about 8 miles one way), I get there faster than by car in rush hour, I feel good, and just love buzzing past the caged masses stuck in traffic, and there's no problem parking. For sure, the sick and disabled need notorised transport - but why are people allowed to become sick and disabled through laziness? Why isn't there a cure? We can save their lives, reduce their weight, and save fuel.
The way things are going it is only a matter of time before we start to see interactive packaging - and therefore greater penetration by advertisers...
It kind of bugs me when people admit they have done something wrong but because other people also have problems then it is not that bad. Wonder what Jobs would say if there was a coding error in OS X? Doesn't matter 'cos MS do it all the time? It's the normalisation of mediocrity.
For your average user, sometimes it is enough for a piece of software to come with a note saying that installing this app is absolutely essential. So the question is, do we harden the browser or do we harden the user? The latter is impossible, and thinking otherwise is potentially negligent. Seriously, people have tried suing burger chains because they got fat on burgers and chips. People have tried suing bar owners because they drank too much and crashed their car. The depths of stupidity know no limits. So the only realistic solution is some kind of sandbox. That or some sort of virtual eugenics programme where you have to pass tests in order to get online.
I might be wrong here - but doesn't the fact that microwaves pass through ice crystals more easily than squishyt fleshy stuff mean they'll cook the oranges and leave them with a light dusting of frost?
If your reason for not liking Twitter is "I don't really care what you had for breakfast," the problem isn't Twitter - it's that you need to find some more interesting friends.
Just like a telephone, its usefulness depends on who you have on the other end of the line.
Precisely - I love twitter because I get immediate and brief headlines that can be easily followed up from various sources, including Science, Nature, NASA, the Economist, the BBC, and various other sources that are not otherwise succinctly aggregated in one place. Oh, and some hot chick who is off exploring the depths of the ocean in a big boat. This is where twitter, I think, works well.
But this does, however, beg the very important question - what do people on Slashdot listen to for their tech tweets?
"The Scene", I seem to remember, was a made for torrent series. Also downloaded hundres of thousands of times. But kind of fizzled out at the end and the group that made it seems to have vanished. Is this the future of television? Not so far!
Having kids, a busy job and a generally hectic life I just don't have time to get to the cinema as often as I would like to. I would more than happily pay the equivalent, or even a small premium, to see a new release at home... why? Because going to the cinema is not just going to the cinema - it is an event with baby-sitter costs, a meal, drinks and generally making the most of a rare night out. Why oh why can't the movie business see this market (I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, well maybe on slashdot) and cater to my needs? I mean really! They are bonkers, the lot of them. Hell, I'd even subscribe and watch a new release once a week.
While it might be ultimately impractical - there's no harm in researchers getting their work out to intelligent, informed audiences... like, errr, ummmmm... that other place
I'm not so sure - one person buys a dvd (just like a library) rips it and sticks it into his p2p client (aka library) and makes it available to anyone who cares to take a look. I think the only difference is that a library is very much slower, but they both ultimately acheive the same goal - multiple use of a single item without further payment.
By that standard of reasoning I shall now submit a claim to the RIAA for $1.75 quadrillion for inflicting me with what I can only describe as unwanted noisey rhythm.
As it happens, I'm increasingly impressed with what they are doing... Obama is unfortunately victim to the US press while BP, bar a few ludicrous statements by their CEO, have been focussed on getting what is a pretty difficult situation under control. When you think back over oil spills in history I don't think there's been a more proactive response. For once, those affected are getting compensation early (usually victims have to go through lengthy court processes), they are putting up the cash for the clean up, and so on. And no, I'm not a shill. So I'm not surprised that they are also buying up keywords so that their voice stands a chance of being heard over the US media hysteria.
This is a classic case where the mean crowd response is likely to have greatest predictive success - in which case just looking at global betting markets will give the most accurate prediction.
Hopefully no one is making the developer do anything... this isn't China you know. But stripping out the right to commercial activity on a whim is pretty poor form. What if this were applied more generally such that sole individuals could decide to just pull the plug whenever they felt like it? Say Amazon decided to ban self-help books, or Ebay decided that people from Arizona shouldn't have access anymore. Commerse works best in a predictable well-defined environment and in this case Jobs et al. seem to be messing around with something that is of fundamental importance.
It seems there's one bit of Google that really wants to sniff packets and another side, probably PR, that doesn't want the bad press. At the end of the day they're now just another multinational corporation with potential markets rather than individual customers.
