No one is telling these people they can't save their seeds from these crops. GMO does not necessarily mean that it is "closed source" and owned by the company that made it. That is just how big agriculture businesses like Monsanto operate. There is nothing indicating that will occur in this case.
GMO just has a stigma in that some people believe that they have hidden health side effects. The Monsanto lawsuits against farmers is another thing entirely. There are plenty of GMO crops out there besides the "Roundup Ready" seeds you are referring to.
Agile/Scrum is nothing new in other industries. I work in the engineering consulting business. We often have teams of 100+ engineers from multiple disciplines working on one project. When my programmer buddies explained what scrum was, it was very similar to the methods we use to run projects.
You will probably never see this in practice in any large scale semiconductors because of two reasons:
1. There is already an established process and infrastructure to refine silicon.
2. Mo costs more due to rarity and does not have a well established industrial process to refine it.
As it stands, it is incredibly expensive and requires large amounts of energy to refine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Purification
Mo being rarer to begin with will have a higher material cost, and will also probably be that much more difficult to refine. I am not sure what processes there are to distill/refine Mo into the superpure state needed for semiconductors, but I cannot imagine that there are established processes that can handle the worldwide demand for semiconductors.
Here's a buzzword for you that is applicable in this situation: Crowdsourcing
Put the internal paperwork the government has received on an easily accessible website (or wait for Wikileaks to do it).
This spill received enough attention and affected enough lives that the general public would be interested to see what is going on and do there own investigations of the facts. There are plenty of professionals in manufacturing design and control systems design that would be more than willing to give some of their own time to read up on some of the facts.
I would personally like to see the cause and effect tables and their alarm database for the rigs control system/SIS system. I would rather see for myself than take a journalist's word for it.
RTFA. They aren't targetting video traffic specifically. They are targetting L3 as a whole. It just happens that Netflix is the reason that L3 traffic is spiking due to the huge usage in the U.S.
Essentially, Netflix pays L3 for content delivery. This results in a huge spike in content delivery from L3 through to Comcast. Comcast now charges L3 for the extra content delivery because they do not have an agreement with Netflix, but an agreement that needs to be updated with L3.
Actually, if you have been paying attention, they refuse to fix the issue for their consumers. A case/bumpers have been shown to fix the issue, yet they have not given them to consumers. Since it is a hardware problem, I do not see what more they could do.
Quality procedures force those in my office to keep a record of their hand markups. We need to be able to document all of the checks that took place to get a document out the door...hand marked, initialed, and dated.
Then, when we kick something up for approval to go out the door, I need to print out fresh copy. Project managers also like their own hard copies to look at.
Basically, although I may not have a problem looking at documents on my computer, those responsible for the overall project do.
It's all on the passenger in my opinion. I believe taxis in New York are just like those in Chicago where there is a poster showing the rates and rules.
Any passenger can easily tell if they are getting overcharged by checking the meter against the poster.
The only people who might get exploited are the totally hammered people going from bar to bar. In which case, the extra 4 dollars is about half the cost of a drink...so it doesn't really matter much in the long run. When I am totally hammered in a taxi, I don't really care how much they charge me as long as I get there.
While that sounds awesome, Google is still gaining access to vast quanitities of copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. For every other company in the world, they need to obtain permission first before potentially profiting off of a work (Google will profit from subscriptions to their service). For Google, somehow, they do not need to obtain permission. Rather, a copyright holder needs to go through a process in order to object and have their material removed.
While that sounds good and all, it is ridiculous that copyright holders need to spend time and money to assert rights that should be intrinsically part of copyright.
Mpapet: Per the settlement, Google has "non-exclusive" rights. If works are actually in the public domain and not copyright protected, anyone else can use the information and profit from it. The issue is not pertaining to true public domain works. The issue is that actual copyright holders have no rights unless they go through potentially convoluted procedures to object. If they do not spend time and money to object to their works being digitized, Google can keep on truckin. Google can profit off their work, and I did not see anything in the settlement that requires Google to pay back royalties (outside of the initial monetary settlement).
The settlement is very clear. Google has "non-exclusive" rights over all the books it digitizes. This means that everyone else simply needs to follow copyright standards.
If a book is no longer under copyright, people could do anything with it. If a book is under copyright, people would need to obtain permission and could then do anything with that material. However, Google, per the settlement, is granted rights to every single out of print book unless the author/publisher/copyright holder takes the time to object.
Actually, if you read the actual settlement that was linked on the page linked yesterday, you would find that Google does not retain any rights on books published in the future.
