It's not broken, it's just not working like some people would expect it to. It DOES keep perfect track for recognizing the countries greatest inventors as far as THEY are concerned - if you RTFA, you'd have seen they DO keep track of which COMPANIES get the most patents. The USPTO knows who holds the power.
It's the small secret organizations using the incompetence of the government as camouflage that handle the UFSs. They purposely promote the incompetence to cover their tracks. If the government can't keep track of your taxes, they won't be able to keep track of funding for those black-ops either.
Yeah, I was swinging sideways on a swing back in the early 70's, and I certainly wasn't the first. Prior art doesn't seem to be a consideration at the USPTO anymore. Every article on patents invalidated I've seen in the last year has all been a defendent in a lawsuit presenting prior art.
Your point C is a VERY real problem with the current patent system. By allowing vague and overly-broad patents on IDEAS rather than WORKING INVENTIONS, you discourage REAL inventors who wish to actually make working devices. At the very least, many companies will, upon learning of a patent over an area they are working on, sit on it until the patent expires. At best, society is hurt by postponing the real inventive step of the process. At worst, the inventive step never occurs. I've said it before, you shouldn't be granted a patent without a WORKING DEVICE, or as another poster put it, a convincing simulation proving it would work.
In fact, a COMMON tactic in the patent world is to get a patent on an IDEA with no hardware to back it up, and keep quiet about it. Then wait for some big company to make a product similar to that idea, then wait a little more until it's making big money, then come forward with the patent demanding a slice of the pie. I would go so far as to say that is how MOST patents are used.
LMAO! Activision uses that EXACT SAME AD for the PS2 as well. The only difference is the console name they flash at the end. That game is being put out for every console still running. As others have pointed out, the commercial is showing a rendered cut scene, not the game.
Except the MS is STILL losing money. They are NOT making it up selling games. The only thing keeping MS in the market is Windows and Office. By comparison, Sony's last quartly reports showed the PS2/PSP divisions making more money the all the other Sony divisions. They do quite well without having to subsidise PS2/PSP with their TV division (which lost money last quarter) or their music division (which WILL be a money loser shortly due to lawsuits).
Uh - the original XBox DID flop completely. It's losing more money now than ever. For a game console to still be losing money at the end of its lifecycle is an unmitigated disaster. MS is only still in the market because they prop up the XBox with money from Windows and Office.
You've obviously not looked over the Cell specs. Cell is actually much better for settop boxes processing compressed digital video and sound than games. Cell will be HUGE in the HDTV market. Then add in the fact that a couple companies are already making Cell servers and you can see that it really ISN'T just the PS3. In fact, there will be Cells in millions of products long before the PS3 ships.
Two big things I think they got wrong: they put the Cell at $160 and the Blu-Ray drive at $100.
The $160 estimate is given the price and yield figures given at a recent show where the Cell dies were discussed. The Playstation won't go on sale for several more months, allowing yields to rise and costs to drop. I'd say Cell will be less than $100 when the PS3 ships.
The $100 for Blu-Ray was pulled out of their rear. Sony has been selling Blu-Ray drives for almost two years now. They were just aimed at the computer market, not the video market. Blu-Ray is actually quite mature and the price on the drive mechanisms will be much less than their estimate. I'd put it at no more than $30 by the time the PS3 ships.
Between the two, that's $130 less than their estimate, which puts the estimated price quite a bit closer to what you'll probably see for the PS3.
The equations are just models that fit the data sets to within a decent measure of error. The don't explain why the event occurs, just what can be the expected results. We know that muons decay into an electron or positron and a couple neutrinos (one anti-electron neutrino and one muon neutrino, or vice versa depending on whether the decay produced an electron or a positron), but the equations don't tell us WHY it decayed into those particles.
General relativity says that matter warps space-time, but what does that mean? What is being warped, and why does matter warp it? The equations just tell us that mass m warps space-time to give a gravitational attraction g. It neither explains space-time nor why the mass affects it in the manner the equation describes.
