If you wish to debate that Earth's orbit alteration is not significant for Earth's recent climate change please explicitly say so.
I ask this because you use a quote about Mars' orbit alteration then refer to "human global climate impact"; and Earth's human global climate impact should not be included in a discussion about orbit alteration being the conventional theory for the climate change on Mars
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
If I have read the quotes correctly it seems that Berner-Lee suggested that education was the priority not preventative full-scale lockdown; this type of lockdown is a violation of the doctrine of fair-use {fair dealing}.
Mary Bono countered that his concept was against enforcement of copyright; but it is not, he advocates a system that only refutes preventative full-scale lockdown it did not either directly or indirectly address enforcement of copyright.
Please note enforcement of copyright was and is intended to be a reactive measure available to the copyright holders as a response against improper/illegal actions taken by others.
The competitors are not getting a free ride, they will have to pay reasonable{market bearing} rates to Deutsche Telekom for the use of the lines. Just like in Canada when Rogers and Bell had to open their lines up to competitors - the competitors had to and still do pay for the use of the lines.
a paid service soon for companies who wish to use it for their domain.
The way I understand the phrase, any company that want Google apps as a dedicated service will have to pay for it.Thus you and I as individuals aren't required to pay for it.
The quote you are using can not be directly attributed to Ben Franklin - but is instead a paraphrasing from a book he edited.
It seems that one of the verified and original qoutes is "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARAY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY." {I used the caps in the same positions as shown in the original document}
Information on this quote can be found at http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader $605
Yes but we were initially discussing how a new(?) concept should be released by a government department to it's people/etc, not whether all counties respect patent laws.
While in some countries patents may not be respected, in many other nations cross-border patents and liscensing are respected as is the concept of public domian. So if the taxpayers of a nation are solely to get a benefit then the concept should not be freely available to the world in general through public domain.
Or do you wish to see the government have a pre-defined patent (and/or copyright) liscense that all taxpayers of a nation are able to use all the government's efforts and results without further cost?
But public domain is international.... so "all companies" would not have to have any participation in a nation (thus pay no taxes) to use the concept produced by any government department.
Then why not allow government departments that invest their time and effort to have the privilege of patents and subsequent liscenses as well?
Do you beleive that all companies should just be able to take a government department's work in a particular field and use it without having to pay for it?
Quick question for you to answer so that I may better respond to you concern -- Do you believe that individuals and companies have the privilege of patents and subsequent licensing?
For those who are wondering... patents are not a right they are a privilege, much like a driver's licence.
AS for your "ah yes..." well who else would get to decide what is proper use? The owner of the patent has the right to stipulate conditions under which a patent/device/concept is licenced - in this case the owner just happens to be a government department.
Not all licences from government patents are for medical industries - some(many) go to other industries; i.e. entertainment, communications, energy, etc
It may be better in some cases that the Navy(or some other government department) own a patent rather put it into the public domain. If it's in the public domain there is no control on it but if it's patented and licensed then their is a measure of control. Some government non-exclusive licenses are based primarily on proper (and/or limited) usage of the device/concept rather on straight monetary gain.
YOu should first try to get the law (etc) changed, then if necessary try to get the law challenged through acts of civil disobidience. True civil disobidience means that you are willing to pay the price of breaking the law as long as your actions will bring further attention to the mistake{s} of the law/practice in question.
(*) My company wanted to standartize of Java, but backed off the plans. Middle management wanted Java for its stable and rich development environment. R&D manager flat out refused since Java is in fact closed source and there is no sence in adding another dependency to the already huge software package we have. And nobody can assure us what Sun will do tommorow - what if they drop support for M$ Windows?? There is *no* competing Java implementations. And there is no standard for Java.
The DNS vulnerabilities are not hurting Blue Security's credibility!
That a hacker had to use a sledgehammer to cause them signifigant harm shows that Blue Security was/is doing something correctly.
The group that will need to gain back credibility, are the organizations that are the operating these vulnerable DNS servers because it's their vulnerability that allowed such signifigant collateral damage.
In a simplified definition, industrial design is how to make an object more user friendly/functional.
Some industrial designers have taken an extreme of form over function but, the field is supposed to take the ideal of function over form. Industrial designers should assist in making an object-user relationship work extremely well, while also attempting to make the object look/feel very good for it's purpose.
This almost forgotten aspect of Industrial Design is sometimes referred to as Product Design.
I believe that a better way to state Jevons' Paradox is;
as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.
The may increase is based upon a civilization that allows for non-regulated market consumption.
A civilization could concievably decide that total consumption must be reduced or kept static, but that is based upon the civilization's realization that there are significant long term impacts that must be controlled/mitigated through the use of regulated consumption rates.
minor note: I believe his name is Jevons not Jevon
Slashdot Mirror
If you wish to debate that Earth's orbit alteration is not significant for Earth's recent climate change please explicitly say so.