I'm not sure if the same logic can be used across the situations BP and Google find themselves in. BP are in a difficult position, drilling for oil is risky and sometimes things go wrong and unpredictably so. That is the nature of the business. There are, of course, legitimate questions on what they could have done to prevent the accident but ultimately BP did not want this situation, it is bad for business. Google on the other hand created this issue, they actively ignored concerns over privacy and gave no one an opt out. Ultimately, Google seem to think that their bottom line is more important than users rights to privacy. BP have the expertise and equipment that give the best chances of stemming the flow of oil... others might be able to do something but I'd imagine, given the public outcry, BP are pretty focussed on getting this sorted out asap. Google, on the other hand, have acted unethically and an external organisation should therefore audit their processes - this is the only way an open and appropriate solution can be achieved and one that can be applied across the industry.
There is another issue worth considering - perhaps if current human endeavours wreak mahem on Earth then surely it would be perhaps quite a good idea to start afresh.
It is a pity more isn't put into projects like this - I personally feel that we've have learnt so much from Hubbble that it is, at least for the time being, the best option for space exploration. But what wil happen to Hubble? Surely it will retain some functionality into the future?
It is good peer reviewed journal articles and making the data available for public scrutiny that will determine right from wrong, in as far that there is a right from wrong in such matters - I doubt a court room would come close to what other scientists can do to each others work. Do they really think a lawyer could even get close to understanding the statistical models these guys use? The other issue is public perception and the potential damage false accusations can inflict. And I also doubt that a court room would appease public sentiment. I can understand why they might feel aggreaved and hope they win - I just don't think the excercise will cover the big issues.
Slashdot Mirror
"Unfortunately, the details are really sparse. Wikipedia notes that it holds the Austrian patent AM 7738/2003, but navigating the Austrian patent website didn't work very well (um... language barrier...). The only source cited by Wikipedia is a speech from a few years ago, which mentions in passing that a woman's church the town had patented it."
Any Austrian patent experts here that can verify this claim? I call BS.
Octoporn: Pornography that depicts an, in fact, real octopus being ejected from a human orifice. The act is classically accompanied by a copious amount of unappetizing muscular contractions. The resulting ejection is considered a delicacy in at least nine countries.
I would imagine that one reason fat guys are fat is precisely because they drive everywhere. Last time I was in California I made the heretical suggstion that we walk the, approx, 1 mile to the beach rather than drive. "No one walks here!" was the reply, so we stuffed the dog into the car to go to the beach to walk the dog and then drove home. Seriously. Closer to home, I see people in the gym running for ages on the treadmill - why didn't they just run to the gym rather than drive? It is madness. Someone did a neat well designed study where they got some office people to use the stairs rather than the lift - this small additional excercise had profound effects in the long term on cholestoerol, chubbiness and just plain feeling good. We seem to be in a lazy world. Personally, I ride my bicycle to work and back (about 8 miles one way), I get there faster than by car in rush hour, I feel good, and just love buzzing past the caged masses stuck in traffic, and there's no problem parking. For sure, the sick and disabled need notorised transport - but why are people allowed to become sick and disabled through laziness? Why isn't there a cure? We can save their lives, reduce their weight, and save fuel.
The way things are going it is only a matter of time before we start to see interactive packaging - and therefore greater penetration by advertisers...
They have no plans to replace it as the original data is in an unknown format.
Well there aren't that many obvious candidates... any of these look familiar?
It kind of bugs me when people admit they have done something wrong but because other people also have problems then it is not that bad. Wonder what Jobs would say if there was a coding error in OS X? Doesn't matter 'cos MS do it all the time? It's the normalisation of mediocrity.
For your average user, sometimes it is enough for a piece of software to come with a note saying that installing this app is absolutely essential. So the question is, do we harden the browser or do we harden the user? The latter is impossible, and thinking otherwise is potentially negligent. Seriously, people have tried suing burger chains because they got fat on burgers and chips. People have tried suing bar owners because they drank too much and crashed their car. The depths of stupidity know no limits. So the only realistic solution is some kind of sandbox. That or some sort of virtual eugenics programme where you have to pass tests in order to get online.
They've got some serious beef with the hams
I might be wrong here - but doesn't the fact that microwaves pass through ice crystals more easily than squishyt fleshy stuff mean they'll cook the oranges and leave them with a light dusting of frost?
If your reason for not liking Twitter is "I don't really care what you had for breakfast," the problem isn't Twitter - it's that you need to find some more interesting friends.
Just like a telephone, its usefulness depends on who you have on the other end of the line.
Precisely - I love twitter because I get immediate and brief headlines that can be easily followed up from various sources, including Science, Nature, NASA, the Economist, the BBC, and various other sources that are not otherwise succinctly aggregated in one place. Oh, and some hot chick who is off exploring the depths of the ocean in a big boat. This is where twitter, I think, works well.
