This quote does not disprove the earlier statement. In fact, the onliest way in which Einsteins theory kept the Aether alive was if the new Aether did not have any properties at all.
It has always amazed me that no other compilers do "as you type" compilation, since the difficulties are, while not trivial, quite easy to surmount. You can construct grammar trees and fill them online. During my CS study we built such realtime parsers in one of the courses as an assignment. This was in 1990.
The Netherlands has a much better trackrecord than surrounding countries like Germany and France, because additional measures are taken after discharge to eradicate the MRSA. In the USA, this would lead to additional cost at no profit to the hospital (patient would not like to pay for it because they aren't sick anymore). Benefit to society does not equate direct profit but does equate to cost for patient. This makes it more difficult to stop MRSA.
While I agree that resistances will always crop up, the *problems* with this resistant bacteria are mostly social in origin. Hence Portugal has a >50% infection rate and The Netherlands less than 1%.
Before antibiotics, bacterial infections were a leading cause of death. Welcome back, Death. We've missed you.
The stupidity of it all is that MRSA is not necessary and can be prevented. Just stop giving antibiotics like candy to everyone asking for it, and stop showering (literally) the fowl and pigs on farms with antibiotics. Currently in Dutch hospitals most people that bring in MRSA either come from Italy or Spain (where every fool can buy antibiotics for the common cold - drugstores tried to give them to me for a very simple rash that was cured with a bit of zinc salve), or from farmers working with chickens (mostly). They literally get showered in antibiotics to prevent disease, the stables are that crowded. And as a side-effect, it speeds up their growth.
There were however, a few people who did see the use of the plane as a new weapon. But it was a minority.
A good book about that (and other things) is "The social history of the machine gun" which is as fun to read as it sounds:) It goes into detail about the conservative attitudes of the officers in the first world war, and links that to their social background (a large number were land owners). The sad part is where it details what happened to the horses. I mean: barbed wire, trenches, machine guns for miles behind the first line, and the officers thought they could charge through on horseback... at the first real charge they ended up as hamburger. All of them.
But to get back to Foch: it wasn't inherently military to be conservative about airplanes. However, the military leadership at the time was made up of inherently conservative people - like Foch. So: horses, mass attacks over the wall, no airplanes. And millions of dead. Even if that has changed, the social background of much of the military is conservative, not progressive. Which influences how the military works. This is different in draft armies, where more of the population is represented (the Dutch army even has its own trade union, dating from the time most soldiers were drafted).
Which means I would expect a less conservative military in, for instance, Israel than in the US, and a slow change in political outlook in the armies of countries that have switched from one type of army to another. Although the general political outlook of the population from which you can draft would ofcourse exert influence as well.
With a billion people in China, and rampant starvation, who the heck would pay that much (relatively) for a child?! Did they sell to a foreign couple or what?
A lot of people from China would pay, actually. Adoptions from China are slowly grinding to a halt now more and more people in China are adopting children themselves. Infertility is no longer considered a curse or punishment, but a curable condition. And if not cured, at least abated.
The girl could ofcourse be sold into an unpleasant situation (household slave and future sex slave, for one), but a healthy baby girl will be adopted in the cities quite easily and fetches more money there, so the best outcome is actually also the most likely scenario.
Politics aren't about intelligence, but about who pays for what. So people on the paying end will deny everything until their last breath. Not because they're stupid, but because they don't like being less well off than they are now. And because others like being wealthy and see a gravy train to ride, they'll promote that attitude.
Funny... I read some research a few months ago about this. Someone had the bright idea to research if that was really the case. Turns out it's not. At least, not in The Netherlands. People who have higher education and income tend to raise more children, because they are more attractive as prospects in a relationship. The lowest education/income brackets find it very hard to marry, especially when male.
Also, if your logic holds, we would never have left the complete dominance of the Church in the Middle Ages, or even the complete sway of religion over public live in much of the country in the 50s. Even Iran, the theocratic poster child, has a truckload of issues with restless parts of the population that say "sure we believe - but not in your stupid ideas". So I'm not a pessimist about it.
you're correct ofcourse - what was actually said was that there had to be a direct benefit for the combination, not a process whereby you have to combine known elements, and then combine *those* new elements in order to have the new invention (what I meant by indirect derivations). That would not be obvious, it had to be "one step" removed from known items, not two steps.
