Without copyright there is no government enforcement of licensing. There's a big difference.
even open source advocates appreciate the value of copyright
Which is completely separate from government enforcement. Government enforcement is completely subjective.
Gah. When will you fools figure this out?
Re:In Massachusetts, All Are Property of the State
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 0
Liberals are lazy! "Why work when the ambitious and energetic will and we can claim it!"
I"ve often said that the 21st century Communists are the Democratic Party. The Republicans, in their current form, aren't far behind.
Democrats == stupid. They believe that they can use government power only to help people with the exclusion of abuse. The notion of corruption doesn't even occur to them. Republics == evil. They realize the enormous corruption that comes with government authority and their perfectly willing to use it only when it benefits their own interest.
Re:So standard electrical plugs destroyed capitali
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
When I think of the number of coroporations that benefited from ignoring patents in the 19th century
When WW-II ended the US subsidiaries of German chemical companies plundered their patents as if there were no tomorrow.
Germany could've popped right back up if the US companies hadn't decided to ignore proper ownership rights.
Please explain to the class what capitalism has to do with any of this.
How is this society at all capitalist in any definition which separates capitalism from communism?
Re:Throw your Microsoft boxes into Boston Harbor!
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The author of the article is directing her commentary to the focus audience of small to medium business owners who have a salary ~$250k/year. She's attempting to frighten them into thinking that their government subsidies will dry up if open source comes to kill intellectual property.
The article reeks of the mindset you'd expect from Hilary Clinton.
The summary says it all
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
(whatever that means)
The government isn't going to capitulate. The corporations aren't going to magically be fair with their employee agreements. People aren't going to quit getting sick and tired of having everything taken away from them.
There's no logical outcome to the situation at all unless it's more of the same.
Implying that you know better than the teachers how best to teach
The success of the home schooling community supports my assertion.
Similar to how Linux, the made at home alternative, is drawing the attention of Microsoft.
Big bad federal government with all its power and authority and tax money still can't educate our children near as well as their own parents can if they can afford the proper tools and time. It's just too bad The Man is keeping most people down with the tax rate.
the problem with the way organic chemistry is taught is that
Implying that you know better than the organic chemists how to best teach their material.
Organic chemistry isn't taught any differently than any other discipline. It starts out with sanitized examples in a clean room to familiarize the student with the basic principles. Once those basic principles are firmly in place then the student is allowed to see how they apply and are changed in a real world environment.
It's no different than doing 50 math problems in 2nd grade, or 60 algebra problems in 6th, and then finally working with physics in 8th. Or writing a whole paragraph (with topic sentence) in fourth grade and then a 10-page short story in 8th. Unless you plan on revamping the entire educational system (which wouldn't really be a bad idea) there's a reason for introducing building block concepts which aren't always readily applicable.
My college tried something called "integrated curriculum" which attempted to teach all of the disciplines as a cohesive topic with real world examples which demonstrated the utility and implementation of the concepts from the different disciplines. IC killed students at a much higher rate than the traditional curriculum. If you want to learn to cook you don't start by making a 12-course meal. You start by boiling water and determining the calibration your burners. You don't start by making a fully decorated cake. You start by learning how to make scrambled eggs.
What's needed are applications
You get all the application you want if you survive to advanced classes.
You can say anything you like about how you didn't like the teaching style but, unless you're a practicing synthetic chemist in a research lab, you really have no concept of just what you were being taught.
Accord was horribly broken. Often this was due to underlying changes in Excel. (Yes, this is a "Microsoft sucks" jab. They leave themselves more open than Arizona sky) When you could manage to debug Accord, though, it was nice for moving libraries of data around.
ISIS Draw was inferior to CS ChemDraw or the offering from ACS Labs but ISIS Base, once you understand how the database infrastructure is designed, is probably one of the most powerful chemical databases I've come across.
Remember, Organic is just Inorganic with boring elements.
Oh that's harsh!:) Inorganic is primarily facilitated by the arrogant molecule water. Organic, shared bonding (like shared source), seems to be the more natural order of things.:)
Except in the sun, where everything is pretty ionic but even that organization has a shared component because, at that temperature, the photons matter more than the electrons.:)
I had a brief look at the ToC. It starts out quite nicely. Chapter 1 is essential. Chapter 2 should be the characteristics of bonding. The proposed Chapter 2 should contain the current Chapter 2. Chapter 3 needs to be rewritten from the molecular orbital level. The proposed Chapter 2, Characteristics of Bonding, would prepare the reader adequately for molecular orbitals in the formation and breaking of bonds. A chapter should be inserted as Chapter 4, Mechanisms. This chapter will discuss common mechanisms. With a conceptualization of molecular orbital interaction the reader will be far beyond formal mechanisms but it is necessary, as Chapter 1 is essential, that the reader knows the current terminology in communicating reaction sequences.
