Well to be fair, in order to win the Google X Prize you actually have to land your rover on the Moon. For this you just have to prove the concept here on Earth. And Armadillo Aerospace has already basically won this one while spending less than $2M, so their calculation wasn't that off.
Well I doubt I would have a cause of action for that lawsuit. Caring isn't what matters -- of course I would prefer them to steer something away from me if they can. Doesn't mean I wouldn't expect those who are hit instead to be happy about that.
I think the lawyers got this one right. There's no way any legal counsel would ever approve something like this. WEAKENING, perhaps, but not steering. I know I would sue if someone steered the next Katrina into my house.
When I was an anthropology undergrad student I remember thinking the aquatic ape theory sounded like just the type of crazy fringe theory I could latch onto. At least it's entertaining, and the earlier evidence we find of people using marine resources the more feasible it's starting to sound. Probably need to push back a lot further than this to really match that theory though.
I think you're missing the point. This habitat is just a proposed first step in people starting to live and work in a real way beyond the Earth. If that's the goal, it shouldn't take too long (in the grand scheme of things) to find ways to become completely self-sufficient. Water and oxygen are not exclusively found on Earth, as shocking as that may sound.
I'm a law student, and this is an issue that has come up in my Trademark class (as a good hypothetical situation, since it has not really been resolved yet). The sponsored link does NOT contain the trademark itself. If I search for "Coke" and one of the sponsored links contains the word "Pepsi" (and links to the Pepsi site), that is very different from me clicking on a sponsored link that says "Coke" and ending up on a Pepsi's website (which is the direct analogy to your example). THAT would be trademark infringement. This is still up in the air.
2035: Start construction of privately owned space station
I guess you haven't heard of Bigelow Aerospace? They already have launched TWO 1/3-scale prototypes of their orbital habitat, and they recently announced they will be moving UP the development schedule for their first functional habitat (that's right, a space program that is ahead of schedule).
IMHO, the grandparent was just pointing out that string theory has morphed as necessary to prevent itself from being discarded. M theory is just the latest attempt, but when it loses steam, string theorists will jump on the next "variant" to keep producing the "books, conferences, papers, and maybe even some derivative specialties of study" mentioned by the grandparent, of which Brian Greene's book is an excellent example.
Afraid we'll have to just disagree, then. I knew all about those remnants of chemical agents found occasionally in Iraq, but I would certainly never classify that as WMD, regardless of what you may think the commonly understood meaning of the term might be. YOU might think that any quantity of chemical used as a weapon is a WMD, but I think that's distorting the meaning of the term.
Your analogy is completely wrong, also. If a kid was busted with a couple firecrackers in his pocket, you wouldn't say "teenager found with explosive device."
I think you are missing the point. A few small canisters of chemicals cannot be honestly labeled "weapons of mass destruction." Maybe a tanker full of them could cause mass destruction, but the quantities found were not even capable of killing a couple soldiers. By this same token, it would be inappropriate to call a few grams of uranium a WMD.
I think you have to combine at least two of the joke memes at once for it to be worth anything nowadays. Perhaps... "In Soviet Russia, new copyright-law-promoting overlord welcomes YOU!!"
...but I am a law student and just took an introductory IP course, so I'll try to answer. A patent must actually do what you claim it does. But they don't claim it can't be cracked:
The problem with travel methods that let you go huge distances (wormholes, whatever, jolly fast stuff anyhow) is that they miss all the stuff between you and your destination.
Well I'm glad that the problem isn't something like, oh, I dunno, that those travel methods seem to defy physics, or something.
I'm not a nutritionist and this is a tangent, but I think most people would agree that less-processed, fresher foods are in some way "healthier" than more processed, heavily cooked foods. Where some people (and I get the feeling you're one of them) go too far is when you equate "less healthy" with "unhealthy." Sure, there are some vitamins and nutrients that are lost when food is processed, but I can't imagine telling someone that canned vegetables or processed grains are somehow actually BAD for you as opposed to not eating vegetables or grains at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well to be fair, in order to win the Google X Prize you actually have to land your rover on the Moon. For this you just have to prove the concept here on Earth. And Armadillo Aerospace has already basically won this one while spending less than $2M, so their calculation wasn't that off.
Imagine a Beowulf clust--- :sigh: I lost motivation halfway through the obligatory comment.
