'To leverage' in finance terms means to borrow money that you will invest.
'To leverage' in good business-speak means to use something to your advantage, depriving yourself of the normal use of that thing (i.e., borrowing from yourself, like leveraging Division A profits for Division B expenses to fund Div B later, greater profits).
'To Leverage' in bad management-speak means to utilize something -- that is, to use it for advantage or pecuniary gain (as opposed to just using something).
"Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?"... * The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
I think your request won't be honored (this is slashdot, after all), but even less so since objectiveness is lacking in your post as well...
Not to troll, but asking for the loonies to stay away is like putting out a huge non-zapping bugzapper for them.
The telephone industry wanting to have a level playing field? Utility regulation of the internet in order to protect business?
BS. Utilities are regulated to protect the public, not the profits of a few telcos. The idea is that a public good vital to the citizenry needs to be regulated in order to prevent the provider of the utility from price gouging, selective distribution, etc.
If the internet opens up telephony to multiple providers (since the natural monopoly is being broken), then good! That means that regulation of the industry is actually less necessary.
"There are many different types of radiation effects, many of which cause both mechanical and electrical degradation. Mechanical defects consist of ones that cause properties of materials to be altered. For instance, such defects could alter the mechanical, optical, thermal and electrical properties of metals. Electrical degradation would physically occur during operation. Due to the accumulation of alpha particles, bits can be flipped during operation and cause system failure"
There's more in-depth info out there, but most of the detailed stuff I was trying to access requires memberships in consortiums etc. I was a little surprised by the bitflipping.
" Because the robot lacked a trigger finger to depress and release a drill control, the Sandia team stalked the aisles of local hardware stores, buying cordless drills and other equipment they modified into remotely operated drills, hooks, and grippers."
Awesome, like a poor hardware hacker's dream... a big fat budget for using power tools in a manner inconsistent with their labeling. I think this is the fulfillment of a lot of engineer's reason for being engineers.
"What it is is easy to explain. Why it's acceptable while some other shorthand isn't is a different matter."
I think it's fairl easy to explain... ur and gr8 are lazy shorthands that sometimes replaces words that we've been using and writing our entire lives, and are ingrained in our accepted language.
Slashdot is a newer term not as ingrained in our culture, and also is a verbal representation of/., so the shorthand/. is actually the original 'term.'
"if they believe the rocky performance is temporary
then Yes
else No"
I'd say thatmost bloggers will be pretty resistant to changing providers. Like changing email addresses, or telephone numbers, it's a pain -- especially if you have an established blog.
Bloggers identify with their blog, and moving to a different site, with a different mechanism and layout, just doesn't feel 'right.' So they will choose to believe it's temporary... only prolonged crappy service will make them move.
"You are telling me that no scientist would develop something because its the right thing to do if there isn't profit involved ?"
No, I am saying that drug development is a very expensive process, and no private organization is going to lay out hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars without a profit incentive, which you state as well. I wasn't talking about individuals, I agree that most of them likely have the best of motivations. But good intentions don't pay for expensive research and testing.
My point was that there could be a profit incentive to develop cures, but I think the cost of a one-time cure could prove to be too bitter a pill for health insurers (and national healthcare systems) to swallow.
Also, a major problem is that the market for cures to serious diseases is pretty small. Most major drug companies would rather target a market that is much larger, so they can have a high sales volume. This is very sad, that drug companies have to treat drug devlopment as a sales exercise. However, most of them also have divisions working on more humanitarian projects, which we don't see as much (since all the marketing and advertising is for broad-appeal drugs).
If Google has a wholly owned subsidiary ISP, look out for anti-competitive practice lawsuits. They are buying AOL stock for a different reason, as plenty of people have mentioned, and as minority shareholders they are a little safer.
To me, accuracy doesn't matter. I could care less what the "real life" Mona Lisa was feeling.
What I'm interested in is what the painted Mona Lisa is hypothetically thinking. It's an abstract exercise, there's no reason to try to tie it in to the 'real' Mona Lisa (if there was one).
"Why should the drug cartels.. I mean companies spend millions/billions on finding a cure for a disease/problem ? Hmm... Cure = 1 Time payment, Treatment = Lifetime of payments"
The flip side to this is that if there is no patent protection, it is definitely not economically viable to develop cures. With patents, different story, as long as it's not an orphan drug (which means that there are too few cases to make it worthwhile even WITH patent protection).
Hypothetically:
Cure the disease -- 1 monster size payment
Treat the symptoms -- a lifetime of small payments
It never works that way, but that's the hypothetical.