This is a misnomer. Microsoft stated that (paraphrased) Google will obtain permission to perform future copyright infringement through their settlement. However, if you actually read the settlement, you will find that the settlement has a strict deadline (this year), and any books published after that deadline are not covered under the settlement.
Microsoft's claim that Google is permitted future copyright violations is true. However, these "future" copyright infringements referred to current out of print books that Google has not yet digitized.
I am still against the court settlement in general, and I will make another post tomorrow with more exact info linked form the actual briefs. Bottom line, however, is....technically copyright owners retain their rights to refuse being printed via google books. However, they will need to spend time and money in order to go through procedures to stop google from printing their books online. It really should be the other way around.
block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device
RTFA. The fact that it's a legitimate protocol doesn't change the legality of the content. Using your logic, pirated movies are illegal content, but they are sent via a "legitimate" protocol.
Debate the article's position and take off your tinfoil hat regarding Microsoft's intentions. While many readers, myself included, do not trust Microsoft's intentions, I would rather argue the points raised in the article.
Did you even RTFA?
The main point the man made was simple. Contributions to a standard may be patent protected, but not within the scope of the standard. Companies and individuals would be able to use the standard and the patented items therein as long as they are using the patented items within the scope of the standard.
Read his analogy about the hypothetical patented aphrodesiac that was a good fit for a particular standard.
While I doubt that he is entirely forthcoming about Microsoft's intentions, he makes a good point.
If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour.
The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous.
Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.
Typically, if a road is not suited for trucks in the U.S., the village/township/county puts up a "NO TRUCKS OVER 2 TONS SIGN." This prevents small village roads from being treated as a "rat run."
Tom Tom and Garmin are not to blame for trucks using unsuitable roads. This could happen anyway if the road is convienently placed. It is up to the local government to place signage to prevent this occurence.
As was stated above... "Yes - the dimension of the system is just the number of independent variables, the 3 wavelengths and the 2 polorisations."
The article is correct in saying that there are 5 dimensions. The fact that you can make 6 different permutations does not mean there are 6 dimensions.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is telling these people they can't save their seeds from these crops. GMO does not necessarily mean that it is "closed source" and owned by the company that made it. That is just how big agriculture businesses like Monsanto operate. There is nothing indicating that will occur in this case.
GMO just has a stigma in that some people believe that they have hidden health side effects. The Monsanto lawsuits against farmers is another thing entirely. There are plenty of GMO crops out there besides the "Roundup Ready" seeds you are referring to.
Is anyone else disappointed that the "presidential" beer recipe is an extract recipe instead of all grain?
Agile/Scrum is nothing new in other industries. I work in the engineering consulting business. We often have teams of 100+ engineers from multiple disciplines working on one project. When my programmer buddies explained what scrum was, it was very similar to the methods we use to run projects.
Making pure silicon requires alot of energy; however, the actual byproducts of the process are harmless salts.
The intermediate chemicals get re-distilled over and over. Silicon dioxide and salts are the two main waste products.
Investors haven't found value in FB either. Watch it continue to plummet
How the f*ck do they work?!!?
How is this different than the current trend of deciding what facts to publish and what to ignore?
I would see this as a threat to journalistic integrity only if there was such a thing anymore.
If he had enough money to buy a Mac (see pic), he probably has money to throw away for the damages.
This is why I don't trust most UK media outlets. I have seen too much of this drivel from the Register.
You will probably never see this in practice in any large scale semiconductors because of two reasons: 1. There is already an established process and infrastructure to refine silicon. 2. Mo costs more due to rarity and does not have a well established industrial process to refine it. As it stands, it is incredibly expensive and requires large amounts of energy to refine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Purification Mo being rarer to begin with will have a higher material cost, and will also probably be that much more difficult to refine. I am not sure what processes there are to distill/refine Mo into the superpure state needed for semiconductors, but I cannot imagine that there are established processes that can handle the worldwide demand for semiconductors.
Here's a buzzword for you that is applicable in this situation: Crowdsourcing Put the internal paperwork the government has received on an easily accessible website (or wait for Wikileaks to do it). This spill received enough attention and affected enough lives that the general public would be interested to see what is going on and do there own investigations of the facts. There are plenty of professionals in manufacturing design and control systems design that would be more than willing to give some of their own time to read up on some of the facts. I would personally like to see the cause and effect tables and their alarm database for the rigs control system/SIS system. I would rather see for myself than take a journalist's word for it.
RTFA. They aren't targetting video traffic specifically. They are targetting L3 as a whole. It just happens that Netflix is the reason that L3 traffic is spiking due to the huge usage in the U.S. Essentially, Netflix pays L3 for content delivery. This results in a huge spike in content delivery from L3 through to Comcast. Comcast now charges L3 for the extra content delivery because they do not have an agreement with Netflix, but an agreement that needs to be updated with L3.