I ask this because you use a quote about Mars' orbit alteration then refer to "human global climate impact"; and Earth's human global climate impact should not be included in a discussion about orbit alteration being the conventional theory for the climate change on Mars
If I have read the quotes correctly it seems that Berner-Lee suggested that education was the priority not preventative full-scale lockdown; this type of lockdown is a violation of the doctrine of fair-use {fair dealing}. Mary Bono countered that his concept was against enforcement of copyright; but it is not, he advocates a system that only refutes preventative full-scale lockdown it did not either directly or indirectly address enforcement of copyright. Please note enforcement of copyright was and is intended to be a reactive measure available to the copyright holders as a response against improper/illegal actions taken by others.
The competitors are not getting a free ride, they will have to pay reasonable{market bearing} rates to Deutsche Telekom for the use of the lines. Just like in Canada when Rogers and Bell had to open their lines up to competitors - the competitors had to and still do pay for the use of the lines.
The quote you are using can not be directly attributed to Ben Franklin - but is instead a paraphrasing from a book he edited. It seems that one of the verified and original qoutes is "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARAY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY." {I used the caps in the same positions as shown in the original document} Information on this quote can be found at http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader $605
Yes but we were initially discussing how a new(?) concept should be released by a government department to it's people/etc, not whether all counties respect patent laws.
While in some countries patents may not be respected, in many other nations cross-border patents and liscensing are respected as is the concept of public domian. So if the taxpayers of a nation are solely to get a benefit then the concept should not be freely available to the world in general through public domain.
Or do you wish to see the government have a pre-defined patent (and/or copyright) liscense that all taxpayers of a nation are able to use all the government's efforts and results without further cost?
But public domain is international .... so "all companies" would not have to have any participation in a nation (thus pay no taxes) to use the concept produced by any government department.
Then why not allow government departments that invest their time and effort to have the privilege of patents and subsequent liscenses as well?
Do you beleive that all companies should just be able to take a government department's work in a particular field and use it without having to pay for it?
Quick question for you to answer so that I may better respond to you concern -- Do you believe that individuals and companies have the privilege of patents and subsequent licensing?
... patents are not a right they are a privilege, much like a driver's licence.
AS for your "ah yes ..." well who else would get to decide what is proper use? The owner of the patent has the right to stipulate conditions under which a patent/device/concept is licenced - in this case the owner just happens to be a government department.
For those who are wondering
Not all licences from government patents are for medical industries - some(many) go to other industries; i.e. entertainment, communications, energy, etc
It may be better in some cases that the Navy(or some other government department) own a patent rather put it into the public domain. If it's in the public domain there is no control on it but if it's patented and licensed then their is a measure of control. Some government non-exclusive licenses are based primarily on proper (and/or limited) usage of the device/concept rather on straight monetary gain.
I've currently got no Mod points, otherwise I'd do it myself.
ROFLAMO
.... or not.
I wish I had mod points because that was so well written I'm still wondering if it's understated humour
Violating oaths of secrecy .... violating the constitution - you may want to take a look into which one is worse?
IANAL but, no oath of secrecy should take precedence over the responsibilty to uphold/protect the constitution.
YOu should first try to get the law (etc) changed, then if necessary try to get the law challenged through acts of civil disobidience. True civil disobidience means that you are willing to pay the price of breaking the law as long as your actions will bring further attention to the mistake{s} of the law/practice in question.
If you were talking about JVM's there are "competing implementations" please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual
And perhaps when you were speaking of 'no standard for Java' you forgot to look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Community_Proce
I wish I had mod point's because the parent post is both Informative and Funny
as in "Squeal like a little piggy!"
Though outside of our office we do use the better known "sequel"
The DNS vulnerabilities are not hurting Blue Security's credibility!
That a hacker had to use a sledgehammer to cause them signifigant harm shows that Blue Security was/is doing something correctly.
The group that will need to gain back credibility, are the organizations that are the operating these vulnerable DNS servers because it's their vulnerability that allowed such signifigant collateral damage.
Teach engineers Industrial Design not marketing!
In a simplified definition, industrial design is how to make an object more user friendly/functional.
Some industrial designers have taken an extreme of form over function but, the field is supposed to take the ideal of function over form. Industrial designers should assist in making an object-user relationship work extremely well, while also attempting to make the object look/feel very good for it's purpose.
This almost forgotten aspect of Industrial Design is sometimes referred to as Product Design.
A civilization could concievably decide that total consumption must be reduced or kept static, but that is based upon the civilization's realization that there are significant long term impacts that must be controlled/mitigated through the use of regulated consumption rates.
minor note: I believe his name is Jevons not Jevon