I can't say that I completely agree with licensing the Red Cross for trivial household products.
But nevertheless I oppose the position of J&J in this dispute. It was clearly Johnson & Johnson who was leeching off the Red Cross movement and to claim ownership of the Symbol is just wrong (even if it is their registered trademark) They just got lucky because they were the first company to do so, and have done so ever since. I suppose this is the best outcome of the dispute.
Personally, I think any company should be able to put a Red Cross on emergency first aid products (only), free of charge, but this is probably just wishful thinking.
Bad example. Unless you have ancestors who were indigenous to south America, your ancestors wouldnt have come in contact with potatoes until a couple of centuries ago.
1. Choose an area of current scientific research (bacterial polymer degradation) 2. Do some basic experimentation on improvement with the limited means he has available 3. Compare results to existing scientific publications. 4. Get a local newspaper to blow the achievement out of proportion.
I can understand a local Daily wanting to celebrate school science award winners, but this is Slashdot. Unless he shows us how to build a plastic-bag-reactor as a continuous power supply for a server, we don't want to know.
Thing is you can't leave it up to the "thief" to decide what is acceptable or they can afford it, that just won't work.
The example of piracy demonstrates this. There is absolutely no one I know who wouldn't be able to afford at least to buy a *little* amount of the material they pirate. Yet they pirate what they like as much as they like. And as the other poster pointed out, nobody *needs* those MP3s and DVDs.
Food OTOH is different as there is a justifiable minimum which a person needs to survive. People wouldn't consider stealing a loaf of bread when someone's starving to be wrong, but if the thief developed a gourmet taste for fine wine, tenderloin steak and roast truffles that would be wrong, no matter if he can afford it or not.
Isn't the reason open source licenses exist so that the contributors can prevent their code from being "exploited" in an unfair way.
In a free-for-all copyright scenario software vendors would still have maximum interest in preventing their source from being distributed, the same as before, in fact even more so. And without copyright laws, they would be able to help themselves to all the OSS goodness out there as much as the please.
From Wikipedia:
I2P is currently in the pre-alpha development stage and not yet ready for general anonymity use. Therefore the developers have asked the user community not to mention the software in high publicity websites like Slashdot. D'oh
They sue, you can't pay, you declare bankruptcy, so what? So... you lose your house, your car, your savings, basically everything, will probably have to accept years of wage garnishment...
Nicotine is about as addictive as coffee. Must be some coffee you're drinking.
The detox effects are two/three days of mild dizziness and concentration problems, that's it. LOL. That's why we have Nicotine replacement therapy, self-help groups and give smokers Bupropion (also given to coke junkies)
And you think that compares to cocaine? Or worse than LSD? LSD is a particularly bad example you took. It creates no physical dependency whatsoever. About as addictive as video games.
BTW, I'm not trying to compare the damaging effects or anything, just the potential for physical addiction.
Not really. There isn't any health risk from the smell of grease. But smoke has been proven to be damaging to the lungs and people who work in smoky conditions are exposed to a lot of it. There isn't anything that says working conditions has to be comfortable or pleasant, just no unnecessary health risk.
It always makes me laugh when I hear people say that they smoke to relax, and they're not addicted. There are certainly varying degrees of dependancy and different withdrawal symptoms. But nicotine is a chemical that necessitates a form of addiction to be rewarding at all. Smokers are less sensetive to their normal levels of dopamine, so when they do smoke it's a form of relief. Nobody gets that on their first smoke. That sense of relaxation that you get from a smoke after a days work? That's what non-smokers feel like all the time. (That is unless someone on the next table has just lit a cigarette) As far as addiction goes, nicotine's one of the nastiest substances out there, except for morphines.
Thing is though, probably nobody can claim to have ancestors who ate almost all meat for the last 5000 years. Sure there were highs and lows in the history of human nutrition, but up until the turn of the last century, meat was the exception. If everyone eats cow all day, and without modern and intense farming, you're going to run out of cow pretty fast.
Carbohydrates always have been the basis of nutrition for humans.
At least Immersion was a real company. They had a website and showed which technologies they developed and the companies they worked with. There seems to be nothing behind "Anascape"
Maybe, but a 49-year old woman should know better than to go for such an effort to harass, humiliate and insult a young girl who she knew had psychological problems. The fact that she tried to destroy the evidence is proof that she knew she was doing something very wrong.
Actually, it's only really the moon that's high on the agenda. There's still a hell of a load of things to solve before we can think of going to mars, and we haven't got a clear roadmap of how to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't say that I completely agree with licensing the Red Cross for trivial household products.
But nevertheless I oppose the position of J&J in this dispute. It was clearly Johnson & Johnson who was leeching off the Red Cross movement and to claim ownership of the Symbol is just wrong (even if it is their registered trademark)
They just got lucky because they were the first company to do so, and have done so ever since.
