Good man yourself... are you sure your government will let you do that? I mean they spent a lot of cash on brainwashing you to dislike France because they wouldn't join your half cocked crusade, they might be upset at the waste of their money!
Sorry. I've been bashing the french long before my government "brainwashed" me. Mod parent overrated.
Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.
More importantly, isn't that the entire reason for a "standard"? So you don't have competing formats? Hence the use of the word "standard". Maybe he needs to look up the definition of standard (and, while he's at it, oxymoron).
And how many people had their health sacrificed to get us to this point? For that matter, what punishment is occurring to those who did the evil deeds? Nope, the free market is doing too little to late, as always.
Oh please tell me of the magical place (and substance) where the economic paradigm is capable of pre-emptively stopping bad people from doing bad things. Tell me more! I want to know of the amazingly perfect economic system whereby bad people are stopped, BEFORE they do bad things.
Guess what, when people are getting hurt because of others stupidity, EVERY measure of correction is "too little too late". That is a fact of reality.. and blaming that on a particular concept (ie, the "free market") is completely and totally irrational.
Re:Editors/Reviews are at fault as well
on
Merck's Deleted Data
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Now why would you allow to publish such inconclusive studies at all ? Is this journal peer-reviewed ? It would be interesting to see if they also publish the comments from the anonymous reviewers ? Did they agree about the paper before it got published ?
Do you expect scholarly journals to reproduce all experiments before publishing the data? It's only inconclusive and misleading because some data was conviniently deleted. There is no way for a journal to know this without reproducing the study.. and that is not the purpose of "peer-review" in the "peer-reviewed journal". The work, itself, is taken on honor, and the "peer-review" is there only to make sure the experiment, as explained, is scientifically interesting and accurate... the data itself is taken at face value until it is either independantly confirmed or denied.
I know this thread is going to turn into a huge gripe on massive corporations and how corrupt and evil and bad they are... but... considering the company is being publicly humilated, it's stock is trading at half the price it was a 2 years ago, and it's hemorrhaging jobs. I think it's fair to say the free market is correctly punishing this big business that is supposedly "running the world". But that's just me.
You just can't argue rationally with nutjobs. Of that, I am sure, we can both agree. That, and trying to would be a complete waste of time. So we'll leave it at that.
And this differentiates the air force from the army or navy--how? I think the original point was that there's no clear reason for this to be an air force mission. If anything, the army has more computing resources than the air force.
While I understand your point, it's misguided. Air force networks are developped by the air-force to meet air-force needs. They have different specifications, different threats, different theaters, and wildly different applications then "army or navy" ones.
If we define "cyberspace" to mean all networks and network based (information) warfare, then the Airforce must definitely has a major role to play. Virtually all communications, et al, are done via radio waves and relayed (and jammed) by aircraft.
Secondly, on another note, there are MANY MANY jobs that are done at every military installation and it doesn't make sense to unify them into a single branch. For instance, the air force provides base security and gate gaurds at it's own bases... does it make sense that air-force personelle are guarding the gate at an air-force base when clearly the army and/or marines are better trained to do so? Wouldn't it make sense to have just one branch of the military responsible for base security? No, it wouldn't, in my opinion.
And I whole-heartedly disagree that the army has more "computing resources" then the airforce. Having worked for the airforce, and seen the variety and range of wireless networking solutions the airforce uses.. I can say with utmost certainty that is very much different then army or navy.... for instance, air-force "networks" must account for a variety of issues that other branches simply don't... for instance, normal GPS-lock is not possible at mach 2.
Personally at least, I can tell you that I use lyrics sites for ONE primary purpose; to be able to find a song that I heard somewhere based on its lyrics, so I can then buy it
Read what the original poster said.. then read what you said. Even if I concede the point that the government has overstepped it's some of its legal limitations, you cannot logically conclude that ALL legal limitations are now null and void. That's fallacious logic, and the reason I responded the great-grand-parent of this post.
The UK/European reaction has begun: US Air Force To Invade Cyberspace [sys-con.com] - whatever possessed Wynne to say/write anything so colossally stupid??
Hahahah US Air Force to Invade Cyberspace.... and I thought slashdot had the stranglehold on misleading and sensationalist titles... Let us never forget who the true masters of distortions are.
