I'm getting my balls ripped off. Why? I started my small company on a shoestring 5 years ago, and have invested every cent that I don't spend on food and a rat-hole apartment back in my business (created 10 full time jobs with health insurance in the meantime). I still get taxed on all of that re-investment. What does that mean? It means that literally I pay out more in "income" taxes than I actually take home and spend (I pay about 4 times more in taxes than I actually pay myself). I (and people like me) get raped for re-investing in our businesses.
Before I ran into this problem, I always wondered why some small businesses (and large) simply don't re-invest back in the businesses. You know the kind of place... if it's retail, then they don't even change the lightbulbs, or re-paint the building... ever. Now I understand why. If you're gonna get taxed anyway, it makes more sense from a comfort standpoint to spend the profits on a stupid HDTV than it does on lightbulbs for the business. As a business owner also, I sympathise with your damaged anatomy, but I disagree with your conclusion. IRS form 1040 schedule C has a line labeled 'maintainence'. Anything on that line is subtracted from the pre-tax total. I have no problem buying paint or bulbs or other materials because the majority of the cost is essentialy paid for by the IRS and state income tax agency.
non-experts have no way of distinguishing what is a good paper from what is not. The experts sometimes can't distinguish a well written paper either. The physicist Alan Sokol wrote a pomo paper that was deliberate nonsense, and it got puiblished: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
I recommend reading the entire wiki; near the end is a reference to a computer-generated paper that got published.
And then there are the fakes, which get published despite outrageous claims, like the one about a year ago by Hwang Woo Suk who claimed major advances in stem cell research. After it was debunked, his peers said that it was obviously BS and should have been recognized as such.
I didn't state it as clearly as I should have. They want it to be buried where only their peers are likely to find it. Which describes the current system.
Actually, for many 'researchers', the purpose of libraries and journals is to bury information, not to spread it. A significant minority of people in academia have to publish to get their degree or maintain their position or maintain their funding, and they publish stuff that is trivial, irrelevant, or outright bullshit. They do not want the average person to be able to say "My taxes were spent on THIS???" They will be some of the strongest opponents of open access.
This is the ultimate distribution system for OSS. New distros are released every flu season.
It's also not a bad way to distribute movies. Let the RIAA sue a bunch of bugs for file sharing.
And windows could be distibuted on anthrax bacteria, so users would learn to be appropriately wary.
No, this suit does not change the scientology on slashdot issue.
The scientology text in question was copyrighted, and to copy without permission is a violation of copyright law. In TFA, the situation is different. The plantif alledges that several people ( mostly John Does ) bought options to sell the stock at a certain price, defamed it on the forum, then after the price dropped, cashed their options for a profit. Apparently some people did defame it, and some people did profit from the drop in vale. But the court found that the plantiff was unable to prove that any of them were the same people. So, now law was proven to have been broken.
All scientific tests done in a controlled (mod up) environment have come up with the same conclusion: it doesn't work. The one suggestion that (+1) has generated some interest recently, and (+1) has not been tested, is that the most that can be accomplished (modup) is familiarity with the idea. This is (+1) not the same as motivation. So you can put the tin foil hats away.
While slashdot has indeed tended toward becoming a forum for piracy excuses, this is not neccesarily an example of it. This seems more to document a stupid move by a corporation that give the unethical a stronger motive for piracy.
It almost seems like intellectual property is valued far more highly than human life. I don't think that's right, in a moral sense. You either have some really crappy software, or a great bunch of friends.
I recommend taking P's advice: watch the video. It is fascinating. But in the follow up article that P also mentions, they note that in 10 subsequent tests the crow did the same thing 9 times. Not 10.
So, having solved the problem, the crow forgets how to do it once? That is wierd. It suggests that the crow has the ability to figure out things like this, but cannot store the knowledge very well. My interpretation of this is that it is a better survival trait to for the crow to invest in problem solving brain cells rather than memory.
Well, gee. I hope that that little map of the Atlantic Ocean with my plane superimposed on it only has read privileges on/dev/autopilot:). Load a copy of flight simulator, and find out for sure.
Why is parent getting modded 'troll' and 'flamebait'? This seems to be an example of the bad habit of modding down people that the modder disagees with. P presents a sane and reasonable argument, and backs it up with references. FWIW, my opinion is that he and his references are dead wrong, but his style does not deserve the negative mods.
If you disagree with P strongly enough to mod him down, it would be better to reply and tell him why he is mistaken.
Please save the negative mods for people who actually lower the level of discourse, not for those who are in error.