But this does, however, beg the very important question - what do people on Slashdot listen to for their tech tweets?
"The Scene", I seem to remember, was a made for torrent series. Also downloaded hundres of thousands of times. But kind of fizzled out at the end and the group that made it seems to have vanished. Is this the future of television? Not so far!
Having kids, a busy job and a generally hectic life I just don't have time to get to the cinema as often as I would like to. I would more than happily pay the equivalent, or even a small premium, to see a new release at home... why? Because going to the cinema is not just going to the cinema - it is an event with baby-sitter costs, a meal, drinks and generally making the most of a rare night out. Why oh why can't the movie business see this market (I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, well maybe on slashdot) and cater to my needs? I mean really! They are bonkers, the lot of them. Hell, I'd even subscribe and watch a new release once a week.
While it might be ultimately impractical - there's no harm in researchers getting their work out to intelligent, informed audiences... like, errr, ummmmm... that other place
I'm not so sure - one person buys a dvd (just like a library) rips it and sticks it into his p2p client (aka library) and makes it available to anyone who cares to take a look. I think the only difference is that a library is very much slower, but they both ultimately acheive the same goal - multiple use of a single item without further payment.
By that standard of reasoning I shall now submit a claim to the RIAA for $1.75 quadrillion for inflicting me with what I can only describe as unwanted noisey rhythm.
As it happens, I'm increasingly impressed with what they are doing... Obama is unfortunately victim to the US press while BP, bar a few ludicrous statements by their CEO, have been focussed on getting what is a pretty difficult situation under control. When you think back over oil spills in history I don't think there's been a more proactive response. For once, those affected are getting compensation early (usually victims have to go through lengthy court processes), they are putting up the cash for the clean up, and so on. And no, I'm not a shill. So I'm not surprised that they are also buying up keywords so that their voice stands a chance of being heard over the US media hysteria.
This is a classic case where the mean crowd response is likely to have greatest predictive success - in which case just looking at global betting markets will give the most accurate prediction.
Hopefully no one is making the developer do anything... this isn't China you know. But stripping out the right to commercial activity on a whim is pretty poor form. What if this were applied more generally such that sole individuals could decide to just pull the plug whenever they felt like it? Say Amazon decided to ban self-help books, or Ebay decided that people from Arizona shouldn't have access anymore. Commerse works best in a predictable well-defined environment and in this case Jobs et al. seem to be messing around with something that is of fundamental importance.
It seems there's one bit of Google that really wants to sniff packets and another side, probably PR, that doesn't want the bad press. At the end of the day they're now just another multinational corporation with potential markets rather than individual customers.
I'm not sure if the same logic can be used across the situations BP and Google find themselves in. BP are in a difficult position, drilling for oil is risky and sometimes things go wrong and unpredictably so. That is the nature of the business. There are, of course, legitimate questions on what they could have done to prevent the accident but ultimately BP did not want this situation, it is bad for business. Google on the other hand created this issue, they actively ignored concerns over privacy and gave no one an opt out. Ultimately, Google seem to think that their bottom line is more important than users rights to privacy. BP have the expertise and equipment that give the best chances of stemming the flow of oil... others might be able to do something but I'd imagine, given the public outcry, BP are pretty focussed on getting this sorted out asap. Google, on the other hand, have acted unethically and an external organisation should therefore audit their processes - this is the only way an open and appropriate solution can be achieved and one that can be applied across the industry.
There is another issue worth considering - perhaps if current human endeavours wreak mahem on Earth then surely it would be perhaps quite a good idea to start afresh.
So all those German citizens daft enough to allow thier machines to become part of a botnet are, technically, at risk of prosecution?
It is a pity more isn't put into projects like this - I personally feel that we've have learnt so much from Hubbble that it is, at least for the time being, the best option for space exploration. But what wil happen to Hubble? Surely it will retain some functionality into the future?
It is good peer reviewed journal articles and making the data available for public scrutiny that will determine right from wrong, in as far that there is a right from wrong in such matters - I doubt a court room would come close to what other scientists can do to each others work. Do they really think a lawyer could even get close to understanding the statistical models these guys use? The other issue is public perception and the potential damage false accusations can inflict. And I also doubt that a court room would appease public sentiment. I can understand why they might feel aggreaved and hope they win - I just don't think the excercise will cover the big issues.
applies in this case. It states that an item's usefullness increases ten-fold as soon as it is thrown away. Hoarding is only natural.