Maybe I'm being a troll here (mod me down if you wish), but the current administration has pretty much made it clear that any "legal limitations" that may have previously existed are now void.
Emotionally charged fallacious generelizations! The all-time great recipe of slashdot success. Oh really then, so tell me, who has the US assassinated? How many slaves are in our employ? Did women vote last time? I don't think Bush has done nearly the job stamping out "legal limitations" that you think he has....
Really though, what the hell has the internet got to do with the wingflapping guys?
Well see, we have these places where all the planes and bombs are... they are called "air force bases", and at these bases, they do alot of research on, ya know, planes and bombs... and alot of these secrets are very important and held on computers in varying levels of connectivity... and see... these secrets would be most easily accessed by an outsider via, say, an inter-network of computers... which Al Gore shortened to "internet".
More seriously, the term "cyberspace" probably has more components then just the internet.... There are other "networks" separated from the internet with classified information... there are ad-hoc networks over RF between jets, and so on.
I hate to break it to you but 7,000,000 records in a database is nothing. And not being able to sucessfully search and sort a database like this for a key element such as "inventor" or "owner" is either incredible incompetence or extremely poor database design (or both)
Imagine that... a "database" started in 1790 is ill-suited for modern database searching applications! What a bunch of incompetants. The technical problems with searchable patents in the patent database are very well documented and denying them is showing you are too eager to promote your point of view by oversimplifying the problem. If you want to have a technical discussion on why the current database is what it is, and why it is insufficient for database querying, and what it would take to convert the database to better form.. I'm all for it... but you can't just simply over simplify the problem and then proclaim incompentance.
Yes, I read it too quickly. He clearly believes that all patents are bad things... Arguing with someone who believes inventors have no right to their inventions and claiming it is "better" for the economy to discourage invention for the sake of competition is, to me, an even more offensive position.
So to answer part two, my response is very simple. The economy benefits from competition, but society suffers more then it is helped by an economy that stifles innovation in favor of competition.
As a state-protected monopoly grant in a free market economy the patent system is inherently a systematic failure.
Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that competition is bad for the economy...
Luckily, I don't need to make the argument that competition is bad the economy.... since you have, in no way, shown that the patent system is somehow related to the economy. It is a government service like welfare and the military. None of those other services have "competition" and I dare say none of them would benefit from "competetion". It is a nice attempt at pigeonholing an argument into a generalization that doesn't exist... but it's insufficient logically.
My personal experiences with the patent office has been nothing but excellent. I hold two, one in chemistry and one in analog electronics. Most people on this forum "believe" the system is broken because that's what they hear continiously. And while there are certainly problems, anecdotal evidence isn't sufficiently indicitive of systematic failure. The Patent Office has one of the most unenviable positions possible, and yes it is often easier to grant borderline patents and let the courts handle it later (since, technically speaking, the argument goes that it's cheaper to litigate the.001% of borderline patents granted, then litigate 100% of the borderline patents not granted)... that doesn't make it right... but expecting an organization like that to be able to be perfect is just ridiculous.
The Patent people that I dealt with were -very- competant and -very- effective. It's a shame that the tiniest fraction of mostly trivial stuff gets 99% of the press.. I guess that's life.
why do we spend $795 million to bring back space rocks...?
First of all, that's a pretty lowball figure... we've spent alot more then that.
Secondly, and more to the point, because it's worth it. Well, not the rocks. But you get the point. In other words, your question is essentially the same as: Why did I spend 6000$ just to make some electrons hit xeon and neon gas.... Yes it seems silly when you put it that way, however no one can argue with truth of my findings based upon my experiment: boobes + plasma television = very clear, very bright, giant boobies. And that knowledge is worth every damm penny.
Not to bring everyone down, but this article, and most of the rest of the Slashdot homepage just gives bad news.
Is there any tech *good* news out there?
Here's some good news.. from Department of Statistics at the University of Georgia: a recent study showed one days worth of online submissions to a single tech news site is not a population large enough nor unbiased enough to draw a statistically meaningful conclusion! Woot! Go Science!
Slashdot Mirror
When are you going to apoligize for pumping ignorant bullshit and karma-whoring?
Good man yourself... are you sure your government will let you do that? I mean they spent a lot of cash on brainwashing you to dislike France because they wouldn't join your half cocked crusade, they might be upset at the waste of their money!