For those who don't TFA: There are currently at least 5 popular ways of doing it:
1) Installing directly from source code,
2) Ports-based installation (where the source packages are held in a repository and can be automatically downloaded, compiled and installed), like BSDs ports of Gentoo's portage,
3) Installing from distribution-specific packages like different versions of RPM, DEB, TGZ, and other packaging formats,
4) Installing from distribution-independent binaries (most proprietary software is delivered this way),
5) Using another distribution-independent system like autopackage, zero-install or klik -- none of them gained a significant market share so far.
Ok, your friend got killed. We're sorry about that. Really. But it was 38 years ago, ferchistsake! How long does it take for a man to adjust to a misfortune and stop being a victim of it?
This is good material for a reality show - at least some TV producer will think so. As media conglomerates get more powerful, eventually they will have enough money to try a space ark purely for entertainment value. Continual broadcasting will be ensured by a policy of "if you turn off the cameras, we turn off the laser / pellet stream".
I don't think this is feasible. It is dangerous to put an electric charger that may generate sparks near a pump that may generate gasoline vapor.
Gas stations are already so afraid of fires and the ensuing liability that they put up cell phone warnings - even though those are almost certainly urban legend. I doubt that they - or their insurance agents - will let a charging station anywhere near their gas pumps. So they are stuck with an either/or decision.
All of the schemes for a high capacity, fast charging battery paired with fast charging stations suffer from the chicken and egg problem. The car buyers won't buy cars until there are lots of stations to stop at, and the service station owners won't convert revenue generating gas pumps to chargers until there are lots of cars that need them.
The solution is to build hybrids with fast charging batteries. Then car buyers can invest without fear of getting stranded. Once a large fleet is on the roads, service stations will start to convert.
BTW, this all asumes that TFA and similar techs are not vaporware.
Seriously, P may have something there ( but skip the 4-year olds.) We need a public test of non-obviousness.
A patent application should be composed of two documents. The first document should say what the invention does. The second document should say how it does it ( or in some cases how the manufacturer made it ). Both documents would be submitted privately to the patent office at the same time.
The patent office would then do a brief examination to sort out the dumb stuff ( like perpetual motion ) and the duplicates and infringements of existing patents in much the same way that it currently does. This might involve several rejections and resubmissions. When the application passes, then the patent office releases the first part to the public.
There would be a standard period of time between the release of the first part and the issuance of the patent. During that period, if someone else can show how it is done, then the application is denied and all documents become public domain - both of the applicant's documents, and the second person's explanation. However, if nobody else can show how the patent idea could be done within that time, the idea is judged to be really non-obvious and the patent is issued, and the second part is thereby made public.
The exact period of time would vary depending on the field of research. For a software patent, a month should suffice. For medicines, a year or two might be better.
Another kitten experiment involved raising them in environments with either only horizontal or only vertical lines. As adults, they simply could not see objects of the 'wrong' orientation. A cat who had been raised in a horizontal-only world could hop up on the seat of a chair, but would bump into the legs if he tried to walk under it.
Slashdot Mirror
I recommend reading the entire wiki; near the end is a reference to a computer-generated paper that got published.
And previously on slashdot, a scientist claims that most scientific papers are wrong: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/
And then there are the fakes, which get published despite outrageous claims, like the one about a year ago by Hwang Woo Suk who claimed major advances in stem cell research. After it was debunked, his peers said that it was obviously BS and should have been recognized as such.
I didn't state it as clearly as I should have. They want it to be buried where only their peers are likely to find it. Which describes the current system.
Actually, for many 'researchers', the purpose of libraries and journals is to bury information, not to spread it. A significant minority of people in academia have to publish to get their degree or maintain their position or maintain their funding, and they publish stuff that is trivial, irrelevant, or outright bullshit. They do not want the average person to be able to say "My taxes were spent on THIS???" They will be some of the strongest opponents of open access.
This is the ultimate distribution system for OSS. New distros are released every flu season.
It's also not a bad way to distribute movies. Let the RIAA sue a bunch of bugs for file sharing.
And windows could be distibuted on anthrax bacteria, so users would learn to be appropriately wary.
No, this suit does not change the scientology on slashdot issue.
The scientology text in question was copyrighted, and to copy without permission is a violation of copyright law. In TFA, the situation is different. The plantif alledges that several people ( mostly John Does ) bought options to sell the stock at a certain price, defamed it on the forum, then after the price dropped, cashed their options for a profit. Apparently some people did defame it, and some people did profit from the drop in vale. But the court found that the plantiff was unable to prove that any of them were the same people. So, now law was proven to have been broken.
They can't sue GP. It's got to be FALSE information.