Actually, it probably will end up cooking the Earth. Lowering the orbit of the electron increases the probability of fusion. That's how muon catalyzed cold fusion works - replace the electron with a muon, which being heavier orbits at a reduced distance. The lower the orbit, the more likely fusion is to occur. As you build up larger quantities of these hydrinos, their increased odds of fusing means some WILL fuse and you then get lots of nice heat. Since it's a NUCLEAR reaction, it's probably much greater than what will be absorbed by the other hydrinos, resulting in a net heat increase.
In fact, that's probably what they'll do with these hydrinos in the first place - save them in special containment cells for use in cold fusion. So we get heat from making the hydrinos, then later get even more from their fusion into helium. The net result is this: water -> hydrinos + oxygen -> helium. So the Earth loses water, gains helium, and we get cheaper energy. If we don't wish to deprive the Earth of all its water, eventually they'll have to start using water from someplace else - like comets or other kuiper belt objects.
Finally! Someone who understands all these theories don't EXPLAIN reality, they just give mathematical models of collected data. Too many scientists get off on thinking they're explaining the nature of the universe. Leave that to philosophers.
Well, first-to-file will do away with that "prior art" nonsense. It won't matter WHO invented something or WHEN, only who managed to file first with the patent office.
The problem with that idea is survival of the fittest doesn't lead to intelligence. The most fit creatures at surviving are also among the least intelligent. Intelligence requires going against being the most fit to survive to a large extent. Look at Stephen Hawking - he's one of the most intelligent beings to ever come around, but he is also the least likely to ever survive... in the old days, the Spartans would have tossed him off a cliff. You can't explain humans with survival of the fittest.
Marijuana has carcinogenic factors in it, just like tobacco. Heavy pot smokers may develop lung cancer just the same as people who smoke tobacco products.
"Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug's psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke."
So I guess the lesson is bake your MJ in brownies, or use a bong.:)
They did. There were many scenes where the Star Trek ships came at the B5 ships from above and the sides to get out of the line of the heavy guns. But remember that B5 ships follow REAL physics - they can use thrusters to simply pivot about their center to point whichever way they need. The Star Trek ships using Star Trek rules could not turn that fast, so the B5 ships had the advantage in turning, but were virtually stuck at one point in space about which they pivoted.
Well, how about looking at fossils separated by millions of years and assuming they are related simply based on a vaguely similar topology? Evolutionists look at a handful of rocks and draw nice pretty diagrams of how everything evolved... with no evidence at all beyond that handful of vaguely similar looking rocks. Show me some genetic tests demonstrating a clear relationship! Oh, that's right - there AREN'T any.
I do admit, evolution gives a decent reason why some of those fossils look vaguely similar, but it's hardly proof of anything.
Most scientists put the age of the universe at 12 to 15 billion years, or 3 to 4 times the age of the Earth. I am almost POSITIVE that the odds of life surviving being BLASTED off a planet, travelling 20,000 light years through space, then surviving a plunge through the atmosphere to the ground is PROBABLY smaller than 1/3 or 1/4.:)
Proteins are made from amino acids. Twenty types of amino acids are arranged in a specific order to make a particular protein or enzyme. Let's look at a simple protein - say 100 amino acids long. Let's be optimistic and say that all twenty needed amino acids are available in any quantity. Well, now we need one of twenty different amino acids to join with one of twenty others, then have that join to one of twenty others, and so. 1/20 * 1/20 * 1/20 *... for one hundred amino acids. Multiply it out - it's 1 chance in 20 to the 100th power. The number in the parent post is 1.25 times 10 to the 25th power. See the problem? The odds of SIMPLE proteins forming are INCREDIBLY small. Forget about complex proteins and enzymes and sugars, and TOTALLY FORGET about then having them just happen to work together by some major miracle. The odds just don't favor that happening. That's also forgetting that lab experiments on "primordial ooze" only show the formation of a couple simple amino acids, not all twenty that life uses.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not broken, it's just not working like some people would expect it to. It DOES keep perfect track for recognizing the countries greatest inventors as far as THEY are concerned - if you RTFA, you'd have seen they DO keep track of which COMPANIES get the most patents. The USPTO knows who holds the power.
