I said *unique to Texas*. I bet you can find a load of places when you put the spotlight on them look "OMG they're the worst!!!"... but comparisons can only come from looking at more places, for it to be unique to Texas, it must be lacking everywhere else. Okay it showed Texas was above the national average for patent wins for those that make it to trial, it also says that only 5% of cases make it to trial, and doesn't present the national average for that figure. So I repeat, how is this unique to Texas?
(apologies if the answer if more than a few pages in of that link you sent, I skimmed thru but it just looks like you're trying to answer "how's texas bad" rather than what I asked)
Have you ever tried configuring a phone for tethering during the height of passion??? It's not as easy as it sounds, without killing the mood at least, so I thought, next best thing, I'll leave a trail of breadcrumbs... did not think that one through.
Yet you don't know the meaning of the word "a"? Or why there should be an 's' on the end of your word "meaning" there? Hint: "other" has "other" meanings! Especially when you do this erm... it's like a magic trick, where you put multiple words together to form... I dunno I'm sure there's a word for it, but these long things that I'm doing now. They have the effect of providing multiple choices of what something can apply to, for example, where you say "would mean that you yourself who I have flamed are also 14", you're ignoring the fact that it could just as well be implying that 4chan is populated with 14 year olds, but they're waaay too out of your league to try flaming, so you have to find some other 14 year olds instead.
I'm not suggesting that this is what was meant, because I know not, it's ambiguous, what I am suggesting however is that you quit being a dick to people because you think it makes you sound clever but it just shows off your ignorance, 'tho I guess you'll be too ignorant to see that too.
Well done... that was kinda the joke, sorta crossed with you know the one, "Guy's interviewing a blonde, redhed and a brunette for a secretary position, which one gets the job? The one with the big tits". I know, I know, it was a bit ambitious, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn.
I would extend your answer a little to: "No, don't be so f**king stupid."
A question this stupid, you gotta wonder what exactly the purpose of it is. Here's another question that's just as insightful: "Considering the apple I just let go off fell to the ground, is it safe to assume that when I let go of this orange, it will fly?"
This website is actually democratic though, you can give everything a vote of EITHER yes OR no (well actually there's 5 score settings)... there's nothing democratic about a petition, as they don't record counter-signatures. And, any idiot can, and will sign a petition, all petitions are really are a collection of peoples names who will put their name to anything... such as banning dyhydrogen monoxide, or ending women's suffrage (search youtube if you've not seen these).
"ranging from making it illegal to photograph a police officer - technically a video filmed by an American at a G8 summits' protests in London is illegal"
No it's not. This is just one of those things that people keep blindly repeating without thinking about it or checking it's true. Think about it, if it was illegal to photo/film police, banks would have to shut of their CCTV whenever police walk inside.
The actual text of the act can be viewed at www.opsi.gov.uk, I found the text quite clear, nowhere does it make it illegal. What we have here is a case where people repeating that it's now illegal is the thing that's doing the actual damage. Who needs something to be really illegal, if everybody's already convinced it is?
Well, it's only a label, look at Pluto, even if you get the label right there's no guarentee someone's not gonna just decide to start calling it something else! The model's still the same tho so, all good:-)
"The game is not the US government the game is a corrupted version the Lobbyist US Government, a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations"
All the more reason not to encourage giving them the ability to change and apply laws retroactively.
Yep, you've got the theory right, but think you're getting mixed up with some of the labels or are just picturing microwaves in the wrong place of the spectrum.
Not on this planet it's not. Think about it, we can quite easily take something from ambient temperature and heat it until we push it out the top of infra-red and into the visible spectrum, where we call it "red hot". If heat radiated at a lower frequency then to achieve red hot we would have to push whatever we're heating through the microwave spectrum before it got to red, and as we do that quite a lot, it would be impossible to use a phone at all with all the interference.
What are you on?!! The information he's provided as both well reasoned and founded in reality which comes from direct observation of the matter in hand! What do you think science is? D'you think if you're not wearing a white lab coat and playing with test tubes "it's not science"??? I think you've been watching too many hair product adverts.