Chapters 4 and 5 can be kept as is with renumbering to include the new Chapter 4.
First I must state that, according to my employee agreement, anything I say on this topic is the intellectual property of the company.
Next I must recognize that you're asking for an organizational system for something which, you've acknowledged, is difficult to organize in a fashion that makes it easily memorizable. There's a reason textbooks haven't simplified the organization any further: the principles of the material are more important than the brevity at a textbook level.
Finally I must say that this is probably a matter of public record and, should you get caught attempting to make a few million by implementing this categorical conceptualization, I'm not going to get a dollar out of it but my company may decide to look into their ownership of it.
Really people. I'd love to release this as GPL but my company pays my rent and electricity every month.
In organic reactions the electrophile is your zero and the nucleophile is your one.
An organic reaction starts with bit1 bit2 NOT.
The result is then acted upon using logical functions with the contents of other registers. Those registers hold values which are applied using various algorithms and represent mitigating factors of the reaction. One of the most difficult registers is simply to compute the varying nucleophilicity or electrophilicity of one of the entities represented by one of the initial two bits. I suggest segregating them by individual atom. Note that textbooks tend to classify them in terms of functional groups. The nature of any given functional group and, to some extent, each individual atom may be influenced by the nature of the solvent or any other co-reactants. For example, carbon is usually the electrophile but, given proper circumstances, it can be made into the nucleophile. One very difficult classification is when the electron density of a bond, rather than a particular atom, is the nucleophile. You will have to figure out how you want to set the first two bits. While the first two bits may be a zero or a one it is up to you to decide based upon the environment of the reaction which species is the zero and which is the one. Other important factors are: temperature, mixing, solvenet characteristics, and the contribution of any surrounding co-reactants or catalysts. In years past it was necessary to calculate these interactioins with surrounding co-reactants or catalysts as a separate reaction process. As the instruction set of the core CPU has grown we've been able to create custom functions for the addition of metal catalysts, coordination complex catalysts, and levels of some simple salts in the surrounding solution.
It is possible that a reaction sequence being processed is fully evaluated at intermediate points called transition states. These transition states are the Reimann sum of the two interacting species from the point of initial chemical interaction to the point of chemical separation. It is especially necessary to interate the full process of evaluation when there are multiple reaction components involved. Current research is underway to create more sophisticated and accurate co-circuits capable of handling the continuous integration of these intermediate points such that they not need be iterated at all.
I'm not arguing with you that I'm aware of. I saw this line
Biological items are not the same as mechanical items
in one of your posts and decided to point out that, except for the technicality of fabrication, biological items are indeed the same as mechanical items.
Just because we can't rebuild an item doesn't mean that we don't understand how it works.
To date, if we could manage to master the technology of nanoscale construction, we do know enough about cellular function that we could rebuild a living cell from scratch.
Viruses can already be made nearly from scratch. The only thing which eludes us so far is how to make a membrane as complex as a natural viral or cellular membrane at that scale. I could make a large replica but I can't fabricate it at the size of a single organism.
It very well may be turtles but, at some point, you must accept that the universe wasn't created by humans. You must also accept your own humanity, mortality, and your inability to know everything. Face reality. If you can't know everything then there is some being which does. If there is no being which knows everything then it is possible for you to know everything. Have fun attempting to master shipbuilding, particle physics, chemical synthesis, computer programming, and psychology all in the same life time.
Maybe you should face reality. Something exists, somewhere, which is greater than humans. As far as we're concerned, even if that being itself is mortal, it is every bit a deity.
The original assertion was that Catholicism is perfectly accepting of Darwinism, science, and logic. Your counterpoint was to post a link to a Wikipedia summary of a 35 year old Catholic edict about abortion and contraception.
Perhaps in my striving, I'll uncover some striking evidence that I am, in fact, the ruler of the universe.
Sooner or later you will have to face mortality just like everyone else does. Strive for a more immediately useful pursuit. It'll be more fulfilling in the end and it will prevent you from being the instigator of global warfare.
but that doesn't mean that we (as in the human race) should just stop striving to learn
You're right. It doesn't. This wasn't about motivation to continue to advance. This was about the existence of a being which knows more than we do. Logically that being must exist because we know that we can't know everything.
Indeed many technologies which humans knew at one time are no longer well known at all. We lose technologies just as quickly as we gain them. The being which knows more than we do never loses a technology.
We'd still be living in caves if we'd accepted this in the Stone Age
Please explain how accepting that you will never rule the universe mandates that you turn into a useless lump of amotivational depression?