"...has been used to decipher art. way to take the fun out of living."
You know, if you plot a line at the realism value of the painting on one axis, and the emotional value of the desired effect on the other axis, you can determine the true value of a portrait by calculating the area of the rectangle you've just outline (with the origin as the opposing corner).
"and a lot of those are people pulling quotes from their little text file they keep hand to copy and paste their 'smart' words"
Thanks for articulating that, it's rather obvious that there's a few cut-and-paste posters who post nearly the same thing every time a patent article comes up.
Consistently modded up as insightful or informative, those posts should be modded redundant.
"It is important that people realize the patent system needs reform, but there is no motivation for the government to do so at this time"
Here's one point that the pasters, you, and I agree on. If anything, government has a vested interest in NOT reforming the patent system, since bureacracy will always act to perpetuate itself, and there would be lots of unhappy government ex-employees if they fixed the system.
"A URL is no different than an onscreen or offscreen button IMO."
Unfortunately, the patent office disagrees. It seems that for any action in meatspace, doing it virtually is patentable. It's broken, but that's what we have to deal with.
"You may not see megacorps working on solutions, but the biggest medical developments in human history came originally from a few researchers, not megalabs that spend billions and release drugs that addict and kill their users."
Technology has advanced a lot in the past few decades. A couple people working in a tiny personal lab aren't going to be making any groundbreaking medical discoveries any time soon.
I'm not saying I agree with the megalabs, I have tons of problems with how they operate and what they choose to research. But you can't apply ancient history to modern medical research -- and by ancient, I mean over 50 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
'To leverage' in finance terms means to borrow money that you will invest.
'To leverage' in good business-speak means to use something to your advantage, depriving yourself of the normal use of that thing (i.e., borrowing from yourself, like leveraging Division A profits for Division B expenses to fund Div B later, greater profits).
'To Leverage' in bad management-speak means to utilize something -- that is, to use it for advantage or pecuniary gain (as opposed to just using something).
You asked a leading question, is all -- seems like you were only asking for one kind of answer re: free speech and libel.
"Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?"...
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
I think your request won't be honored (this is slashdot, after all), but even less so since objectiveness is lacking in your post as well...
Not to troll, but asking for the loonies to stay away is like putting out a huge non-zapping bugzapper for them.
The telephone industry wanting to have a level playing field? Utility regulation of the internet in order to protect business?
BS. Utilities are regulated to protect the public, not the profits of a few telcos. The idea is that a public good vital to the citizenry needs to be regulated in order to prevent the provider of the utility from price gouging, selective distribution, etc.
If the internet opens up telephony to multiple providers (since the natural monopoly is being broken), then good! That means that regulation of the industry is actually less necessary.
"You don't see a lot of "out of X nurses graduating this year only 2 were men" articles floating about the news..."
That's because the gender gap in nursing is disappearing. It's only news when the gap is increasing.
"Ok, I ran over the child in my SUV after I shot the clerk with a gun.
You people just won't let me forget about that, will you?"
I think the line you're looking for is:
"And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you pesky slashdotters"
Here's some info, relevant material pulled:
"There are many different types of radiation effects, many of which cause both mechanical and electrical degradation. Mechanical defects consist of ones that cause properties of materials to be altered. For instance, such defects could alter the mechanical, optical, thermal and electrical properties of metals. Electrical degradation would physically occur during operation. Due to the accumulation of alpha particles, bits can be flipped during operation and cause system failure"
There's more in-depth info out there, but most of the detailed stuff I was trying to access requires memberships in consortiums etc. I was a little surprised by the bitflipping.
" Because the robot lacked a trigger finger to depress and release a drill control, the Sandia team stalked the aisles of local hardware stores, buying cordless drills and other equipment they modified into remotely operated drills, hooks, and grippers."
Awesome, like a poor hardware hacker's dream... a big fat budget for using power tools in a manner inconsistent with their labeling. I think this is the fulfillment of a lot of engineer's reason for being engineers.
"What it is is easy to explain. Why it's acceptable while some other shorthand isn't is a different matter."
/., so the shorthand /. is actually the original 'term.'
I think it's fairl easy to explain... ur and gr8 are lazy shorthands that sometimes replaces words that we've been using and writing our entire lives, and are ingrained in our accepted language.
Slashdot is a newer term not as ingrained in our culture, and also is a verbal representation of
"if they believe the rocky performance is temporary
then Yes
else No"
I'd say thatmost bloggers will be pretty resistant to changing providers. Like changing email addresses, or telephone numbers, it's a pain -- especially if you have an established blog.
