What's with the euphemism? 'Reborn' us a very lame way to say 'dead', which is the real meaning in this case. Seriously, slashdot editors, if I wanted to read euphemisms, I would read the press release.
Oh puh-lease, G.R.R. Martin put all the mental effort. All the producers had to do was not fuck it up with bad cast options and script changes for "appealing to the target audience".
A patent does not guarantee freedom to practice. Due to its format and wording, a patent can be easily rendered useless by a "counter-patent" (at least according to the EU law that I'm familiar with). This then leads to a deadlock and the only solution is cross-licensing. I can hardly see any benefit from a situation like that for anyone except the involved lawyers.
The best way to make sure a technology remains free is to publish as much as possible (in journals, conferences etc.) and to release as much material as possible using an open license. Using the patent system for supporting openness is to me like feeding the trolls.
This is complete FUD. A piece of software 'released to the world' is prior art, which does exactly the opposite: it prevents someone else from patenting the same technology.
Most applications of titanium dioxide use amorphous nanoparticles, not the crystalline structures found in soil. These take quite a bit of chemistry and energy to produce, like a flame aerosol reactor and precursors like TiCl4. I suppose that the nanotube production is similarly complicated and energy-hungry.
It's almost as if Russia was anticipating this all along, and decided that the Crimea is up for grabs. With a leverage this big I'm surprised they didn't chose something juicier. Just saying...
People in the Minoan civilization (which is still more modern than paleolithic) had a life expectancy of only 30 years. However, you have to factor in that they were completely vulnerable to disease and even trivial accidents could be fatal. I would therefore not call them unhealthy, as those individuals died probably at infancy.
Back then food was hard to come by and demanded a great deal of physical activity. So I would go on a limp and say that, having survived your childhood, you would be rather healthy. Until you cut your hand trying to skin that rabbit.
Correct. Now the question is, where does the energy in those countries comes from? Sadly, much of it comes from coal, but e.g. in Norway a huge amount comes from hydroelectric plants. That is why oil refining and metalworking is a large industry in Norway.
Fluent is now ANSYS. Probably you know this already, but I just wanted to get this out of my system: Letting ANSYS buy Fluent Inc. (they had to go through a competition committee or something of the sort) was a huge blow for the industry. Now ANSYS owns *two* of the most powerful simulation tools in the chemical engineering industry (CFX and Fluent) and has virtually no competition. The only way to bitch and whine about their high prices is to threaten them that you will switch to OpenFOAM, to which they will reply with a "ya, right...".
Anyway, I just wanted to get this out. Thanks for listening.
As if people follow the links to the actual articles. You should be an old enough user to know that Slashdot is not the kind of news aggregator where you go to follow the links, it's the site where you go to listen to what other people have to say. It's more like: here's the topic; discuss.
User snydeq is a paid shill? Absolutely! The status of java is an interesting topic for the community? Yes it is!
Disclaimer: I always enjoy a good argument. BTW: The above is the reason why if the Slashdot comment mechanism ever breaks (Beta, I'm looking at you), it will mean the doom of this community.
Java was made what it is by Sun. Oracle just bought them and expected everything they touch to turn to gold. That is a hell of a rotten bed of laurels they are resting on...
I beg to differ. While constructing a model there are often unknown relationships and parameters between variables for which you have to make assumptions. Like, for example, you suspect that two variables are related, but instead of digging in deeper and deeper in order to exactly resolve the relation you assume an e.g. linear relation, you fit the parameters to some data and move on. As long as you clearly present your methodology, I don't think there is anything wrong with this. The next guy can look closer and walk the extra mile, figure out a more rigorous relationship between the variables and improve your model. This methodology is not only common, it's also necessary: often the relationships between variables is so complex that being more rigorous does not improve the model because you add physical parameters/constants that you know little of and cannot measure with enough accuracy (or at all), so you're better off fitting them anyway (inverse problem). As to the usefulness, scientists "tamper" with the models all the time: Kepler tampered with the model of Copernicus, and Newton tampered with the model of Kepler. "Tampering" Newton's law for improving the result accuracy led to general relativity.
Your comparison to the Turk is just wrong. That was a straight-out hoax. An algorithm "trained" to represent some data still has value in representing these data, no matter how simple/non-rigorous it is. If the model is good, then it might even have some value in predicting the behavior of the system (in our case, the supreme court) even under different conditions (the "future"). In the model there are certainly correlations that the maker figured out by examining some data. Thus, the model can only be as good as the data that it is based upon. There is nothing wrong with improving the model as more data become available. Stubbornly sticking to the initial (wrong) estimates would be like saying that we should have dumped Newton's law of gravitation at birth because we didn't have a good value for G, instead of measuring G with higher accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The doctors. At WHO.
Judging by this summary, the trolls are alive and well, I'd say.
So? What's your point? That the repeated reaction somehow invalidates the arguments being made?
"Facebook. Where men are men, women are men, and 14-year-old girls are FBI agents."
Nah, it doesn't have the same ring to it...
What's with the euphemism? 'Reborn' us a very lame way to say 'dead', which is the real meaning in this case. Seriously, slashdot editors, if I wanted to read euphemisms, I would read the press release.
Hollywood is mentally bankrupt!
