But the original idea was for people to get credit for their ideas, and be able to own them.
The purpose behind patents isn't to assign ownership to an idea, but grant protection from competition to design, manufacture and distribute a unique idea. Ownership or credit has little to do with it.
I think we need to revise the patent system to at least show that head way is made or such and if the system never gets implemented, the patent is worthless.
Sometimes it take years to fully develop and bring a patent to market. It would be a complete waste of resources to try to monitor the status of thousands of patents a year.
I argue that we don't need to revise the patenting system in the way you suggested, but rather, revise it in such a way that it excludes any patents based around software. Canada does not allow any patent whose idea is founded in software -- it would be ideal to see the US adopt this approach.
A doctor that does not spend time on reading to keep up with their education is a rare and dangerous thing. If you have to spend 10 hours learning OpenOffice then your job depends heavily on office packages producing exceptional presentation and you certainly should spend the time - even if it does nothing useful but give you insights on other ways to do useful stuff with your existing package or a way to recover damaged files for your existing package that your existing package cannot.
Actually, doctor's spend their time educating themselves on important and critical things, not tasks like learning how to use another word processor.
There's absolutely no need to know how to use OpenOffice if your job duties do not include it -- and since you stuck with the doctor example, 10 hours is a lot of time to dedicate to learn a piece of software that likely would never be introduced in the workplace... considering your work weeks are upwards of 60hours + conservatively.
Furthermore, most office employees are familiar with Microsoft Word. If you have to introduce every new employee to OpenOffice, it's a repetitve and time-consuming task. Most companies rationalize it's better to pay the upfront cost for MS Word to keep the time being spent on the things that matter most -- which does not include training someone on an open source application.
From the article... "I don't see any of the major players moving into this area," Arthur Ciccolo, head of search technology at IBM Research, said of how major consumer Internet search companies such as Google, Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft have focused on the public Internet instead of private record data retrieval.
And from the Slashdot summary... IBM has just tossed a bucket of chum into the whole search showdown, which Microsoft thought was between them and Google.
No, IBM's technology has little to do with Google, Yahoo or Microsoft's search technology. This isn't a competition until either three introduce similar technology. Reading the article's third paragraph would clarify this, and would make the summary a little more accurate, too.
Don't get me wrong -- it was an excellent job on your part. The content was interesting, well-conducted and it was informing. Even though you backed down on some points (and understandably so, since you don't want him to leave the interview halfway through...), I sided with you on everything you presented.
Had this been an open discussion not bound by the terms of a public interview, I can bet you would have let the reigns loose and not relent on your points. Despite being less-informed about the research and statistics, your points were more valid than his -- and the fact that the only way to defend against your arguments was to vocally overpower you lends heavily to my belief that this chap is arguing for money, not for the safety of a nation's children.
You guys did a really good job -- I hope I didn't convey the opposite in my previous post.
A very misleading article summary and a very misleading article title to boot. All they are doing is identifying the brain's reaction to different stimuli. This has absolutely nothing to do with thoughts. Not to diminish the importance of this research, but how it relates to thought-reading is beyond me.
The researchers know what stimuli the participant is engaged with. It would be remarkable if they didn't know and could guess what general type of stimuli (fright, romance, etc.) the participant is engaged with based on the brain's varying reactions.
I would have liked to seen a better interviewer step up to the plate, someone who can argue themselves without backing down but not come off as arrogant. Some of Jack's points were valid and held weight, but I noticed when the interviewer turned on the offensive, Jack's best defense was trying to talk over him so he could get his word in. The interviewer then backed down repeatedly, which made the control of this interview very lopsided in Jack's favour.
Had there been a stronger interviewer conducting this, I bet Thompson would have hung up halfway through.
Come on folks. This has nothing to do with Thompson being a former health secretary. This has everything to do with Thompson being a major part of Applied Digital Solutions, which manufacturers the chips. It's in his best interest (a hefty raise) to promote these chips utilizing the platform of "former health secretary" to convince people this is good way to spend $200. He's not promoting more safety for US citizens, he's promoting the product with a deceptively-good sales pitch.
