If his brain were that big, you'd assume his head would be at least as big, if not bigger. Assuming an orthodox, pseudovertebrate anatomy of course.
Re:It's more like a plan to..
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
OTOH, we have better medical care and nutrition now. Rapid communication enables us to isolate outbreaks more effectively. They may or may not cancel out the factors you mentioned, but you can't just assume things will be worse.
Bah! We limeys had our revolution 100 years earlier than that. But we decided we didn't much like being a republic. I suspect the problem was maybe the man rather than they system, YMMV.
poor Frenchmen either first generation or descended from immigrants are given a choice of which menial jobs they are given, or which government owned slum they can live in
I'm kind of thinking that it's a lot more choice than people would have had in some totalitarian regimes - particularly ones whose economies were planned to the tiniest details, like the communist ones.
Sadly, I can't think of a concise, witty and snappy way to say that.
the school decided that it's own more stringent rules
That expands to "the school decided that it is own more stringent rules". What's that trying to mean? Is it supposed to be some bizarre form of the present continuous (s/is own/is owning/)? Here's a clue, only Indians are writing like that. Indians and Japanese game developers from 1980.
It is, isn't it? I don't like how it's kind of at an oblique angle judging by the horns, but there's no referent (like, eyes) to see where it's facing.
Got to agree with that. Call it use it or lose it. Call it piss or get off the pot.
If they want to sue, they should be entitled to actual damages. Which, seeing as they don't sell any copies of it, should be nothing minus defendants legal costs for barratry.
That is a nice theory, but in reality there is plenty of incentive for each company to improve efficiency without a patent.
If the improvement requires an up-front investment (which is a more realistic assumption than a light bulb appearing above someone's head), then without some from of protection there's a big disincentive to innovate. A competitor can spend nothing, and then use your work to undercut you - he has a cost advantage by not having to recoup all that R&D expenditure.
Note that I'm talking about a genuine, concrete innovation here. If someone wanted to patent widget making improvement in general, or the vague idea of it - even [sigh] "with a computer", then they should be kicked straight into touch. Even without the prior art (Ford, Taylor, Gilberth), not that it counts for much these days, it's still too broad, too conceptual. Isn't the idea of taking a step back and thinking about how we work just common sense? The products of that thinking and deeper analysis may or may not be.
The extra work engineering around patents does not represent more useful innovation, it represents a direct loss of innovative wealth to society as a whole. Resources dont exist in a vacuum, and the engineering spent reimplenting could have been spent creating _other_ advances, advances we are now poorer for not having.
You can have all the ideas and innovations in the world, but in the reality, if you don't have land, energy, and raw materials, you don't have shit.
Wouldn't go that far, but my view that ideas are only commercially valuable if they relate in some way to the real, physical economy is in broad agreement.
Perhaps if more people had taken a similar view then tech stocks wouldn't have been so overvalued in the dotcom boom.
I found the hard satisfaction of coding to be more desirable than the ephemeral nature of "success" in writing, where the quality of your work had no relation to its value.
In coding the quality of your work has relation to its value? Forward me the memo! And cc my boss!!
The article says they've hired a French company. With their 23 hour week, 14 weeks annual holiday (and never mind cheese breaks and strikes), it'll never be finished.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright then, it could have just had really big teeth. Heck, if you applied this method to some people, you'd guess they were nine feet tall.
If his brain were that big, you'd assume his head would be at least as big, if not bigger. Assuming an orthodox, pseudovertebrate anatomy of course.
OTOH, we have better medical care and nutrition now. Rapid communication enables us to isolate outbreaks more effectively. They may or may not cancel out the factors you mentioned, but you can't just assume things will be worse.
Bah! We limeys had our revolution 100 years earlier than that. But we decided we didn't much like being a republic. I suspect the problem was maybe the man rather than they system, YMMV.
Sadly, I can't think of a concise, witty and snappy way to say that.
You - down in the hole - want a new shovel?
It kind of implies somewhere between 0 and 628 miles, no?
Is there such a thing as an "opposite magnitude"? I thought magnitude was was 1) a scalar and 2) an absolute value?
Or maybe it's something to do with half of the Bible.
Come in London. Canberra?
It is, isn't it? I don't like how it's kind of at an oblique angle judging by the horns, but there's no referent (like, eyes) to see where it's facing.
If they want to sue, they should be entitled to actual damages. Which, seeing as they don't sell any copies of it, should be nothing minus defendants legal costs for barratry.
Note that I'm talking about a genuine, concrete innovation here. If someone wanted to patent widget making improvement in general, or the vague idea of it - even [sigh] "with a computer", then they should be kicked straight into touch. Even without the prior art (Ford, Taylor, Gilberth), not that it counts for much these days, it's still too broad, too conceptual. Isn't the idea of taking a step back and thinking about how we work just common sense? The products of that thinking and deeper analysis may or may not be.
Perhaps if more people had taken a similar view then tech stocks wouldn't have been so overvalued in the dotcom boom.
And even if it is, it won't work.