Well I doubt I would have a cause of action for that lawsuit. Caring isn't what matters -- of course I would prefer them to steer something away from me if they can. Doesn't mean I wouldn't expect those who are hit instead to be happy about that.
I think the lawyers got this one right. There's no way any legal counsel would ever approve something like this. WEAKENING, perhaps, but not steering. I know I would sue if someone steered the next Katrina into my house.
So God created Wikipedia!
Hah, sorry you posted this after I had loaded the page so I did the same. But yeah, I agree.
When I was an anthropology undergrad student I remember thinking the aquatic ape theory sounded like just the type of crazy fringe theory I could latch onto. At least it's entertaining, and the earlier evidence we find of people using marine resources the more feasible it's starting to sound. Probably need to push back a lot further than this to really match that theory though.
I think you're missing the point. This habitat is just a proposed first step in people starting to live and work in a real way beyond the Earth. If that's the goal, it shouldn't take too long (in the grand scheme of things) to find ways to become completely self-sufficient. Water and oxygen are not exclusively found on Earth, as shocking as that may sound.
I'm a law student, and this is an issue that has come up in my Trademark class (as a good hypothetical situation, since it has not really been resolved yet). The sponsored link does NOT contain the trademark itself. If I search for "Coke" and one of the sponsored links contains the word "Pepsi" (and links to the Pepsi site), that is very different from me clicking on a sponsored link that says "Coke" and ending up on a Pepsi's website (which is the direct analogy to your example). THAT would be trademark infringement. This is still up in the air.
I guess you haven't heard of Bigelow Aerospace? They already have launched TWO 1/3-scale prototypes of their orbital habitat, and they recently announced they will be moving UP the development schedule for their first functional habitat (that's right, a space program that is ahead of schedule).
But if the contracts for every available ISP contain similar clauses, couldn't this be an antitrust issue?
IMHO, the grandparent was just pointing out that string theory has morphed as necessary to prevent itself from being discarded. M theory is just the latest attempt, but when it loses steam, string theorists will jump on the next "variant" to keep producing the "books, conferences, papers, and maybe even some derivative specialties of study" mentioned by the grandparent, of which Brian Greene's book is an excellent example.
Wouldn't it be jolly if YouTube recorded the depositions and put those recordings on YouTube?
Afraid we'll have to just disagree, then. I knew all about those remnants of chemical agents found occasionally in Iraq, but I would certainly never classify that as WMD, regardless of what you may think the commonly understood meaning of the term might be. YOU might think that any quantity of chemical used as a weapon is a WMD, but I think that's distorting the meaning of the term. Your analogy is completely wrong, also. If a kid was busted with a couple firecrackers in his pocket, you wouldn't say "teenager found with explosive device."
I think you are missing the point. A few small canisters of chemicals cannot be honestly labeled "weapons of mass destruction." Maybe a tanker full of them could cause mass destruction, but the quantities found were not even capable of killing a couple soldiers. By this same token, it would be inappropriate to call a few grams of uranium a WMD.
Thus, no WMDs were found.
I think you have to combine at least two of the joke memes at once for it to be worth anything nowadays. Perhaps... "In Soviet Russia, new copyright-law-promoting overlord welcomes YOU!!"
Actually it's a lot easier than that. Simply create something (original) and put it into a tangible form. That is all. No © symbol necessary.
Oh c'mon, I chuckled. I say mod parent funny.
...but I am a law student and just took an introductory IP course, so I'll try to answer. A patent must actually do what you claim it does. But they don't claim it can't be cracked:
I know this might sound crazy, but-- gah, nevermind I think you already said it.
The problem with travel methods that let you go huge distances (wormholes, whatever, jolly fast stuff anyhow) is that they miss all the stuff between you and your destination.
Well I'm glad that the problem isn't something like, oh, I dunno, that those travel methods seem to defy physics, or something.
I'm not a nutritionist and this is a tangent, but I think most people would agree that less-processed, fresher foods are in some way "healthier" than more processed, heavily cooked foods. Where some people (and I get the feeling you're one of them) go too far is when you equate "less healthy" with "unhealthy." Sure, there are some vitamins and nutrients that are lost when food is processed, but I can't imagine telling someone that canned vegetables or processed grains are somehow actually BAD for you as opposed to not eating vegetables or grains at all.