Citing Wikipedia does not dictate Catholic doctrine. Quit doing that shit. It's bad enough that more and more people are beginning to cite Wikipedia as if it's anything more than the contributed opinions of several people. Some Wikipedia articles are good. Others are horribly misinformed.
And how the hell does an edict about abortion and contraception have anything to do with science, logic, and Darwinism?
The point of abiogenesis is to explain how life came out of the primordial ooze. God was still required to set up the rules of the primordial ooze to support life.
At some point you really must come to grips with reality. The reality is that you can't know everything. Once you face reality then you will acknowledge that, if you can't know everything, there is some being which knows more than you do. If there isn't some being that knows more than you do then, logically, you can know everything. Have fun attempting to master particle physics, computer programming, blacksmithing, and shipbuilding all in the same lifetime.
The only possible conclusion is that, yes, at some point there is some being which knows more than you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is completely separate from government enforcement. Government enforcement is completely subjective.
Gah. When will you fools figure this out?
Democrats == stupid. They believe that they can use government power only to help people with the exclusion of abuse. The notion of corruption doesn't even occur to them.
Republics == evil. They realize the enormous corruption that comes with government authority and their perfectly willing to use it only when it benefits their own interest.
Germany could've popped right back up if the US companies hadn't decided to ignore proper ownership rights.
Please explain to the class what capitalism has to do with any of this.
How is this society at all capitalist in any definition which separates capitalism from communism?
The author of the article is directing her commentary to the focus audience of small to medium business owners who have a salary ~$250k/year. She's attempting to frighten them into thinking that their government subsidies will dry up if open source comes to kill intellectual property.
The article reeks of the mindset you'd expect from Hilary Clinton.
There's no logical outcome to the situation at all unless it's more of the same.
Not many. Just the ones at the top. That's all that matters.
Similar to how Linux, the made at home alternative, is drawing the attention of Microsoft.
Big bad federal government with all its power and authority and tax money still can't educate our children near as well as their own parents can if they can afford the proper tools and time. It's just too bad The Man is keeping most people down with the tax rate.
Organic chemistry isn't taught any differently than any other discipline. It starts out with sanitized examples in a clean room to familiarize the student with the basic principles. Once those basic principles are firmly in place then the student is allowed to see how they apply and are changed in a real world environment.
It's no different than doing 50 math problems in 2nd grade, or 60 algebra problems in 6th, and then finally working with physics in 8th. Or writing a whole paragraph (with topic sentence) in fourth grade and then a 10-page short story in 8th. Unless you plan on revamping the entire educational system (which wouldn't really be a bad idea) there's a reason for introducing building block concepts which aren't always readily applicable.
My college tried something called "integrated curriculum" which attempted to teach all of the disciplines as a cohesive topic with real world examples which demonstrated the utility and implementation of the concepts from the different disciplines. IC killed students at a much higher rate than the traditional curriculum. If you want to learn to cook you don't start by making a 12-course meal. You start by boiling water and determining the calibration your burners. You don't start by making a fully decorated cake. You start by learning how to make scrambled eggs.
You get all the application you want if you survive to advanced classes.
You can say anything you like about how you didn't like the teaching style but, unless you're a practicing synthetic chemist in a research lab, you really have no concept of just what you were being taught.
Accord was horribly broken. Often this was due to underlying changes in Excel. (Yes, this is a "Microsoft sucks" jab. They leave themselves more open than Arizona sky) When you could manage to debug Accord, though, it was nice for moving libraries of data around.
ISIS Draw was inferior to CS ChemDraw or the offering from ACS Labs but ISIS Base, once you understand how the database infrastructure is designed, is probably one of the most powerful chemical databases I've come across.
Except in the sun, where everything is pretty ionic but even that organization has a shared component because, at that temperature, the photons matter more than the electrons.
What solvent do you run that in?
I like the cover on that book.
I had a brief look at the ToC. It starts out quite nicely. Chapter 1 is essential. Chapter 2 should be the characteristics of bonding. The proposed Chapter 2 should contain the current Chapter 2. Chapter 3 needs to be rewritten from the molecular orbital level. The proposed Chapter 2, Characteristics of Bonding, would prepare the reader adequately for molecular orbitals in the formation and breaking of bonds. A chapter should be inserted as Chapter 4, Mechanisms. This chapter will discuss common mechanisms. With a conceptualization of molecular orbital interaction the reader will be far beyond formal mechanisms but it is necessary, as Chapter 1 is essential, that the reader knows the current terminology in communicating reaction sequences.
Chapters 4 and 5 can be kept as is with renumbering to include the new Chapter 4.
