There's no point patenting anything in NZ anyway. By the time you've made your device the NZ government has already spied on you, taken all your IP, and passed it on to the Americans, all in the name of national security.
Thank you for answering my question (in regards to how you think the hours will be used). But you're wrong, I didn't suggest that all those hours would be used for anything - I asked how they could be used productively.
For arguments sake, lets assume 1% of those 21 billion hours is an achievable time donation from people to help others.
Now we have 210 million man hours per week. That's like having 5250000 workers working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
That seems like too much wasted time. Lets go to 0.1% of those 21 billion hours. That's 21 million man hours per week, or the equivalent of 525000 workers working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Most sorting tasks will be completed in a fraction of this time available, still leaving a lot of untapped hours. I could keep going a couple of orders of magnitude and there would still be most of the time left over.
Yes, you can tap what you need as you suggested, in which case most gamers will never be utilised at all, and small amount will be tapped for a fraction of time. But this defies the whole concept - that we have a lot of people sitting around playing games, and that if we can tap into that by a small amount, like my initial 1% figure, then you have an enormous workforce. I think the people suggesting this concept just got ahead of themselves and didn't realise that you don't need nearly that many hours to start with, and that there aren't really that many applications that you can use it for.
As someone else already noted, by the time you make a system that can implement this, you could probably code a program to do it for you automatically, removing the need for humans to look at anything.
So, same argument applies. How can those hours be used to productively help? Key word, productively, i.e. as in towards helping humanity. My thoughts are it's not by playing video games (note: I'm an avid gamer and have been for 26 years, and I readily acknowledge that more than 2-3 hours per week spent gaming is a waste of my time that could be spent doing better things).
I believe if you want to make a difference, you need to get up off of your arse and volunteer at a local organisation that does the actual work. Eg. if you're in America, you could start here - http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/
And yes, I volunteer - so can almost anyone - you just need to do it.
That isn't going to take 21 billion crowd sourced gamer hours. What are we going to do with the other 99.999999% of those hours to productively "save the human race".
Ahh the idiocy of assumptions. I've been playing computer games for the last 26 years and I'm not about to stop.
Now, if you could please say how 21 billion gamer hours, in reference to "saving the human race", would be better spent playing games than doing real work in "saving the human race" then I'd love to know how.
I've already seen the article suggestions. But sorting through a few photos, even a few thousand photos would take a tiny proportion of 21 billion crowd sourced gaming hours. What are we going to do with the other 99.999999% of those hours?
Hey arsehole right back at you. I'm a gamer. The 21 billion hours is in reference to the specific hours used to produce results in "saving the human race".
I don't know why you've included a quote from thefreedictionary.com (what a magnificent source of information...) with my text.
Yes, asexual means free from sexual desire. Yet, he showed desire for his wife that resulted in a sexual union resulting in a child (sexual reproduction). I think that's pretty clear cut he is not asexual.
Androgynous means something else, I gave it as an option for what you meant since your assertions did not coincide with the facts (and I stated androgyny would not be true in any event).
Go reread what you wrote, then what I wrote, then analyse the facts about the Doctor and then maybe I'll talk;)
It also makes it possible for 'it' to come back as a man. The point some people are making is that there is no reason not to have 'it' come back as a woman. The character has been largely asexual and could remain so. Personally I think they've selected the next doctor well but I think it'd be nice if they cast one of the many capable actresses available at some point in the future.
No, it is correct to write "for him to come back". He currently is, and always has been male. He has fathered a child with a female, making him biologically male. He dresses like a male. He looks like a male (the actors are, after all, male). We are referring to this person and it is a he. Your assertion that the character is asexual is without merit. Perhaps you meant androgynous (which would also not be true).
That said, the writers can do what they like - they just have to suffer the ratings consequences (for better or worse).
Clearly you made an inference.:) I could infer the opposite, i.e. that since he felt his hair and questioned whether he was a woman, yet wasn't (and never has been) that it is in fact not possible.
In the end though, this is a screen drama and they can write in what they like into the plot with the only sufferance being their ratings.
"First, anything that real people really want to do is, by definition, 'natural' to humans."
Anything?