Actually, it was the Statute of Limitations that saved him from his past. ;)
It's the small secret organizations using the incompetence of the government as camouflage that handle the UFSs. They purposely promote the incompetence to cover their tracks. If the government can't keep track of your taxes, they won't be able to keep track of funding for those black-ops either.
Yeah, I was swinging sideways on a swing back in the early 70's, and I certainly wasn't the first. Prior art doesn't seem to be a consideration at the USPTO anymore. Every article on patents invalidated I've seen in the last year has all been a defendent in a lawsuit presenting prior art.
Your point C is a VERY real problem with the current patent system. By allowing vague and overly-broad patents on IDEAS rather than WORKING INVENTIONS, you discourage REAL inventors who wish to actually make working devices. At the very least, many companies will, upon learning of a patent over an area they are working on, sit on it until the patent expires. At best, society is hurt by postponing the real inventive step of the process. At worst, the inventive step never occurs. I've said it before, you shouldn't be granted a patent without a WORKING DEVICE, or as another poster put it, a convincing simulation proving it would work.
Well, you flunk reading comprehension. He said "consider patenting" which is not the same as saying they granted a patent.
In fact, a COMMON tactic in the patent world is to get a patent on an IDEA with no hardware to back it up, and keep quiet about it. Then wait for some big company to make a product similar to that idea, then wait a little more until it's making big money, then come forward with the patent demanding a slice of the pie. I would go so far as to say that is how MOST patents are used.
LMAO! Activision uses that EXACT SAME AD for the PS2 as well. The only difference is the console name they flash at the end. That game is being put out for every console still running. As others have pointed out, the commercial is showing a rendered cut scene, not the game.
Except the MS is STILL losing money. They are NOT making it up selling games. The only thing keeping MS in the market is Windows and Office. By comparison, Sony's last quartly reports showed the PS2/PSP divisions making more money the all the other Sony divisions. They do quite well without having to subsidise PS2/PSP with their TV division (which lost money last quarter) or their music division (which WILL be a money loser shortly due to lawsuits).
Uh - the original XBox DID flop completely. It's losing more money now than ever. For a game console to still be losing money at the end of its lifecycle is an unmitigated disaster. MS is only still in the market because they prop up the XBox with money from Windows and Office.
You've obviously not looked over the Cell specs. Cell is actually much better for settop boxes processing compressed digital video and sound than games. Cell will be HUGE in the HDTV market. Then add in the fact that a couple companies are already making Cell servers and you can see that it really ISN'T just the PS3. In fact, there will be Cells in millions of products long before the PS3 ships.
Two big things I think they got wrong: they put the Cell at $160 and the Blu-Ray drive at $100.
The $160 estimate is given the price and yield figures given at a recent show where the Cell dies were discussed. The Playstation won't go on sale for several more months, allowing yields to rise and costs to drop. I'd say Cell will be less than $100 when the PS3 ships.
The $100 for Blu-Ray was pulled out of their rear. Sony has been selling Blu-Ray drives for almost two years now. They were just aimed at the computer market, not the video market. Blu-Ray is actually quite mature and the price on the drive mechanisms will be much less than their estimate. I'd put it at no more than $30 by the time the PS3 ships.
Between the two, that's $130 less than their estimate, which puts the estimated price quite a bit closer to what you'll probably see for the PS3.
The equations are just models that fit the data sets to within a decent measure of error. The don't explain why the event occurs, just what can be the expected results. We know that muons decay into an electron or positron and a couple neutrinos (one anti-electron neutrino and one muon neutrino, or vice versa depending on whether the decay produced an electron or a positron), but the equations don't tell us WHY it decayed into those particles.
General relativity says that matter warps space-time, but what does that mean? What is being warped, and why does matter warp it? The equations just tell us that mass m warps space-time to give a gravitational attraction g. It neither explains space-time nor why the mass affects it in the manner the equation describes.