As does my laptop, which is not communicating with cell towers. When you're using it, you're drawing a lot of current from the chemical battery attached to it. Pushing this current back into the battery (ie, charging it) also produces a lot of heat. The heat that you feel is a much higher frequency than the frequency that the phones transmit on, otherwise the signal would surely struggle to get through on a cold day.
"Hmm. I wonder if all of reality is wrong, or maybe, just maybe, the crackpot report is wrong"
Or if they've forgotten about the speaker/microphone in the phones which contain magnets (you sound like you're likely to know better than I, my vague impression is that bees have a sense of magnetic north/south, could placing magnets in the hive screw with this in a non conducive mannor?)... I guess actually this would also come down to whether the 'dummy' phones put in the other hive were just the plastic casing, or were proper phones that were just never switched on.
There's nothing special about computers though, people have to do that with other people... lets not kid ourselves into thinking that humans are immune to misunderstandings. No, the more you get to know someone, the way they think and express theirselves, the better you can become at communicating with them. Different words to different people have different connotations. It can take a lot of work to get all these down, and it'd be no different with a computer. For effective communication, you'd train and build up a common language with it, that might seem nonsense to outsiders... and I, for one, welcome this.
New generation of document databases like Apache CouchDB could be right up the street of a bit of codification. A "schema free, indexable, flat address space" sounds about right to me! You'd want to start initially (and quite easily) with a way of identifying addresses (eg, authority.act.section.clause) that appears within the texts (eg "ammends subsection x of the blah blah act of 2004") to create a dependency tree. When a law is repealed, that would be the end of that branch. Once you have your dependency tree, it can then be flattened, where at any point in time you can see the current state of the law in any area (like filesystem snapshots) where elements of older acts (or whatever they're called where you are) that are referenced/modified can be displayed inline, without having to jump between one thing and another. My guess is that with its chaotic nature, trying to guess what the next steps would be would be foolish, at least of me, but in getting that far all kinds of ideas would open up.
Incidentally, here in the UK our statutes are still often refered to as a scroll (although 'statute books' often more, which does sound less archaic) as it is a single address space, with laws coming into effect at certain times (transactions are atomically committed)... you could scroll back all the way to 1215 to see I think it's 2 erm... "bits" that are left in effect now, with some others that are partially repealed in some situations (eg, the right for a trial in front of your peers, which has effectively been on our books since 1215, has been recalled once sometime last year, while trying to convict for an airport armed robbery for a third or fourth time, as somebody kept getting to members of the jury! But that's an aside...).
So you disagree with liable laws? Somebody should be able to just say anything and be removed from any responsibility of the consequences? Okay, it wasn't Google that said it, but by hiding the person who did (or creating a situation where they make it impossible to find said person) they are in effect an accomplice.
World has consequences, this is hardly a civil liberties issue.
So you used to dabble in fantasy, and now you've closed your mind... you know, in between those two polar oposites is a middle ground called "reality", and in reality, we're already are pushing the bounds of what we can technologically achieve. The Voyagers were 1970s (and earlier) technology. As technology increases, so does the things we do at the edge of what we can achieve. It's stupid to believe we'll only send stuff as far as we were able to in the 70s.
"Most people on our planet do NOT think the way we do"
Who's "we"?? You're one of those "most people". But there's enough of us who don't think like you, where it's all about ROI, to give us things like the multi billion euro/pound LHC, because we want to learn about our universe. It also so happens that what we learn tends to be very rewarding in economic terms also, but you won't know that until discoveries are made and work their way into peoples mind space enough to become part of the next generation of invention.
Slashdot Mirror
I said *unique to Texas*. I bet you can find a load of places when you put the spotlight on them look "OMG they're the worst!!!" ... but comparisons can only come from looking at more places, for it to be unique to Texas, it must be lacking everywhere else. Okay it showed Texas was above the national average for patent wins for those that make it to trial, it also says that only 5% of cases make it to trial, and doesn't present the national average for that figure. So I repeat, how is this unique to Texas?