I suppose this is the best outcome of the dispute.
Personally, I think any company should be able to put a Red Cross on emergency first aid products (only), free of charge, but this is probably just wishful thinking.
Bad example. Unless you have ancestors who were indigenous to south America, your ancestors wouldnt have come in contact with potatoes until a couple of centuries ago.
My (cynical) two cents:
1. Choose an area of current scientific research (bacterial polymer degradation)
2. Do some basic experimentation on improvement with the limited means he has available
3. Compare results to existing scientific publications.
4. Get a local newspaper to blow the achievement out of proportion.
I can understand a local Daily wanting to celebrate school science award winners, but this is Slashdot. Unless he shows us how to build a plastic-bag-reactor as a continuous power supply for a server, we don't want to know.
Thing is you can't leave it up to the "thief" to decide what is acceptable or they can afford it, that just won't work.
The example of piracy demonstrates this. There is absolutely no one I know who wouldn't be able to afford at least to buy a *little* amount of the material they pirate. Yet they pirate what they like as much as they like.
And as the other poster pointed out, nobody *needs* those MP3s and DVDs.
Food OTOH is different as there is a justifiable minimum which a person needs to survive. People wouldn't consider stealing a loaf of bread when someone's starving to be wrong, but if the thief developed a gourmet taste for fine wine, tenderloin steak and roast truffles that would be wrong, no matter if he can afford it or not.
Please clarify.
Isn't the reason open source licenses exist so that the contributors can prevent their code from being "exploited" in an unfair way.
In a free-for-all copyright scenario software vendors would still have maximum interest in preventing their source from being distributed, the same as before, in fact even more so. And without copyright laws, they would be able to help themselves to all the OSS goodness out there as much as the please.
But those RIAA songs were damn good.
Logical Fallacy: How the heck does the interviewer know any of the previous employers arent lying? Isnt that just as likely?
Wow, you really grasped this one.~
It isnt the Kansas state government thats screwing things up, its the local districts. I doubt they will be willing to write whole textbooks.
BTW, I'm not trying to compare the damaging effects or anything, just the potential for physical addiction.
First? Germany's been there since 1972. Even negative growth has occurred in the last few years. The situation in Russia is by far the worst though.
CIA World Factbook
Depends which drug. LSD Ecstasy or Cannabis? Not a chance.
Cocaine on the other hand? Well probably about the same.
Heroin? Like I said, morphine drugs are real bastards.
Not really. There isn't any health risk from the smell of grease. But smoke has been proven to be damaging to the lungs and people who work in smoky conditions are exposed to a lot of it.
There isn't anything that says working conditions has to be comfortable or pleasant, just no unnecessary health risk.
You could try this.
It always makes me laugh when I hear people say that they smoke to relax, and they're not addicted.
There are certainly varying degrees of dependancy and different withdrawal symptoms. But nicotine is a chemical that necessitates a form of addiction to be rewarding at all.
Smokers are less sensetive to their normal levels of dopamine, so when they do smoke it's a form of relief. Nobody gets that on their first smoke.
That sense of relaxation that you get from a smoke after a days work? That's what non-smokers feel like all the time. (That is unless someone on the next table has just lit a cigarette)
As far as addiction goes, nicotine's one of the nastiest substances out there, except for morphines.
If all we needed to do to make these people's jobs safer were to ask some guys ot to smoke, I'm sure we'd do that too.
I'm sure that the people in there didn't exactly choose to work as a waitress in a run down smoky old bar. They have to take the best of what's going.
Thing is though, probably nobody can claim to have ancestors who ate almost all meat for the last 5000 years. Sure there were highs and lows in the history of human nutrition, but up until the turn of the last century, meat was the exception. If everyone eats cow all day, and without modern and intense farming, you're going to run out of cow pretty fast.
Carbohydrates always have been the basis of nutrition for humans.
They've got a website for the Neuroarm complete with video clip and pics.
At least Immersion was a real company. They had a website and showed which technologies they developed and the companies they worked with. There seems to be nothing behind "Anascape"
When you say "consumption" you generally refer to the derivative of the value, so in this case energy consumtion := power.
If I say "my car consumes a lot of fuel", I primarily mean that my car isn't very efficient, not that I drive a lot.
Maybe, but a 49-year old woman should know better than to go for such an effort to harass, humiliate and insult a young girl who she knew had psychological problems. The fact that she tried to destroy the evidence is proof that she knew she was doing something very wrong.
It doesn't even have to be one Movie Love how it finishes off with a cheesy dance mix at the end
Actually, it's only really the moon that's high on the agenda. There's still a hell of a load of things to solve before we can think of going to mars, and we haven't got a clear roadmap of how to do it.