Bloggers identify with their blog, and moving to a different site, with a different mechanism and layout, just doesn't feel 'right.' So they will choose to believe it's temporary... only prolonged crappy service will make them move.
"You are telling me that no scientist would develop something because its the right thing to do if there isn't profit involved ?"
No, I am saying that drug development is a very expensive process, and no private organization is going to lay out hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars without a profit incentive, which you state as well. I wasn't talking about individuals, I agree that most of them likely have the best of motivations. But good intentions don't pay for expensive research and testing.
My point was that there could be a profit incentive to develop cures, but I think the cost of a one-time cure could prove to be too bitter a pill for health insurers (and national healthcare systems) to swallow.
Also, a major problem is that the market for cures to serious diseases is pretty small. Most major drug companies would rather target a market that is much larger, so they can have a high sales volume. This is very sad, that drug companies have to treat drug devlopment as a sales exercise. However, most of them also have divisions working on more humanitarian projects, which we don't see as much (since all the marketing and advertising is for broad-appeal drugs).
Hit the nail on the head, I think. Before or just after the appointment of Bush, either way it would have been a PR nightmare.
If Google has a wholly owned subsidiary ISP, look out for anti-competitive practice lawsuits. They are buying AOL stock for a different reason, as plenty of people have mentioned, and as minority shareholders they are a little safer.
No, no, 'Gaol' is where you go if you use GooglAOL to pirate music.
I was referring to Intellivision, not Nintendo. But Atari was great for producing evil controllers.
I thought the 5200 controller was particularly bad, squeezing the dying side buttons totally crapped up my forearm muscles.
Just because someone is tying into a book means that the information is no longer important to be aware of?
That's crap. Sure, it raises a flag that maybe it needs to be verified, but anything this important needs to be verified.
To me, accuracy doesn't matter. I could care less what the "real life" Mona Lisa was feeling.
What I'm interested in is what the painted Mona Lisa is hypothetically thinking. It's an abstract exercise, there's no reason to try to tie it in to the 'real' Mona Lisa (if there was one).
"Why should the drug cartels.. I mean companies spend millions/billions on finding a cure for a disease/problem ? Hmm... Cure = 1 Time payment, Treatment = Lifetime of payments"
The flip side to this is that if there is no patent protection, it is definitely not economically viable to develop cures. With patents, different story, as long as it's not an orphan drug (which means that there are too few cases to make it worthwhile even WITH patent protection).
Hypothetically:
Cure the disease -- 1 monster size payment
Treat the symptoms -- a lifetime of small payments
It never works that way, but that's the hypothetical.
Yes, but will it know that "the girl with colitis goes by" is really "the girl with kaleidoscope eyes?"
"There are countless sensible explanations for why she looks the way she does, and they're all irrelevant because it's just a work of art."
I think it's the exact opposite. They are all relevant because it's a work of art.
The conjecture, the interpretation, that's all part of appreciating art.
"...has been used to decipher art. way to take the fun out of living."
You know, if you plot a line at the realism value of the painting on one axis, and the emotional value of the desired effect on the other axis, you can determine the true value of a portrait by calculating the area of the rectangle you've just outline (with the origin as the opposing corner).
"I *could have* played with my pecker all morning and come up with something more useful than this." (emphasis mine)
Eww. I always just discard that stuff, what do you do with it that makes it so useful?
"and a lot of those are people pulling quotes from their little text file they keep hand to copy and paste their 'smart' words"
Thanks for articulating that, it's rather obvious that there's a few cut-and-paste posters who post nearly the same thing every time a patent article comes up.
Consistently modded up as insightful or informative, those posts should be modded redundant.
"It is important that people realize the patent system needs reform, but there is no motivation for the government to do so at this time"
Here's one point that the pasters, you, and I agree on. If anything, government has a vested interest in NOT reforming the patent system, since bureacracy will always act to perpetuate itself, and there would be lots of unhappy government ex-employees if they fixed the system.
"A URL is no different than an onscreen or offscreen button IMO."
Unfortunately, the patent office disagrees. It seems that for any action in meatspace, doing it virtually is patentable. It's broken, but that's what we have to deal with.
"You may not see megacorps working on solutions, but the biggest medical developments in human history came originally from a few researchers, not megalabs that spend billions and release drugs that addict and kill their users."
Technology has advanced a lot in the past few decades. A couple people working in a tiny personal lab aren't going to be making any groundbreaking medical discoveries any time soon.
I'm not saying I agree with the megalabs, I have tons of problems with how they operate and what they choose to research. But you can't apply ancient history to modern medical research -- and by ancient, I mean over 50 years old.