(apologies if the answer if more than a few pages in of that link you sent, I skimmed thru but it just looks like you're trying to answer "how's texas bad" rather than what I asked)
And apart from being mentioned in this story, the thing that's unique to Texas is...?
(within context I mean *lol*)
You *wish* they were that competent!!!
Ever read your own sig?
Have you ever tried configuring a phone for tethering during the height of passion??? It's not as easy as it sounds, without killing the mood at least, so I thought, next best thing, I'll leave a trail of breadcrumbs... did not think that one through.
It's not so much that, it's that they weren't really designed to be easy to pull back out. Ouch.
Wow you must have lots of friends.
"but "other" has a specific meaning, you know"
Yet you don't know the meaning of the word "a"? Or why there should be an 's' on the end of your word "meaning" there? Hint: "other" has "other" meanings! Especially when you do this erm... it's like a magic trick, where you put multiple words together to form... I dunno I'm sure there's a word for it, but these long things that I'm doing now. They have the effect of providing multiple choices of what something can apply to, for example, where you say "would mean that you yourself who I have flamed are also 14", you're ignoring the fact that it could just as well be implying that 4chan is populated with 14 year olds, but they're waaay too out of your league to try flaming, so you have to find some other 14 year olds instead.
I'm not suggesting that this is what was meant, because I know not, it's ambiguous, what I am suggesting however is that you quit being a dick to people because you think it makes you sound clever but it just shows off your ignorance, 'tho I guess you'll be too ignorant to see that too.
Well done... that was kinda the joke, sorta crossed with you know the one, "Guy's interviewing a blonde, redhed and a brunette for a secretary position, which one gets the job? The one with the big tits". I know, I know, it was a bit ambitious, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn.
I would extend your answer a little to: "No, don't be so f**king stupid."
A question this stupid, you gotta wonder what exactly the purpose of it is. Here's another question that's just as insightful: "Considering the apple I just let go off fell to the ground, is it safe to assume that when I let go of this orange, it will fly?"
No, don't be so f**king stupid.
"Who's the fool?"
Bush.
This website is actually democratic though, you can give everything a vote of EITHER yes OR no (well actually there's 5 score settings) ... there's nothing democratic about a petition, as they don't record counter-signatures. And, any idiot can, and will sign a petition, all petitions are really are a collection of peoples names who will put their name to anything... such as banning dyhydrogen monoxide, or ending women's suffrage (search youtube if you've not seen these).
"ranging from making it illegal to photograph a police officer - technically a video filmed by an American at a G8 summits' protests in London is illegal"
No it's not. This is just one of those things that people keep blindly repeating without thinking about it or checking it's true. Think about it, if it was illegal to photo/film police, banks would have to shut of their CCTV whenever police walk inside.
The actual text of the act can be viewed at www.opsi.gov.uk, I found the text quite clear, nowhere does it make it illegal. What we have here is a case where people repeating that it's now illegal is the thing that's doing the actual damage. Who needs something to be really illegal, if everybody's already convinced it is?
Well, it's only a label, look at Pluto, even if you get the label right there's no guarentee someone's not gonna just decide to start calling it something else! The model's still the same tho so, all good :-)
"The game is not the US government the game is a corrupted version the Lobbyist US Government, a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations"
All the more reason not to encourage giving them the ability to change and apply laws retroactively.
The correctness of anothers actions is not a prerequisit for the correctness of ones own.
Yep, you've got the theory right, but think you're getting mixed up with some of the labels or are just picturing microwaves in the wrong place of the spectrum.
Here's an image just found using Google Images that shows it quite well:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/USEM/SciImg/home_files/introduction_files/EMSpec.gif
"Other way around"
Not on this planet it's not. Think about it, we can quite easily take something from ambient temperature and heat it until we push it out the top of infra-red and into the visible spectrum, where we call it "red hot". If heat radiated at a lower frequency then to achieve red hot we would have to push whatever we're heating through the microwave spectrum before it got to red, and as we do that quite a lot, it would be impossible to use a phone at all with all the interference.