All scientific tests done in a controlled (mod up) environment have come up with the same conclusion: it doesn't work. The one suggestion that (+1) has generated some interest recently, and (+1) has not been tested, is that the most that can be accomplished (modup) is familiarity with the idea. This is (+1) not the same as motivation. So you can put the tin foil hats away.
Hmmm...you're right. Sorry. No offense was intended.
While slashdot has indeed tended toward becoming a forum for piracy excuses, this is not neccesarily an example of it. This seems more to document a stupid move by a corporation that give the unethical a stronger motive for piracy.
I recommend taking P's advice: watch the video. It is fascinating. But in the follow up article that P also mentions, they note that in 10 subsequent tests the crow did the same thing 9 times. Not 10.
So, having solved the problem, the crow forgets how to do it once? That is wierd. It suggests that the crow has the ability to figure out things like this, but cannot store the knowledge very well. My interpretation of this is that it is a better survival trait to for the crow to invest in problem solving brain cells rather than memory.
Well...not murder. Let's be fair to him. It was manslaughter. And very probably obstruction of justice after the fact. But not murder.
I wanna buy space too.
Why is parent getting modded 'troll' and 'flamebait'? This seems to be an example of the bad habit of modding down people that the modder disagees with. P presents a sane and reasonable argument, and backs it up with references. FWIW, my opinion is that he and his references are dead wrong, but his style does not deserve the negative mods.
If you disagree with P strongly enough to mod him down, it would be better to reply and tell him why he is mistaken.
Please save the negative mods for people who actually lower the level of discourse, not for those who are in error.
For those who don't TFA: There are currently at least 5 popular ways of doing it:
1) Installing directly from source code,
2) Ports-based installation (where the source packages are held in a repository and can be automatically downloaded, compiled and installed), like BSDs ports of Gentoo's portage,
3) Installing from distribution-specific packages like different versions of RPM, DEB, TGZ, and other packaging formats,
4) Installing from distribution-independent binaries (most proprietary software is delivered this way),
5) Using another distribution-independent system like autopackage, zero-install or klik -- none of them gained a significant market share so far.
Ok, your friend got killed. We're sorry about that. Really. But it was 38 years ago, ferchistsake! How long does it take for a man to adjust to a misfortune and stop being a victim of it?
This is good material for a reality show - at least some TV producer will think so. As media conglomerates get more powerful, eventually they will have enough money to try a space ark purely for entertainment value. Continual broadcasting will be ensured by a policy of "if you turn off the cameras, we turn off the laser / pellet stream".
Mods are on crack again. P gets modded troll, while the same point made in an earlier post is modded +5 funny.
I think Roland P already did.
I don't think this is feasible. It is dangerous to put an electric charger that may generate sparks near a pump that may generate gasoline vapor.
Gas stations are already so afraid of fires and the ensuing liability that they put up cell phone warnings - even though those are almost certainly urban legend. I doubt that they - or their insurance agents - will let a charging station anywhere near their gas pumps. So they are stuck with an either/or decision.
All of the schemes for a high capacity, fast charging battery paired with fast charging stations suffer from the chicken and egg problem. The car buyers won't buy cars until there are lots of stations to stop at, and the service station owners won't convert revenue generating gas pumps to chargers until there are lots of cars that need them.
The solution is to build hybrids with fast charging batteries. Then car buyers can invest without fear of getting stranded. Once a large fleet is on the roads, service stations will start to convert.
BTW, this all asumes that TFA and similar techs are not vaporware.
Seriously, P may have something there ( but skip the 4-year olds.) We need a public test of non-obviousness.
A patent application should be composed of two documents. The first document should say what the invention does. The second document should say how it does it ( or in some cases how the manufacturer made it ). Both documents would be submitted privately to the patent office at the same time.
The patent office would then do a brief examination to sort out the dumb stuff ( like perpetual motion ) and the duplicates and infringements of existing patents in much the same way that it currently does. This might involve several rejections and resubmissions. When the application passes, then the patent office releases the first part to the public.
There would be a standard period of time between the release of the first part and the issuance of the patent. During that period, if someone else can show how it is done, then the application is denied and all documents become public domain - both of the applicant's documents, and the second person's explanation.
However, if nobody else can show how the patent idea could be done within that time, the idea is judged to be really non-obvious and the patent is issued, and the second part is thereby made public.
The exact period of time would vary depending on the field of research. For a software patent, a month should suffice. For medicines, a year or two might be better.
Another kitten experiment involved raising them in environments with either only horizontal or only vertical lines. As adults, they simply could not see objects of the 'wrong' orientation. A cat who had been raised in a horizontal-only world could hop up on the seat of a chair, but would bump into the legs if he tried to walk under it.