This is about financial progression and not health improvement. Hopefully people will recognize this in due time.
The day you realize the Bible is not literal is the day you realize that there is actually no conflict between Science and Religion at all.
I don't believe I suggested there was a conflict between Science and Religion (or beliefs in a deity would be a better way to put it), nor did I suggest the Bible was literal. Heck, I didn't even mention the word Bible. What are you talking about?
The majority here believe that evolution is the only thing which should be taught. I challenge this because, since evolution is presumably a substitution for creationism, evolution should provide some explanation for how things began, not how things came to be. It does not do this, which is why I suggest both sides of the equation be examined.
If there was no creator and macro-evolution was indisputable, then I beg anyone to explain how matter was formed. If evolution is based on a single entity, then how was that single entity created? If you trace the creation of matter back to it's furthest roots, you'll hit a brick wall every time.
I've been asking this question for years with no response. People widely accept evolution and reject creationism, but yield to stupidity and ignorance when it comes to accounting for how matter was first formed.
I'm a strong believer in God and creationism, but I've always accounted for evolution and other more plausible theories in my quest for understanding of life. But I cannot accept evolution because it simply does not account for the fact that matter has to form from something. Creationism steps up to the plate in this respect, but it's not provable.
Seriously people, wake up. The foundation of evolution is as much questionable and shaky as the foundation of creationism. Both require faith to believe, and both will remain scientifically unprovable. Hence, both should be taught.
Comparable computer cost: $800 to $1000
Comparable video-card cost: $200 to $400
That puts the average computer in the $1000-$1500 range. Now take into consideration that the average PC title sells between $40 and $60 (usually $60 for newer titles). Are you still complaining?
For PC users, we're paying upwards of $1,500 to play games (and other things). For XBox 360 users who are paying upwards of $300 to play games (and other things), that's a hefty savings for a comparable experience.
They will have a definition of porn as anything with penetration.
Their defintion will not be exclusive to penetration (what about oral sex?), but what will probably be any visually explicit material designed to cause sexual arousal. Sure, this definition is still pretty vague, but there's all sorts of pornography out there that has little to do with sex.
This may serve a very noble purpose, and I can only commend Carper for raising the issue this far. There's no shame in internet pornography, like there is shame in walking into your convenience store and buying a magazine. However, I really don't like this statement:
Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.
No Carper, it may help keep kids away from X-rated material, but it won't put a chokehold on access to it.
Why would a child seeing two consenting adults having sex "corrupt" them
It's not so simple. Almost every type of porn degrades women in some fashion:
Either the woman is doing all the work;
She is being subjected to things the guy wouldn't be subjected to if he had the choice;
They are treated not as sub-human, but as objects of value -- value in the sense of sexual gratification;
Men get used to seeing the women do everything the man wants, on command, and this can carry over into their own sexual encounters, and;
Porn is traditionally the blond, busty female; how do redheads feel when they know their boyfriend is watching a stacked blond?
There's a lot more problems with pornography, but those came off the top of my head. Pornography is a dangerous road, especially for men who can become addicted to visuals.
I've been a pornography addict for almost ten years. Only in the last couple months have I really started to break free from it (and it feels damn good). I don't treat women like objects, I don't expect women to act like the women I see in porn, but I can admit I've asked for my girlfriend to do things I never would have thought of before.
Maybe I got off lucky, but I know for damn sure that I've been affected by all the porn I viewed. Simple images or not, it sticks with you, and blurs your interpretation of what sex should be, and how sacred a woman is.
Something that shouldn't be cencored is nudity. Something that should always be cencored is pornography.
The substance of my post was to show that, in light of the recent ridiculous patents by Amazon, Google's holds much more credibility. I still think the patent in itself is definetely not deserving of approval -- it's not innovative by any measure. It's only credible in comparison to Amazon's patents.
If you read above that last line, I stated: Even though I've always been against patents related to or involving software
Hence, I completely agree; software patents are a bad thing. They should have never been issued. Have they served the purpose of giving developers the allowance of non-competitive time to build and refine their patent (like traditional patents that typically put their patent protection to good use)? I highly doubt it.
