Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
. There is no religious exemption.
Doesn't "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote" cover exactly what exists in the states that have not allowed same sex marriage? (I'm not saying I agree with their laws - their laws encroach upon liberty, which I don't like).
Since the laws banning it applied exactly equally to everyone (i.e. a same sex couple, of any sexual orientation, was not allowed to marry), how did it not exclude everyone equally? Therefore treating everyone as equals under the eyes of the law.
Same sex heterosexual couples can get married (in states that allow same sex marriage). Suggesting otherwise would be both heterosexist, hypocritical and wrong. It has already happened - http://www.theaustralian.com.a... - Their reason for marriage is perfectly valid. People can get married for whatever reason they want. The people upset at their marriage are hypocrites. The whole point of allowing same sex marriage is that any two people who want to marry should be able to, for whatever reason they want - suddenly reversing that stance when two heterosexuals do it is poor form.
This law should now make it legal for friendship marriages for the purpose of becoming an American citizen legal as well.
I'd say that change over time is 100% certain for everything. Nothing has ever been the same since time began. The state of the universe is change.
Lots of mutations consistently happening over a long period of time is not even analogous to "then a miracle occurs", let alone "exactly equivalent".
There is proof that small mutations occur. There is not proof of mutation occurring in real time. I.e. no one has observed a mutation happen under a microscope (we don't have the technique) - we have proof after the fact by comparing changes in DNA.
Nothing happened "just right". It just happened. It is essentially meaningless. You shouldn't care about it.
You might as well start asking "what are the chances that matter is attracted to matter?" or "what are the chances that all the stars in the milky way lined up to make a giant spiral arm?".
Stuff happens, we see it happening, we can model it, we don't know why it exists, that is life, enjoy it while it lasts.:)
The sum total of thousands of tiny changes (adaptations) over a long period of time = evolution.
Evolution is reversible. Evolutionary pressures can act in reverse.
It is best to think of evolution in terms of "has an organism changed". If it has changed, then it has evolved. So even one tiny change, whilst it does not necessarily show any dramatic difference, is evolution.
The world is not a static thing. It is continually slowly changing in every way. It's just the way it is.
Who says they still have it? They had no obligation to hold on to it so they may have deleted it prior to any court ruling to nullify any ruling against them.
No, he's correct. Evolution has not been observed happening in real time at a genetic level. We have observed the long term effects of it. I.e. we can compare the DNA of one batch of bacteria in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment with another batch and see that they have changed, but we don't know which exact bacterium started the change and why or how that change occurred during cell replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... Or, as in your example, we can compare the DNA or RNA of a virus with a previous generation and we know it has changed. We didn't see it changing. We don't know why it has changed. I.e. we didn't see it evolve, but we observed the effects of the evolution (a changed organism).
Science is almost never settled and is always up for debate (don't be a bigot).
Climate change science has not been settled. Every year better and better models come out superseding the older models. This comes about by climate scientists debating the merits of their existing models.
"Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No."
In regards to the second question you posed the answer is yes and no. "Natural" (non-anthropogenic) climate change has not paused while anthropogenic causes increased in effect.
"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."
The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.
The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.
For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.
"In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat."
"In fact" and "probably" don't mix.
The paper doesn't support your assertion. If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that almost the entire glacier has twice the average geothermal flow at 100mW/m^2 or greater (with hot spots up to 200mW/m^2).
Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.
The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.
It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.
It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.
"But trivial and obvious have little to do with each other. E=MC^2 is trivial, but not obvious."
They often have a lot to do with each other - just not always - I'm pretty sure I expressed that. (note: e=mc^2 is by itself simple but part of a fairly complex system of equations).
"You can make an FPGA as complicated as you want and its reconfiguration can be a "higher level program". In fact, forget even field programmable arrays - from a purely theoretical basis, you can make a fixed (albeit huge) circuit that will execute a specified program, even a "higher level one". You could hard code Diablo III, if you had enough transistors and an infinite amount of patience. Are circuits patent eligible?"