I'll make a list of things that some "real people really want to do": Raping others. Killing others. Killing themselves. Enslaving others. Self mutilating. Mutilating others.
By your definition these are all "'natural' to humans". I'm pretty sure most people won't share the same view and will exclude some behaviours from what they consider natural or not.
For arguments sake, assuming you are correct, just because it's natural doesn't necessarily mean it's right.
But he didn't make a threat. It was clear it was a joke. For those that could not see it was a joke he even specifically added that it was a joke.
I'm not fond of that sort of joke, I personally believe there needs to be a bigger buildup to jokes like that, but I do know it's a joke when I see it.
"If you deliberately cause fear by threatening someone, then it's causing fear that's the crime, not the words."
And that's plain wrong as well. The words themselves (or the actions if there is nothing said) most certainly matter, and the context in which they were said or done also greatly matters. In this case, the words would help establish mens rea, and any actions would help establish actus reus. We need the words to establish that there was in implication that someone else would in fact be harmed and therefore this someone else's fear is reasonable.
If the words didn't matter, someone saying "Hi, how are you going?" and someone else getting scared it at, would constitute a crime.
Yes, all they had to do was turn up and question him over the comments, that alone probably would have taught him the lesson that some people feel he needs teaching.
"Creations, such as a string of the letters ATGC in any particular order, should be covered by copyright."
Even then there is a requirement for artistic merit, which this would not meet.
A good example is a recent case in Australia that found that the names and numbers from a telephone directory were not copyrightable matter (someone was republishing them and the original publisher took exception to this).
Slashdot Mirror
"Everyone" is not a victim of hindsight bias.
Trivialness (i.e. whether something is self-evident) is an important test. Some things are trivial and must be treated as such.
The novelty (i.e. whether something is new to the world) is another important test.
This patent fails on both of these aspects, I won't detail how since dozens of others have already done so in this thread.
That's good news.
That's US information, and whilst useful for a general discourse, it may not be how NZ sees things.
There's no point patenting anything in NZ anyway. By the time you've made your device the NZ government has already spied on you, taken all your IP, and passed it on to the Americans, all in the name of national security.
Good point.
We wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story though!
Looking at the UK data - they include buses and their occupants - which vastly skews their data to look much better than cars alone.
Thank you for answering my question (in regards to how you think the hours will be used). But you're wrong, I didn't suggest that all those hours would be used for anything - I asked how they could be used productively.
For arguments sake, lets assume 1% of those 21 billion hours is an achievable time donation from people to help others.
Now we have 210 million man hours per week. That's like having 5250000 workers working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
That seems like too much wasted time. Lets go to 0.1% of those 21 billion hours. That's 21 million man hours per week, or the equivalent of 525000 workers working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Most sorting tasks will be completed in a fraction of this time available, still leaving a lot of untapped hours. I could keep going a couple of orders of magnitude and there would still be most of the time left over.
Yes, you can tap what you need as you suggested, in which case most gamers will never be utilised at all, and small amount will be tapped for a fraction of time. But this defies the whole concept - that we have a lot of people sitting around playing games, and that if we can tap into that by a small amount, like my initial 1% figure, then you have an enormous workforce. I think the people suggesting this concept just got ahead of themselves and didn't realise that you don't need nearly that many hours to start with, and that there aren't really that many applications that you can use it for.
As someone else already noted, by the time you make a system that can implement this, you could probably code a program to do it for you automatically, removing the need for humans to look at anything.
So, same argument applies. How can those hours be used to productively help? Key word, productively, i.e. as in towards helping humanity. My thoughts are it's not by playing video games (note: I'm an avid gamer and have been for 26 years, and I readily acknowledge that more than 2-3 hours per week spent gaming is a waste of my time that could be spent doing better things).
I believe if you want to make a difference, you need to get up off of your arse and volunteer at a local organisation that does the actual work. Eg. if you're in America, you could start here - http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/
And yes, I volunteer - so can almost anyone - you just need to do it.
Don't be a dick.
Answer the question I posed.
Get off your arse and help humanity.
Well said.
That isn't going to take 21 billion crowd sourced gamer hours. What are we going to do with the other 99.999999% of those hours to productively "save the human race".
Ahh the idiocy of assumptions. I've been playing computer games for the last 26 years and I'm not about to stop.