What are you on?!! The information he's provided as both well reasoned and founded in reality which comes from direct observation of the matter in hand! What do you think science is? D'you think if you're not wearing a white lab coat and playing with test tubes "it's not science"??? I think you've been watching too many hair product adverts.
Learning why god would never let this happen to us :-p
As does my laptop, which is not communicating with cell towers. When you're using it, you're drawing a lot of current from the chemical battery attached to it. Pushing this current back into the battery (ie, charging it) also produces a lot of heat. The heat that you feel is a much higher frequency than the frequency that the phones transmit on, otherwise the signal would surely struggle to get through on a cold day.
"Hmm. I wonder if all of reality is wrong, or maybe, just maybe, the crackpot report is wrong"
Or if they've forgotten about the speaker/microphone in the phones which contain magnets (you sound like you're likely to know better than I, my vague impression is that bees have a sense of magnetic north/south, could placing magnets in the hive screw with this in a non conducive mannor?) ... I guess actually this would also come down to whether the 'dummy' phones put in the other hive were just the plastic casing, or were proper phones that were just never switched on.
There's nothing special about computers though, people have to do that with other people... lets not kid ourselves into thinking that humans are immune to misunderstandings. No, the more you get to know someone, the way they think and express theirselves, the better you can become at communicating with them. Different words to different people have different connotations. It can take a lot of work to get all these down, and it'd be no different with a computer. For effective communication, you'd train and build up a common language with it, that might seem nonsense to outsiders... and I, for one, welcome this.
New generation of document databases like Apache CouchDB could be right up the street of a bit of codification. A "schema free, indexable, flat address space" sounds about right to me! You'd want to start initially (and quite easily) with a way of identifying addresses (eg, authority.act.section.clause) that appears within the texts (eg "ammends subsection x of the blah blah act of 2004") to create a dependency tree. When a law is repealed, that would be the end of that branch. Once you have your dependency tree, it can then be flattened, where at any point in time you can see the current state of the law in any area (like filesystem snapshots) where elements of older acts (or whatever they're called where you are) that are referenced/modified can be displayed inline, without having to jump between one thing and another. My guess is that with its chaotic nature, trying to guess what the next steps would be would be foolish, at least of me, but in getting that far all kinds of ideas would open up.
Incidentally, here in the UK our statutes are still often refered to as a scroll (although 'statute books' often more, which does sound less archaic) as it is a single address space, with laws coming into effect at certain times (transactions are atomically committed)... you could scroll back all the way to 1215 to see I think it's 2 erm... "bits" that are left in effect now, with some others that are partially repealed in some situations (eg, the right for a trial in front of your peers, which has effectively been on our books since 1215, has been recalled once sometime last year, while trying to convict for an airport armed robbery for a third or fourth time, as somebody kept getting to members of the jury! But that's an aside...).
So you disagree with liable laws? Somebody should be able to just say anything and be removed from any responsibility of the consequences? Okay, it wasn't Google that said it, but by hiding the person who did (or creating a situation where they make it impossible to find said person) they are in effect an accomplice.
World has consequences, this is hardly a civil liberties issue.
So you used to dabble in fantasy, and now you've closed your mind... you know, in between those two polar oposites is a middle ground called "reality", and in reality, we're already are pushing the bounds of what we can technologically achieve. The Voyagers were 1970s (and earlier) technology. As technology increases, so does the things we do at the edge of what we can achieve. It's stupid to believe we'll only send stuff as far as we were able to in the 70s.
"Most people on our planet do NOT think the way we do"
Who's "we"?? You're one of those "most people". But there's enough of us who don't think like you, where it's all about ROI, to give us things like the multi billion euro/pound LHC, because we want to learn about our universe. It also so happens that what we learn tends to be very rewarding in economic terms also, but you won't know that until discoveries are made and work their way into peoples mind space enough to become part of the next generation of invention.