That troll mod feels like sour grapes. :)
First I must state that, according to my employee agreement, anything I say on this topic is the intellectual property of the company.
Next I must recognize that you're asking for an organizational system for something which, you've acknowledged, is difficult to organize in a fashion that makes it easily memorizable. There's a reason textbooks haven't simplified the organization any further: the principles of the material are more important than the brevity at a textbook level.
Finally I must say that this is probably a matter of public record and, should you get caught attempting to make a few million by implementing this categorical conceptualization, I'm not going to get a dollar out of it but my company may decide to look into their ownership of it.
Really people. I'd love to release this as GPL but my company pays my rent and electricity every month.
In organic reactions the electrophile is your zero and the nucleophile is your one.
An organic reaction starts with bit1 bit2 NOT.
The result is then acted upon using logical functions with the contents of other registers. Those registers hold values which are applied using various algorithms and represent mitigating factors of the reaction. One of the most difficult registers is simply to compute the varying nucleophilicity or electrophilicity of one of the entities represented by one of the initial two bits. I suggest segregating them by individual atom. Note that textbooks tend to classify them in terms of functional groups. The nature of any given functional group and, to some extent, each individual atom may be influenced by the nature of the solvent or any other co-reactants. For example, carbon is usually the electrophile but, given proper circumstances, it can be made into the nucleophile. One very difficult classification is when the electron density of a bond, rather than a particular atom, is the nucleophile. You will have to figure out how you want to set the first two bits. While the first two bits may be a zero or a one it is up to you to decide based upon the environment of the reaction which species is the zero and which is the one. Other important factors are: temperature, mixing, solvenet characteristics, and the contribution of any surrounding co-reactants or catalysts. In years past it was necessary to calculate these interactioins with surrounding co-reactants or catalysts as a separate reaction process. As the instruction set of the core CPU has grown we've been able to create custom functions for the addition of metal catalysts, coordination complex catalysts, and levels of some simple salts in the surrounding solution.
It is possible that a reaction sequence being processed is fully evaluated at intermediate points called transition states. These transition states are the Reimann sum of the two interacting species from the point of initial chemical interaction to the point of chemical separation. It is especially necessary to interate the full process of evaluation when there are multiple reaction components involved. Current research is underway to create more sophisticated and accurate co-circuits capable of handling the continuous integration of these intermediate points such that they not need be iterated at all.
How again is Darwinism in conflict with Christianity unless through some ridiculous self-imposed naivete?
To date, if we could manage to master the technology of nanoscale construction, we do know enough about cellular function that we could rebuild a living cell from scratch.
Viruses can already be made nearly from scratch. The only thing which eludes us so far is how to make a membrane as complex as a natural viral or cellular membrane at that scale. I could make a large replica but I can't fabricate it at the size of a single organism.
It very well may be turtles but, at some point, you must accept that the universe wasn't created by humans. You must also accept your own humanity, mortality, and your inability to know everything. Face reality. If you can't know everything then there is some being which does. If there is no being which knows everything then it is possible for you to know everything. Have fun attempting to master shipbuilding, particle physics, chemical synthesis, computer programming, and psychology all in the same life time.
Maybe you should face reality. Something exists, somewhere, which is greater than humans. As far as we're concerned, even if that being itself is mortal, it is every bit a deity.
The original assertion was that Catholicism is perfectly accepting of Darwinism, science, and logic. Your counterpoint was to post a link to a Wikipedia summary of a 35 year old Catholic edict about abortion and contraception.
Tell me how you were relevant.
Indeed many technologies which humans knew at one time are no longer well known at all. We lose technologies just as quickly as we gain them. The being which knows more than we do never loses a technology.
Please explain how accepting that you will never rule the universe mandates that you turn into a useless lump of amotivational depression?
Citing Wikipedia does not dictate Catholic doctrine. Quit doing that shit. It's bad enough that more and more people are beginning to cite Wikipedia as if it's anything more than the contributed opinions of several people. Some Wikipedia articles are good. Others are horribly misinformed.
And how the hell does an edict about abortion and contraception have anything to do with science, logic, and Darwinism?
The point of abiogenesis is to explain how life came out of the primordial ooze. God was still required to set up the rules of the primordial ooze to support life.
At some point you really must come to grips with reality. The reality is that you can't know everything. Once you face reality then you will acknowledge that, if you can't know everything, there is some being which knows more than you do. If there isn't some being that knows more than you do then, logically, you can know everything. Have fun attempting to master particle physics, computer programming, blacksmithing, and shipbuilding all in the same lifetime.
The only possible conclusion is that, yes, at some point there is some being which knows more than you do.