Actually, if you have been paying attention, they refuse to fix the issue for their consumers. A case/bumpers have been shown to fix the issue, yet they have not given them to consumers. Since it is a hardware problem, I do not see what more they could do.
Quality procedures force those in my office to keep a record of their hand markups. We need to be able to document all of the checks that took place to get a document out the door...hand marked, initialed, and dated. Then, when we kick something up for approval to go out the door, I need to print out fresh copy. Project managers also like their own hard copies to look at. Basically, although I may not have a problem looking at documents on my computer, those responsible for the overall project do.
It's all on the passenger in my opinion. I believe taxis in New York are just like those in Chicago where there is a poster showing the rates and rules. Any passenger can easily tell if they are getting overcharged by checking the meter against the poster. The only people who might get exploited are the totally hammered people going from bar to bar. In which case, the extra 4 dollars is about half the cost of a drink...so it doesn't really matter much in the long run. When I am totally hammered in a taxi, I don't really care how much they charge me as long as I get there.
While that sounds awesome, Google is still gaining access to vast quanitities of copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. For every other company in the world, they need to obtain permission first before potentially profiting off of a work (Google will profit from subscriptions to their service). For Google, somehow, they do not need to obtain permission. Rather, a copyright holder needs to go through a process in order to object and have their material removed. While that sounds good and all, it is ridiculous that copyright holders need to spend time and money to assert rights that should be intrinsically part of copyright.
Mpapet: Per the settlement, Google has "non-exclusive" rights. If works are actually in the public domain and not copyright protected, anyone else can use the information and profit from it. The issue is not pertaining to true public domain works. The issue is that actual copyright holders have no rights unless they go through potentially convoluted procedures to object. If they do not spend time and money to object to their works being digitized, Google can keep on truckin. Google can profit off their work, and I did not see anything in the settlement that requires Google to pay back royalties (outside of the initial monetary settlement).
The settlement is very clear. Google has "non-exclusive" rights over all the books it digitizes. This means that everyone else simply needs to follow copyright standards. If a book is no longer under copyright, people could do anything with it. If a book is under copyright, people would need to obtain permission and could then do anything with that material. However, Google, per the settlement, is granted rights to every single out of print book unless the author/publisher/copyright holder takes the time to object.
Actually, if you read the actual settlement that was linked on the page linked yesterday, you would find that Google does not retain any rights on books published in the future. This is a misnomer. Microsoft stated that (paraphrased) Google will obtain permission to perform future copyright infringement through their settlement. However, if you actually read the settlement, you will find that the settlement has a strict deadline (this year), and any books published after that deadline are not covered under the settlement. Microsoft's claim that Google is permitted future copyright violations is true. However, these "future" copyright infringements referred to current out of print books that Google has not yet digitized. I am still against the court settlement in general, and I will make another post tomorrow with more exact info linked form the actual briefs. Bottom line, however, is....technically copyright owners retain their rights to refuse being printed via google books. However, they will need to spend time and money in order to go through procedures to stop google from printing their books online. It really should be the other way around.
block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device
RTFA. The fact that it's a legitimate protocol doesn't change the legality of the content. Using your logic, pirated movies are illegal content, but they are sent via a "legitimate" protocol.
Debate the article's position and take off your tinfoil hat regarding Microsoft's intentions. While many readers, myself included, do not trust Microsoft's intentions, I would rather argue the points raised in the article.
Did you even RTFA?
The main point the man made was simple. Contributions to a standard may be patent protected, but not within the scope of the standard. Companies and individuals would be able to use the standard and the patented items therein as long as they are using the patented items within the scope of the standard.
Read his analogy about the hypothetical patented aphrodesiac that was a good fit for a particular standard.
While I doubt that he is entirely forthcoming about Microsoft's intentions, he makes a good point.
If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour. The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous. Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.
Typically, if a road is not suited for trucks in the U.S., the village/township/county puts up a "NO TRUCKS OVER 2 TONS SIGN." This prevents small village roads from being treated as a "rat run." Tom Tom and Garmin are not to blame for trucks using unsuitable roads. This could happen anyway if the road is convienently placed. It is up to the local government to place signage to prevent this occurence.
So, considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs, we can expect to see these on the shelves in...2050?
As was stated above... "Yes - the dimension of the system is just the number of independent variables, the 3 wavelengths and the 2 polorisations." The article is correct in saying that there are 5 dimensions. The fact that you can make 6 different permutations does not mean there are 6 dimensions.