Actually, it probably will end up cooking the Earth. Lowering the orbit of the electron increases the probability of fusion. That's how muon catalyzed cold fusion works - replace the electron with a muon, which being heavier orbits at a reduced distance. The lower the orbit, the more likely fusion is to occur. As you build up larger quantities of these hydrinos, their increased odds of fusing means some WILL fuse and you then get lots of nice heat. Since it's a NUCLEAR reaction, it's probably much greater than what will be absorbed by the other hydrinos, resulting in a net heat increase.
In fact, that's probably what they'll do with these hydrinos in the first place - save them in special containment cells for use in cold fusion. So we get heat from making the hydrinos, then later get even more from their fusion into helium. The net result is this: water -> hydrinos + oxygen -> helium. So the Earth loses water, gains helium, and we get cheaper energy. If we don't wish to deprive the Earth of all its water, eventually they'll have to start using water from someplace else - like comets or other kuiper belt objects.
Finally! Someone who understands all these theories don't EXPLAIN reality, they just give mathematical models of collected data. Too many scientists get off on thinking they're explaining the nature of the universe. Leave that to philosophers.
Seeing as this is all on an atomic or sub-atomic level, you'll never see it, even if it's true. :)
Well, first-to-file will do away with that "prior art" nonsense. It won't matter WHO invented something or WHEN, only who managed to file first with the patent office.
The problem with that idea is survival of the fittest doesn't lead to intelligence. The most fit creatures at surviving are also among the least intelligent. Intelligence requires going against being the most fit to survive to a large extent. Look at Stephen Hawking - he's one of the most intelligent beings to ever come around, but he is also the least likely to ever survive... in the old days, the Spartans would have tossed him off a cliff. You can't explain humans with survival of the fittest.
Marijuana has carcinogenic factors in it, just like tobacco. Heavy pot smokers may develop lung cancer just the same as people who smoke tobacco products.
:)
A little snippet from http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1516.html
"Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug's psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke."
So I guess the lesson is bake your MJ in brownies, or use a bong.
WHOOOOSH!!!
What was that? Something just passed right over my head.
What is it about some folks here? It's like their humor knob is set to 0.
They did. There were many scenes where the Star Trek ships came at the B5 ships from above and the sides to get out of the line of the heavy guns. But remember that B5 ships follow REAL physics - they can use thrusters to simply pivot about their center to point whichever way they need. The Star Trek ships using Star Trek rules could not turn that fast, so the B5 ships had the advantage in turning, but were virtually stuck at one point in space about which they pivoted.
Currently about 1000 seeds and 3600 leachers on the high-res subtitled torrent.
Well, how about looking at fossils separated by millions of years and assuming they are related simply based on a vaguely similar topology? Evolutionists look at a handful of rocks and draw nice pretty diagrams of how everything evolved... with no evidence at all beyond that handful of vaguely similar looking rocks. Show me some genetic tests demonstrating a clear relationship! Oh, that's right - there AREN'T any.
I do admit, evolution gives a decent reason why some of those fossils look vaguely similar, but it's hardly proof of anything.
Most scientists put the age of the universe at 12 to 15 billion years, or 3 to 4 times the age of the Earth. I am almost POSITIVE that the odds of life surviving being BLASTED off a planet, travelling 20,000 light years through space, then surviving a plunge through the atmosphere to the ground is PROBABLY smaller than 1/3 or 1/4. :)
:)
Just a smidge.
Proteins are made from amino acids. Twenty types of amino acids are arranged in a specific order to make a particular protein or enzyme. Let's look at a simple protein - say 100 amino acids long. Let's be optimistic and say that all twenty needed amino acids are available in any quantity. Well, now we need one of twenty different amino acids to join with one of twenty others, then have that join to one of twenty others, and so. 1/20 * 1/20 * 1/20 * ... for one hundred amino acids. Multiply it out - it's 1 chance in 20 to the 100th power. The number in the parent post is 1.25 times 10 to the 25th power. See the problem? The odds of SIMPLE proteins forming are INCREDIBLY small. Forget about complex proteins and enzymes and sugars, and TOTALLY FORGET about then having them just happen to work together by some major miracle. The odds just don't favor that happening. That's also forgetting that lab experiments on "primordial ooze" only show the formation of a couple simple amino acids, not all twenty that life uses.