What about these great things?
Hollywood didn't put any mental effort in them.
Personal attack!
FTFY
Oh puh-lease, G.R.R. Martin put all the mental effort. All the producers had to do was not fuck it up with bad cast options and script changes for "appealing to the target audience".
A patent does not guarantee freedom to practice. Due to its format and wording, a patent can be easily rendered useless by a "counter-patent" (at least according to the EU law that I'm familiar with). This then leads to a deadlock and the only solution is cross-licensing. I can hardly see any benefit from a situation like that for anyone except the involved lawyers.
The best way to make sure a technology remains free is to publish as much as possible (in journals, conferences etc.) and to release as much material as possible using an open license. Using the patent system for supporting openness is to me like feeding the trolls.
This is complete FUD. A piece of software 'released to the world' is prior art, which does exactly the opposite: it prevents someone else from patenting the same technology.
Most applications of titanium dioxide use amorphous nanoparticles, not the crystalline structures found in soil. These take quite a bit of chemistry and energy to produce, like a flame aerosol reactor and precursors like TiCl4. I suppose that the nanotube production is similarly complicated and energy-hungry.
What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...
Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".
Bolek and Lolek!
It aired in Greece and was loved by everyone!
I suppose NASA will fatten the astronauts up and make them nice and chubby before sending them on a mission.
It's almost as if Russia was anticipating this all along, and decided that the Crimea is up for grabs. With a leverage this big I'm surprised they didn't chose something juicier. Just saying...
This isn't about food. It's about the efficiency of arable land surface that can be used to produce biofuels.
The poor bastard that gets caught before defecting to the Russkies.
I read the title as "sign DNA" rather than "sign NDA". I got excited thinking about a deal signed in blood...
People in the Minoan civilization (which is still more modern than paleolithic) had a life expectancy of only 30 years. However, you have to factor in that they were completely vulnerable to disease and even trivial accidents could be fatal. I would therefore not call them unhealthy, as those individuals died probably at infancy.
Back then food was hard to come by and demanded a great deal of physical activity. So I would go on a limp and say that, having survived your childhood, you would be rather healthy. Until you cut your hand trying to skin that rabbit.
Correct. Now the question is, where does the energy in those countries comes from? Sadly, much of it comes from coal, but e.g. in Norway a huge amount comes from hydroelectric plants. That is why oil refining and metalworking is a large industry in Norway.
Fluent is now ANSYS.
Probably you know this already, but I just wanted to get this out of my system: Letting ANSYS buy Fluent Inc. (they had to go through a competition committee or something of the sort) was a huge blow for the industry. Now ANSYS owns *two* of the most powerful simulation tools in the chemical engineering industry (CFX and Fluent) and has virtually no competition. The only way to bitch and whine about their high prices is to threaten them that you will switch to OpenFOAM, to which they will reply with a "ya, right...".
Anyway, I just wanted to get this out. Thanks for listening.
Finally something that can show us your mom falling on her ass in slow motion!
As if people follow the links to the actual articles. You should be an old enough user to know that Slashdot is not the kind of news aggregator where you go to follow the links, it's the site where you go to listen to what other people have to say. It's more like: here's the topic; discuss.
User snydeq is a paid shill? Absolutely!
The status of java is an interesting topic for the community? Yes it is!
Disclaimer: I always enjoy a good argument.
BTW: The above is the reason why if the Slashdot comment mechanism ever breaks (Beta, I'm looking at you), it will mean the doom of this community.
Their laurels? Come on...
Java was made what it is by Sun. Oracle just bought them and expected everything they touch to turn to gold. That is a hell of a rotten bed of laurels they are resting on...
Why are you calling him a WHO? I thought he was just "the doctor".
I beg to differ. While constructing a model there are often unknown relationships and parameters between variables for which you have to make assumptions. Like, for example, you suspect that two variables are related, but instead of digging in deeper and deeper in order to exactly resolve the relation you assume an e.g. linear relation, you fit the parameters to some data and move on. As long as you clearly present your methodology, I don't think there is anything wrong with this. The next guy can look closer and walk the extra mile, figure out a more rigorous relationship between the variables and improve your model. This methodology is not only common, it's also necessary: often the relationships between variables is so complex that being more rigorous does not improve the model because you add physical parameters/constants that you know little of and cannot measure with enough accuracy (or at all), so you're better off fitting them anyway (inverse problem). As to the usefulness, scientists "tamper" with the models all the time: Kepler tampered with the model of Copernicus, and Newton tampered with the model of Kepler. "Tampering" Newton's law for improving the result accuracy led to general relativity.
Your comparison to the Turk is just wrong. That was a straight-out hoax. An algorithm "trained" to represent some data still has value in representing these data, no matter how simple/non-rigorous it is. If the model is good, then it might even have some value in predicting the behavior of the system (in our case, the supreme court) even under different conditions (the "future"). In the model there are certainly correlations that the maker figured out by examining some data. Thus, the model can only be as good as the data that it is based upon. There is nothing wrong with improving the model as more data become available. Stubbornly sticking to the initial (wrong) estimates would be like saying that we should have dumped Newton's law of gravitation at birth because we didn't have a good value for G, instead of measuring G with higher accuracy.