Sorry. I've been bashing the french long before my government "brainwashed" me. Mod parent overrated.
Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.
More importantly, isn't that the entire reason for a "standard"? So you don't have competing formats? Hence the use of the word "standard". Maybe he needs to look up the definition of standard (and, while he's at it, oxymoron).
Christmas is not about gifts or materialism.
Ha ha ha. You must be new here.. (and by here, of course, i mean to the 20th and 21st centuries...)
And how many people had their health sacrificed to get us to this point? For that matter, what punishment is occurring to those who did the evil deeds? Nope, the free market is doing too little to late, as always.
Oh please tell me of the magical place (and substance) where the economic paradigm is capable of pre-emptively stopping bad people from doing bad things. Tell me more! I want to know of the amazingly perfect economic system whereby bad people are stopped, BEFORE they do bad things.
Guess what, when people are getting hurt because of others stupidity, EVERY measure of correction is "too little too late". That is a fact of reality.. and blaming that on a particular concept (ie, the "free market") is completely and totally irrational.
Now why would you allow to publish such inconclusive studies at all ? Is this journal peer-reviewed ? It would be interesting to see if they also publish the comments from the anonymous reviewers ? Did they agree about the paper before it got published ?
Do you expect scholarly journals to reproduce all experiments before publishing the data? It's only inconclusive and misleading because some data was conviniently deleted. There is no way for a journal to know this without reproducing the study.. and that is not the purpose of "peer-review" in the "peer-reviewed journal". The work, itself, is taken on honor, and the "peer-review" is there only to make sure the experiment, as explained, is scientifically interesting and accurate... the data itself is taken at face value until it is either independantly confirmed or denied.
One of the more skillful completely arbitrary Iraq connections for karmawhoring you will ever see. Grats.
I know this thread is going to turn into a huge gripe on massive corporations and how corrupt and evil and bad they are... but... considering the company is being publicly humilated, it's stock is trading at half the price it was a 2 years ago, and it's hemorrhaging jobs. I think it's fair to say the free market is correctly punishing this big business that is supposedly "running the world". But that's just me.
Woo, web 2.0. I hope they fixed all the bugs from the first version.
You just can't argue rationally with nutjobs. Of that, I am sure, we can both agree. That, and trying to would be a complete waste of time. So we'll leave it at that.
And this differentiates the air force from the army or navy--how? I think the original point was that there's no clear reason for this to be an air force mission. If anything, the army has more computing resources than the air force.
While I understand your point, it's misguided. Air force networks are developped by the air-force to meet air-force needs. They have different specifications, different threats, different theaters, and wildly different applications then "army or navy" ones.
If we define "cyberspace" to mean all networks and network based (information) warfare, then the Airforce must definitely has a major role to play. Virtually all communications, et al, are done via radio waves and relayed (and jammed) by aircraft.
Secondly, on another note, there are MANY MANY jobs that are done at every military installation and it doesn't make sense to unify them into a single branch. For instance, the air force provides base security and gate gaurds at it's own bases... does it make sense that air-force personelle are guarding the gate at an air-force base when clearly the army and/or marines are better trained to do so? Wouldn't it make sense to have just one branch of the military responsible for base security? No, it wouldn't, in my opinion.
And I whole-heartedly disagree that the army has more "computing resources" then the airforce. Having worked for the airforce, and seen the variety and range of wireless networking solutions the airforce uses.. I can say with utmost certainty that is very much different then army or navy.... for instance, air-force "networks" must account for a variety of issues that other branches simply don't... for instance, normal GPS-lock is not possible at mach 2.
Personally at least, I can tell you that I use lyrics sites for ONE primary purpose; to be able to find a song that I heard somewhere based on its lyrics, so I can then buy it
I think you misspelled "download".
You forgot about the two Navy midshipman looking out their window going "Man, it looks like shit out there."
The full quote reads:
All of their equipment was made by the lowest bidder, for twice the cost.
Read what the original poster said.. then read what you said. Even if I concede the point that the government has overstepped it's some of its legal limitations, you cannot logically conclude that ALL legal limitations are now null and void. That's fallacious logic, and the reason I responded the great-grand-parent of this post.
The UK/European reaction has begun: US Air Force To Invade Cyberspace [sys-con.com] - whatever possessed Wynne to say/write anything so colossally stupid??