Contrasting this patent with the likes of Amazon's common sense-patents which were approved (Web Services Patent, Reminding Customers, and User Viewing Histories), I'll acknowledge Google's patent has some credibility. Even though I've always been against patents related to or involving software, this is a much better patent than we've seen in the news recently, and considerably more deserving of approval.
Google and Yahoo haven't created a drain on talented software engineers. They have created a drain on popular software engineers.
With thousands of qualified and professional software engineers floating around the industry, the only issue may be finding an engineer who has established themselves with the industry with recognition to boot. There is no short supply, that's nonsense. If your startup has difficulty hiring because of this popularity drain, then it's time to look in greener pastures.
I was never coerced into using any of their software. I used what I wanted, whether it be made by Microsoft or not. So please inform me how you've been coerced into using their software, and why you didn't use an alternative if one was available?
When MS makes their own versions of things, they're usually much worse, not better.
Microsoft Word? Microsoft Outlook? Microsoft Excel? These things are the staples of many businesses operations, so looking beyond the geek perspective and Microsoft tail chasing, I cannot really understand how these things are poor in quality and much worse than their competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose behind patents isn't to assign ownership to an idea, but grant protection from competition to design, manufacture and distribute a unique idea. Ownership or credit has little to do with it.
I think we need to revise the patent system to at least show that head way is made or such and if the system never gets implemented, the patent is worthless.
Sometimes it take years to fully develop and bring a patent to market. It would be a complete waste of resources to try to monitor the status of thousands of patents a year.
I argue that we don't need to revise the patenting system in the way you suggested, but rather, revise it in such a way that it excludes any patents based around software. Canada does not allow any patent whose idea is founded in software -- it would be ideal to see the US adopt this approach.
Actually, doctor's spend their time educating themselves on important and critical things, not tasks like learning how to use another word processor.
There's absolutely no need to know how to use OpenOffice if your job duties do not include it -- and since you stuck with the doctor example, 10 hours is a lot of time to dedicate to learn a piece of software that likely would never be introduced in the workplace... considering your work weeks are upwards of 60hours + conservatively.
Furthermore, most office employees are familiar with Microsoft Word. If you have to introduce every new employee to OpenOffice, it's a repetitve and time-consuming task. Most companies rationalize it's better to pay the upfront cost for MS Word to keep the time being spent on the things that matter most -- which does not include training someone on an open source application.
And from the Slashdot summary... IBM has just tossed a bucket of chum into the whole search showdown, which Microsoft thought was between them and Google.
No, IBM's technology has little to do with Google, Yahoo or Microsoft's search technology. This isn't a competition until either three introduce similar technology. Reading the article's third paragraph would clarify this, and would make the summary a little more accurate, too.
Had this been an open discussion not bound by the terms of a public interview, I can bet you would have let the reigns loose and not relent on your points. Despite being less-informed about the research and statistics, your points were more valid than his -- and the fact that the only way to defend against your arguments was to vocally overpower you lends heavily to my belief that this chap is arguing for money, not for the safety of a nation's children.
You guys did a really good job -- I hope I didn't convey the opposite in my previous post.
nothing to do with thought-reading , I should have said. My apologies.
The researchers know what stimuli the participant is engaged with. It would be remarkable if they didn't know and could guess what general type of stimuli (fright, romance, etc.) the participant is engaged with based on the brain's varying reactions.
Had there been a stronger interviewer conducting this, I bet Thompson would have hung up halfway through.
This is about financial progression and not health improvement. Hopefully people will recognize this in due time.
I don't believe I suggested there was a conflict between Science and Religion (or beliefs in a deity would be a better way to put it), nor did I suggest the Bible was literal. Heck, I didn't even mention the word Bible. What are you talking about?
The majority here believe that evolution is the only thing which should be taught. I challenge this because, since evolution is presumably a substitution for creationism, evolution should provide some explanation for how things began, not how things came to be. It does not do this, which is why I suggest both sides of the equation be examined.