Now, if you could please say how 21 billion gamer hours, in reference to "saving the human race", would be better spent playing games than doing real work in "saving the human race" then I'd love to know how.
I've already seen the article suggestions. But sorting through a few photos, even a few thousand photos would take a tiny proportion of 21 billion crowd sourced gaming hours. What are we going to do with the other 99.999999% of those hours?
Hey arsehole right back at you. I'm a gamer. The 21 billion hours is in reference to the specific hours used to produce results in "saving the human race".
How are gamer hours going to translate/transform into real world physical effort?
I think the vast majority of those 21 billion hours per week would be much better spent getting up off of arses and actually doing something.
Agreed, not a jetpack. It's not even a ducted-fan-pack, since you can't put it on your back (that's the "pack" part in jetpack).
In terms of size, calling it a jetpack is like calling a truck a small runabout.
I don't know why you've included a quote from thefreedictionary.com (what a magnificent source of information...) with my text.
Yes, asexual means free from sexual desire. Yet, he showed desire for his wife that resulted in a sexual union resulting in a child (sexual reproduction). I think that's pretty clear cut he is not asexual.
Androgynous means something else, I gave it as an option for what you meant since your assertions did not coincide with the facts (and I stated androgyny would not be true in any event).
Go reread what you wrote, then what I wrote, then analyse the facts about the Doctor and then maybe I'll talk ;)
No one cares what you think
You cared enough to reply to him.
It also makes it possible for 'it' to come back as a man. The point some people are making is that there is no reason not to have 'it' come back as a woman. The character has been largely asexual and could remain so. Personally I think they've selected the next doctor well but I think it'd be nice if they cast one of the many capable actresses available at some point in the future.
No, it is correct to write "for him to come back". He currently is, and always has been male. He has fathered a child with a female, making him biologically male. He dresses like a male. He looks like a male (the actors are, after all, male). We are referring to this person and it is a he. Your assertion that the character is asexual is without merit. Perhaps you meant androgynous (which would also not be true).
That said, the writers can do what they like - they just have to suffer the ratings consequences (for better or worse).
Clearly you made an inference. :) I could infer the opposite, i.e. that since he felt his hair and questioned whether he was a woman, yet wasn't (and never has been) that it is in fact not possible.
In the end though, this is a screen drama and they can write in what they like into the plot with the only sufferance being their ratings.
To answer your question, the weather report comes from meteorologists. A climate scientist is a climatologist. They are related but different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"First, anything that real people really want to do is, by definition, 'natural' to humans."
Anything?
I'll make a list of things that some "real people really want to do":
Raping others.
Killing others.
Killing themselves.
Enslaving others.
Self mutilating.
Mutilating others.
By your definition these are all "'natural' to humans". I'm pretty sure most people won't share the same view and will exclude some behaviours from what they consider natural or not.
For arguments sake, assuming you are correct, just because it's natural doesn't necessarily mean it's right.
(btw - I'm all for anyone being able to marry).
But he didn't make a threat. It was clear it was a joke. For those that could not see it was a joke he even specifically added that it was a joke.
I'm not fond of that sort of joke, I personally believe there needs to be a bigger buildup to jokes like that, but I do know it's a joke when I see it.
"If you deliberately cause fear by threatening someone, then it's causing fear that's the crime, not the words."
And that's plain wrong as well. The words themselves (or the actions if there is nothing said) most certainly matter, and the context in which they were said or done also greatly matters. In this case, the words would help establish mens rea, and any actions would help establish actus reus. We need the words to establish that there was in implication that someone else would in fact be harmed and therefore this someone else's fear is reasonable.
If the words didn't matter, someone saying "Hi, how are you going?" and someone else getting scared it at, would constitute a crime.
Yes, all they had to do was turn up and question him over the comments, that alone probably would have taught him the lesson that some people feel he needs teaching.
"Creations, such as a string of the letters ATGC in any particular order, should be covered by copyright."
Even then there is a requirement for artistic merit, which this would not meet.
A good example is a recent case in Australia that found that the names and numbers from a telephone directory were not copyrightable matter (someone was republishing them and the original publisher took exception to this).
Twisted, I get it...