Hahahah US Air Force to Invade Cyberspace.... and I thought slashdot had the stranglehold on misleading and sensationalist titles... Let us never forget who the true masters of distortions are.
Maybe I'm being a troll here (mod me down if you wish), but the current administration has pretty much made it clear that any "legal limitations" that may have previously existed are now void.
Emotionally charged fallacious generelizations! The all-time great recipe of slashdot success. Oh really then, so tell me, who has the US assassinated? How many slaves are in our employ? Did women vote last time? I don't think Bush has done nearly the job stamping out "legal limitations" that you think he has....
Really though, what the hell has the internet got to do with the wingflapping guys?
Well see, we have these places where all the planes and bombs are... they are called "air force bases", and at these bases, they do alot of research on, ya know, planes and bombs... and alot of these secrets are very important and held on computers in varying levels of connectivity... and see... these secrets would be most easily accessed by an outsider via, say, an inter-network of computers... which Al Gore shortened to "internet".
More seriously, the term "cyberspace" probably has more components then just the internet.... There are other "networks" separated from the internet with classified information... there are ad-hoc networks over RF between jets, and so on.
I hate to break it to you but 7,000,000 records in a database is nothing. And not being able to sucessfully search and sort a database like this for a key element such as "inventor" or "owner" is either incredible incompetence or extremely poor database design (or both)
Imagine that... a "database" started in 1790 is ill-suited for modern database searching applications! What a bunch of incompetants. The technical problems with searchable patents in the patent database are very well documented and denying them is showing you are too eager to promote your point of view by oversimplifying the problem. If you want to have a technical discussion on why the current database is what it is, and why it is insufficient for database querying, and what it would take to convert the database to better form.. I'm all for it... but you can't just simply over simplify the problem and then proclaim incompentance.
Yes, I read it too quickly. He clearly believes that all patents are bad things... Arguing with someone who believes inventors have no right to their inventions and claiming it is "better" for the economy to discourage invention for the sake of competition is, to me, an even more offensive position.
So to answer part two, my response is very simple. The economy benefits from competition, but society suffers more then it is helped by an economy that stifles innovation in favor of competition.
As a state-protected monopoly grant in a free market economy the patent system is inherently a systematic failure.
Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that competition is bad for the economy...
Luckily, I don't need to make the argument that competition is bad the economy.... since you have, in no way, shown that the patent system is somehow related to the economy. It is a government service like welfare and the military. None of those other services have "competition" and I dare say none of them would benefit from "competetion". It is a nice attempt at pigeonholing an argument into a generalization that doesn't exist... but it's insufficient logically.
My personal experiences with the patent office has been nothing but excellent. I hold two, one in chemistry and one in analog electronics. Most people on this forum "believe" the system is broken because that's what they hear continiously. And while there are certainly problems, anecdotal evidence isn't sufficiently indicitive of systematic failure. The Patent Office has one of the most unenviable positions possible, and yes it is often easier to grant borderline patents and let the courts handle it later (since, technically speaking, the argument goes that it's cheaper to litigate the .001% of borderline patents granted, then litigate 100% of the borderline patents not granted)... that doesn't make it right... but expecting an organization like that to be able to be perfect is just ridiculous.
The Patent people that I dealt with were -very- competant and -very- effective. It's a shame that the tiniest fraction of mostly trivial stuff gets 99% of the press.. I guess that's life.
why do we spend $795 million to bring back space rocks...?
First of all, that's a pretty lowball figure... we've spent alot more then that.
Secondly, and more to the point, because it's worth it. Well, not the rocks. But you get the point. In other words, your question is essentially the same as: Why did I spend 6000$ just to make some electrons hit xeon and neon gas.... Yes it seems silly when you put it that way, however no one can argue with truth of my findings based upon my experiment: boobes + plasma television = very clear, very bright, giant boobies. And that knowledge is worth every damm penny.
Not to bring everyone down, but this article, and most of the rest of the Slashdot homepage just gives bad news.
Is there any tech *good* news out there?
Here's some good news.. from Department of Statistics at the University of Georgia: a recent study showed one days worth of online submissions to a single tech news site is not a population large enough nor unbiased enough to draw a statistically meaningful conclusion! Woot! Go Science!
Step 1: Write better content.
Step 2: ?????