I've been asking this question for years with no response. People widely accept evolution and reject creationism, but yield to stupidity and ignorance when it comes to accounting for how matter was first formed.
I'm a strong believer in God and creationism, but I've always accounted for evolution and other more plausible theories in my quest for understanding of life. But I cannot accept evolution because it simply does not account for the fact that matter has to form from something. Creationism steps up to the plate in this respect, but it's not provable.
Seriously people, wake up. The foundation of evolution is as much questionable and shaky as the foundation of creationism. Both require faith to believe, and both will remain scientifically unprovable. Hence, both should be taught.
Comparable computer cost: $800 to $1000
Comparable video-card cost: $200 to $400
That puts the average computer in the $1000-$1500 range. Now take into consideration that the average PC title sells between $40 and $60 (usually $60 for newer titles). Are you still complaining?
For PC users, we're paying upwards of $1,500 to play games (and other things). For XBox 360 users who are paying upwards of $300 to play games (and other things), that's a hefty savings for a comparable experience.
Their defintion will not be exclusive to penetration (what about oral sex?), but what will probably be any visually explicit material designed to cause sexual arousal. Sure, this definition is still pretty vague, but there's all sorts of pornography out there that has little to do with sex.
Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.
No Carper, it may help keep kids away from X-rated material, but it won't put a chokehold on access to it.
It's not so simple. Almost every type of porn degrades women in some fashion:
Either the woman is doing all the work;
She is being subjected to things the guy wouldn't be subjected to if he had the choice;
They are treated not as sub-human, but as objects of value -- value in the sense of sexual gratification;
Men get used to seeing the women do everything the man wants, on command, and this can carry over into their own sexual encounters, and;
Porn is traditionally the blond, busty female; how do redheads feel when they know their boyfriend is watching a stacked blond?
There's a lot more problems with pornography, but those came off the top of my head. Pornography is a dangerous road, especially for men who can become addicted to visuals.
I've been a pornography addict for almost ten years. Only in the last couple months have I really started to break free from it (and it feels damn good). I don't treat women like objects, I don't expect women to act like the women I see in porn, but I can admit I've asked for my girlfriend to do things I never would have thought of before.
Maybe I got off lucky, but I know for damn sure that I've been affected by all the porn I viewed. Simple images or not, it sticks with you, and blurs your interpretation of what sex should be, and how sacred a woman is.
Something that shouldn't be cencored is nudity. Something that should always be cencored is pornography.
Unfortunately, the FemaleEncounterBot will remain locked at 0 through each party :)
Yeah, Javascript is great until someone disables it :)
The substance of my post was to show that, in light of the recent ridiculous patents by Amazon, Google's holds much more credibility. I still think the patent in itself is definetely not deserving of approval -- it's not innovative by any measure. It's only credible in comparison to Amazon's patents.
Hence, I completely agree; software patents are a bad thing. They should have never been issued. Have they served the purpose of giving developers the allowance of non-competitive time to build and refine their patent (like traditional patents that typically put their patent protection to good use)? I highly doubt it.
Contrasting this patent with the likes of Amazon's common sense-patents which were approved (Web Services Patent, Reminding Customers, and User Viewing Histories), I'll acknowledge Google's patent has some credibility. Even though I've always been against patents related to or involving software, this is a much better patent than we've seen in the news recently, and considerably more deserving of approval.
You can't patent virginity, too much prior art localized to Slashdot.
With thousands of qualified and professional software engineers floating around the industry, the only issue may be finding an engineer who has established themselves with the industry with recognition to boot. There is no short supply, that's nonsense. If your startup has difficulty hiring because of this popularity drain, then it's time to look in greener pastures.
When MS makes their own versions of things, they're usually much worse, not better.
Microsoft Word? Microsoft Outlook? Microsoft Excel? These things are the staples of many businesses operations, so looking beyond the geek perspective and Microsoft tail chasing, I cannot really understand how these things are poor in quality and much worse than their competitors.
Perhaps you should test whether life really needs water. Be sure to email us the results from your afterlife.
Let's hope they can use this day to network with some ladies.
It's Cat7 when you deal with me.