FPGAs are not a common CPU and only make a tiny proportion of the CPU market. It's reconfiguration could be executed by a higher level program, but it will still happen at a low level. Further to what I wrote in regards to the FPGA - I would only allow code to be patented as part of the CPU - i.e it would have to form part of the circuit itself in some special way. The code sent to it from a higher level would not be protected. I don't know the exact mechanism for reconfiguring FPGAs though - so this is a little guess work. Basically - if it's just software (which is abstracted maths) it wouldn't be protected.
Yes you could implement in hardware a lot of software (think ASICs). I wouldn't accept a patent on that - except if it was from an amazing technique in actually making the circuit - i.e. some novel way of implementing it in hardware. Further abstracting a piece of software won't make it anything but what it is - still just that - software.
My boundary was expressed as anything other than something that might alter a FPGAs logic. Basically all software. It doesn't matter how you store it or what language you code it in - no software patents. I don't know of Bilski's hedging algorithm so can't comment on it (but if it's a piece of maths - which all software is - then I don't care for it).
"typo" - I should have guessed as much.
You're a patent lawyer, where would your boundary be?
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
.
There is no religious exemption.
Doesn't "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote" cover exactly what exists in the states that have not allowed same sex marriage? (I'm not saying I agree with their laws - their laws encroach upon liberty, which I don't like).
Since the laws banning it applied exactly equally to everyone (i.e. a same sex couple, of any sexual orientation, was not allowed to marry), how did it not exclude everyone equally? Therefore treating everyone as equals under the eyes of the law.
Same sex heterosexual couples can get married (in states that allow same sex marriage). Suggesting otherwise would be both heterosexist, hypocritical and wrong. It has already happened - http://www.theaustralian.com.a... - Their reason for marriage is perfectly valid. People can get married for whatever reason they want. The people upset at their marriage are hypocrites. The whole point of allowing same sex marriage is that any two people who want to marry should be able to, for whatever reason they want - suddenly reversing that stance when two heterosexuals do it is poor form.
This law should now make it legal for friendship marriages for the purpose of becoming an American citizen legal as well.
Lets congratulate heterosexuals as well.
Why? Because under the change, two same sex heterosexuals can get married as well.
Same sex marriage does not equal "gay marriage". Gay marriage is a subset of same sex marriage.
This is a right that will apply to everyone (just as banning same sex marriage was a rule that applied to everyone).
I'd say that change over time is 100% certain for everything. Nothing has ever been the same since time began. The state of the universe is change.
Lots of mutations consistently happening over a long period of time is not even analogous to "then a miracle occurs", let alone "exactly equivalent".
There is proof that small mutations occur. There is not proof of mutation occurring in real time. I.e. no one has observed a mutation happen under a microscope (we don't have the technique) - we have proof after the fact by comparing changes in DNA.
Nothing happened "just right". It just happened. It is essentially meaningless. You shouldn't care about it.
You might as well start asking "what are the chances that matter is attracted to matter?" or "what are the chances that all the stars in the milky way lined up to make a giant spiral arm?".
Stuff happens, we see it happening, we can model it, we don't know why it exists, that is life, enjoy it while it lasts. :)
The sum total of thousands of tiny changes (adaptations) over a long period of time = evolution.
Evolution is reversible. Evolutionary pressures can act in reverse.
It is best to think of evolution in terms of "has an organism changed". If it has changed, then it has evolved. So even one tiny change, whilst it does not necessarily show any dramatic difference, is evolution.
The world is not a static thing. It is continually slowly changing in every way. It's just the way it is.
Who says they still have it? They had no obligation to hold on to it so they may have deleted it prior to any court ruling to nullify any ruling against them.
My apologies, Anonymous Coward was hidden. Now I see it...
It would be simple minded. Of course I didn't say or imply that, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Every time I see someone call somebody else a "denialist" I can't help but think they are treading a very thin line towards Godwin's law.
Attack the argument, not the person.