I didn't know about the prior art in unpublished help screens counting as well, which is good to know. I'm not sure if there is a difference there between first-to-file (EU) and first-to-invent (US) patent systems there, though?
A continous-variable transmission might help. I have one in my Mercedes which keeps the rpm constant so the engine can always run at peak efficiency. Also, good software for the motormanagement might help: use the electric energy for the short hauls and start the diesel for the long haul.
"Obvious" is a legal term, different from how you would interpret it - it only has a remote relationship with the English word "obvious".
I just had a chat tonight with a software friend of mine who's now going to become an IP lawyer about this topic, patents and other good stuff, where this came up as well. Basically, he told me that "obvious" for patents is defined as: "if you take everything that has been written in the relevant literature previous to the patent application, and you can combine that to directly derive the idea, then it is obvious". Not even indirect derivations are obvious, even when normal people *would* consider them obvious.
So even if 1000 companies come up with the idea, but don't write it up, or only come up with it *after* the patent application, then it's not defined as "obvious". It has to be published.
They have no incentive to hire more workers, because it means higher costs. Currently they have a good income by rubber stamping everything but the costs of these patents are conveyed to the consumers. Unless their mandate is changed, they won't reform.
Slashdot Mirror
what really surprised me wat that Bing has Wolfram Alpha as first link, and it actually provides the correct answer :)
Oh come on... that is soooooo 1984... :)
This quote does not disprove the earlier statement. In fact, the onliest way in which Einsteins theory kept the Aether alive was if the new Aether did not have any properties at all.
The Leukemia news was very good indeed. Didn't read much about it here though.
It has always amazed me that no other compilers do "as you type" compilation, since the difficulties are, while not trivial, quite easy to surmount. You can construct grammar trees and fill them online. During my CS study we built such realtime parsers in one of the courses as an assignment. This was in 1990.
You're right that strains are inevitable, but they can be reduced greatly.
Point: in livestock, s. aureus occurs in 47% of the population with around 52% of that population being resistant to more than 3 antibiotics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus). That does not help.
The Netherlands has a much better trackrecord than surrounding countries like Germany and France, because additional measures are taken after discharge to eradicate the MRSA. In the USA, this would lead to additional cost at no profit to the hospital (patient would not like to pay for it because they aren't sick anymore). Benefit to society does not equate direct profit but does equate to cost for patient. This makes it more difficult to stop MRSA.
While I agree that resistances will always crop up, the *problems* with this resistant bacteria are mostly social in origin. Hence Portugal has a >50% infection rate and The Netherlands less than 1%.
Before antibiotics, bacterial infections were a leading cause of death. Welcome back, Death. We've missed you.
The stupidity of it all is that MRSA is not necessary and can be prevented. Just stop giving antibiotics like candy to everyone asking for it, and stop showering (literally) the fowl and pigs on farms with antibiotics. Currently in Dutch hospitals most people that bring in MRSA either come from Italy or Spain (where every fool can buy antibiotics for the common cold - drugstores tried to give them to me for a very simple rash that was cured with a bit of zinc salve), or from farmers working with chickens (mostly). They literally get showered in antibiotics to prevent disease, the stables are that crowded. And as a side-effect, it speeds up their growth.
I'd say he would first stop drinking fluoridized water. Just a guess.
Markedly different - but still a derived work. This loophole was closed ages ago.
There were however, a few people who did see the use of the plane as a new weapon. But it was a minority.
A good book about that (and other things) is "The social history of the machine gun" which is as fun to read as it sounds :) It goes into detail about the conservative attitudes of the officers in the first world war, and links that to their social background (a large number were land owners). The sad part is where it details what happened to the horses. I mean: barbed wire, trenches, machine guns for miles behind the first line, and the officers thought they could charge through on horseback... at the first real charge they ended up as hamburger. All of them.
But to get back to Foch: it wasn't inherently military to be conservative about airplanes. However, the military leadership at the time was made up of inherently conservative people - like Foch. So: horses, mass attacks over the wall, no airplanes. And millions of dead. Even if that has changed, the social background of much of the military is conservative, not progressive. Which influences how the military works. This is different in draft armies, where more of the population is represented (the Dutch army even has its own trade union, dating from the time most soldiers were drafted).
Which means I would expect a less conservative military in, for instance, Israel than in the US, and a slow change in political outlook in the armies of countries that have switched from one type of army to another. Although the general political outlook of the population from which you can draft would ofcourse exert influence as well.
having a baby girl means you can have another child without any penalties, just to prevent this scenario.
With a billion people in China, and rampant starvation, who the heck would pay that much (relatively) for a child?! Did they sell to a foreign couple or what?
A lot of people from China would pay, actually. Adoptions from China are slowly grinding to a halt now more and more people in China are adopting children themselves. Infertility is no longer considered a curse or punishment, but a curable condition. And if not cured, at least abated.
The girl could ofcourse be sold into an unpleasant situation (household slave and future sex slave, for one), but a healthy baby girl will be adopted in the cities quite easily and fetches more money there, so the best outcome is actually also the most likely scenario.
Politics aren't about intelligence, but about who pays for what. So people on the paying end will deny everything until their last breath. Not because they're stupid, but because they don't like being less well off than they are now. And because others like being wealthy and see a gravy train to ride, they'll promote that attitude.
I read it as a training ground to prepare for being sent to Arrakis. Only misses two words, I think.
Funny... I read some research a few months ago about this. Someone had the bright idea to research if that was really the case. Turns out it's not. At least, not in The Netherlands. People who have higher education and income tend to raise more children, because they are more attractive as prospects in a relationship. The lowest education/income brackets find it very hard to marry, especially when male.
Also, if your logic holds, we would never have left the complete dominance of the Church in the Middle Ages, or even the complete sway of religion over public live in much of the country in the 50s. Even Iran, the theocratic poster child, has a truckload of issues with restless parts of the population that say "sure we believe - but not in your stupid ideas". So I'm not a pessimist about it.
Okay - that's probably the reason the next version of the current model (A-class) will switch to double transmissions, then.
Hi,
you're correct ofcourse - what was actually said was that there had to be a direct benefit for the combination, not a process whereby you have to combine known elements, and then combine *those* new elements in order to have the new invention (what I meant by indirect derivations). That would not be obvious, it had to be "one step" removed from known items, not two steps.
I didn't know about the prior art in unpublished help screens counting as well, which is good to know. I'm not sure if there is a difference there between first-to-file (EU) and first-to-invent (US) patent systems there, though?
A continous-variable transmission might help. I have one in my Mercedes which keeps the rpm constant so the engine can always run at peak efficiency. Also, good software for the motormanagement might help: use the electric energy for the short hauls and start the diesel for the long haul.
"Obvious" is a legal term, different from how you would interpret it - it only has a remote relationship with the English word "obvious".
I just had a chat tonight with a software friend of mine who's now going to become an IP lawyer about this topic, patents and other good stuff, where this came up as well. Basically, he told me that "obvious" for patents is defined as: "if you take everything that has been written in the relevant literature previous to the patent application, and you can combine that to directly derive the idea, then it is obvious". Not even indirect derivations are obvious, even when normal people *would* consider them obvious.
So even if 1000 companies come up with the idea, but don't write it up, or only come up with it *after* the patent application, then it's not defined as "obvious". It has to be published.
I get that feeling every day, after listening to the radio for a while.
I so agree! I've always wanted to print my own currency, but that darn gubermint just stops me all the time! :)
Money spent on burning oil is not as productive as money spent on new and innovative products.
You're a good illustration of the old adage that there's always an excuse to do nothing. 1-0 for inertia :)
Toilet-smugglers? I can totally picture Humphrey Bogart as one :)
Must be hard to hide them though :)
They have no incentive to hire more workers, because it means higher costs. Currently they have a good income by rubber stamping everything but the costs of these patents are conveyed to the consumers. Unless their mandate is changed, they won't reform.