No, he's correct. Evolution has not been observed happening in real time at a genetic level. We have observed the long term effects of it. I.e. we can compare the DNA of one batch of bacteria in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment with another batch and see that they have changed, but we don't know which exact bacterium started the change and why or how that change occurred during cell replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or, as in your example, we can compare the DNA or RNA of a virus with a previous generation and we know it has changed. We didn't see it changing. We don't know why it has changed. I.e. we didn't see it evolve, but we observed the effects of the evolution (a changed organism).
Science is almost never settled and is always up for debate (don't be a bigot).
Climate change science has not been settled. Every year better and better models come out superseding the older models. This comes about by climate scientists debating the merits of their existing models.
"Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No."
In regards to the second question you posed the answer is yes and no. "Natural" (non-anthropogenic) climate change has not paused while anthropogenic causes increased in effect.
You from Aus?
It's great you mentioned the Serval Project. It is a pity they are restricted by spectrum licences to using wifi.
I wonder if the LTE Direct people had seen the Serval Project.
"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."
The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.
The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.
For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.
The SA price is about 0.40 USD per kW/h (including taxes). That is a conservative number from the cheapest providers. It only goes up from there.
http://www.energymadeeasy.gov....
Compare that to the USA
http://www.eia.gov/electricity...
They average about 0.13 USD per kW/h.
;)
You've done me a favor, I didn't even know Antarctica had volcanic areas. I've now looked it up and there are subglacial volcanoes!!!
"This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures."
What will be interesting is the relative ratios of each affect (which I don't see yet quantified).
"In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat."
"In fact" and "probably" don't mix.
The paper doesn't support your assertion. If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that almost the entire glacier has twice the average geothermal flow at 100mW/m^2 or greater (with hot spots up to 200mW/m^2).
Proof from either of you?
Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.
The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.
It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.
It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.
"In the biomedical research field, everybody fabricates results."
A nice anecdote. Do you have any data to back that up?
It does seem very similar to the shape a badly twisted slinky can make.
"That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago."
Is that this one: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/e... ?
Thanks. I do like your line of reasoning.
Thanks. That does make things clearer in that regard for US law.
The wiki well may be valid as a generalised international version though - would you think so? (a lot of us on /. are not from the US).
Is the Federal Circuit jurisdiction nationwide in the US?
"it would be good if you'd inform me first."
Noted, but it worked after the fact as well.
"But trivial and obvious have little to do with each other. E=MC^2 is trivial, but not obvious."
They often have a lot to do with each other - just not always - I'm pretty sure I expressed that. (note: e=mc^2 is by itself simple but part of a fairly complex system of equations).
"You can make an FPGA as complicated as you want and its reconfiguration can be a "higher level program". In fact, forget even field programmable arrays - from a purely theoretical basis, you can make a fixed (albeit huge) circuit that will execute a specified program, even a "higher level one". You could hard code Diablo III, if you had enough transistors and an infinite amount of patience. Are circuits patent eligible?"
FPGAs are not a common CPU and only make a tiny proportion of the CPU market. It's reconfiguration could be executed by a higher level program, but it will still happen at a low level. Further to what I wrote in regards to the FPGA - I would only allow code to be patented as part of the CPU - i.e it would have to form part of the circuit itself in some special way. The code sent to it from a higher level would not be protected. I don't know the exact mechanism for reconfiguring FPGAs though - so this is a little guess work. Basically - if it's just software (which is abstracted maths) it wouldn't be protected.
Yes you could implement in hardware a lot of software (think ASICs). I wouldn't accept a patent on that - except if it was from an amazing technique in actually making the circuit - i.e. some novel way of implementing it in hardware. Further abstracting a piece of software won't make it anything but what it is - still just that - software.
My boundary was expressed as anything other than something that might alter a FPGAs logic. Basically all software. It doesn't matter how you store it or what language you code it in - no software patents. I don't know of Bilski's hedging algorithm so can't comment on it (but if it's a piece of maths - which all software is - then I don't care for it).
"typo" - I should have guessed as much.
You're a patent lawyer, where would your boundary be?