The definition of "robot" is pretty useless now. Because my cellphone meets the definition of a robot, my video camera does, a RC car seems to be a highly advanced "robot".
Your cellphone nor your video camera accomplishes manual tasks. And an RC car only accomplishes the task that the person tells it what to do.
A robot is a mechanical device that can perform manual tasks automatically. The definition of robot is not useless. Although there are some things that might qualify as a robot, that we wouldn't normally associate "robot" with, like your CD drawer that pops out automatically.
There are two essential pieces to a robot. It needs to be autonomous (an RC car is not) and it needs to perform a manual task.
What does "Free Patent Filings when entered into Public Domain" mean? And what does it solve?
If you release something into public domain, the patent doesn't mean anything. TODAY you can release your invention into the public domain, absolutely for free. Of course you need to publish it in some way, but otherwise, it doesn't cost you anything. Anyone can then take your idea and run with it. Of course they can then try to patent it themselves, except your publish it would establish the prior art.
About the only thing your idea would do, is possibly make it easier for the patent examiner find your prior art. Otherwise it does nothing, and solves nothing.
There would be some potential issues with copyleft licenses being unenforceable,
Some? SOME?
It would be entirely unenforceable. What is there to enforce? "Hey you! You can't copy that because you didn't release the source code." "Uhhh dude, you, nor anyone else owns the rights, so I can copy it all I want."
Neither patents nor copyrights need to go.
Patents system needs to give out fewer patents, especially on obvious things. And no software patents.
As per the constitution, Copyrights should have a LIMITED lifetime. Limited as in ones lifetime. I don't know the time frame, but way shorter than the current century.
Are new drugs actually better for you...or better for making money for big pharma. Discuss.
Why do people ask a question. And then say "Discuss?"
This isn't a classroom, and you aren't the teacher. Just ask the freaking question. If you have an opinion on the topic then add it as well. If people have opinions, they'll discuss it. You don't need to tell people to discuss the topic.
Unfortunately there is no evidence of people NOT creating something, for fear of big business stealing it from them. There is evidence of big business stealing from the little guys though.
Patents have nothing to do with "shortened time to market." The idea behind patents is to protect the inventor. Let the inventor make some money off the patent, with the hope that the inventor will invent more things. I would actually argue that patents allow small inventors to lengthen the time to market. It gives them time to build capital and build the product on a shoestring. Without the patents, big business would swoop in and steal the idea, and bring it to market faster (with their larger capital)
I think abolishing patents will be a bad thing, especially if only done in the US. Abolishing software patents, on the other hand, is a good thing. Copyright should be good enough to protect software.
So, do we actually believe that a college-age man is sufficiently motivated to troll the same person, including offline, for weeks on end; but so obtuse that he doesn't realize such trolling's effects,
the information of a dead person is of no pactical value to facebook or its advertising customers
Yes you are right, because no one looks up information on dead people. When someone dies, no one ever bothers to visit any pages that have info about that person.
Facebook doesn't just sell stuff to you, it sells stuff to your friends.
Probably a good idea, but if your ship is blown up, and you are still alive, the chances you are going to be rescued is close to 0.
3. Surprise! You can only decellerate as fast as you can accelerate! What? You mean I have to spend half of my time rushing at my opponent slowing down?
Only if you accelerate and decelerate at maximum.
6. Yes, even your friends and main characters. Stray missiles suck.
I'v always admired an author who has the balls to kill off a main character early in a story... But I also hate it, cause it means I won't be able to read about the character anymore. I do agree that too few authors do this. It is the famous "the bad guys never hit"
Just what is "new technology?"
What qualifies as new technology? Does that mean ANY patent?
And what if you upset the existing business model with old technology?
Congress doesn't exist to keep the status quo.
It is interesting, because when I read TFA (I assume in the font in question) it was VERY difficult to read. Gill was better, but the words just didn't come flying off the page. It is too bad, because it would be nice to have a good font that works for everyone.
I would suggest changing banks. Yes I've had problems. My favorite was "I'm taking a 1 month vacation, I leave tomorrow" "Ok we've noted it" Arrive at my first hotel, car is rejected. I call the company, and they tell me the charge was suspicious because it wasn't in my town...
But I've never had a problem contacting my credit card company and getting a charge fixed, at any time of day or night.
If you have to pay $100 for one book, or $0 for another, I'm pretty sure you will claim that the $0 book is free.
Sure there was a cost involved with creating the book. The cost was time and or money or other resources. But to the poor starving college student, the only thing that matters is the actual cost of the book... In other words free.
I though there job was to "protect and serve"
This sounds like a bit of overkill. But if they felt it was good for the community, then it is their job to do it.
The reason I keep my keys in my pocket, and lock my doors, is to stop the random bored teenager who is out looking for some fun.
I didn't use to lock my sliding glass door. But then I figured locking the door would stop the kids who are just bored, out looking for some fun. Of course the lock won't stop a real thief from entering through my HUGE sliding glass door.
I don't lock my car doors, because the convertible top is worth more than most of the contents in my car. I'd rather someone not slice it open, trying to get into my car. I keep my car keys in the pocket, not to stop the professional thief, but to stop a random joy riding teenager.
Thats awesome. And they are trying to amend the law to allow you to warm up your car in your driveway if the temp is below freezing.
How about, let me do what I want to do?
The claim is 40% of cars that are stolen, have the keys in them. Does this mean they won't arrest the car thief now, if you leave your keys in the car?
And what will they do when 100% of the cars that are stolen, don't have the keys in them?
Yes, yes it is bad. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a waste of time and money. Yes, they don't touch your junk, but they still stick their hands down your pants.
Patdown in Amsterdam is generally easier and quicker than any I've had in the states. It still doesn't make it right.
Just get rid of the theater. Let anyone in the airport. Let the airline decide who gets on the plane (got a ticket? get on)
As long as the people are OK with body scanners at the airport, there’s very little that can be done in a court.
The court as nothing to do with the people. I'd argue that as long as people are OK with the body scanners, the only thing left to do is go through the courts.
It is difficult to not give an airport your business. You may as well just not fly.
In the case of the scanners. Opt out. Sure it takes an additional 10 minutes to get processed. But if enough people opt out...
And "enough people" isn't really all that many.
Flying is a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies,
So we aren't allowed to discuss changing the rules of the road? We just have to sit down and shut up?
The "rules of the road" are wrong. They are stupid, pointless, a waste of time and money, and need to be changed.
We'll leave the "flying is a privilege" discussion for another day.
You wouldn't believe how many people don't understand that "Buy One Get One 50% Off (of equal or lesser value)" is worse than a 30% discount. Or that it's worse than a 20% discount in many cases.
Could you elaborate in which cases is 20% discount better? Assuming you want two items?
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of "robot" is pretty useless now. Because my cellphone meets the definition of a robot, my video camera does, a RC car seems to be a highly advanced "robot".
Your cellphone nor your video camera accomplishes manual tasks. And an RC car only accomplishes the task that the person tells it what to do.
A robot is a mechanical device that can perform manual tasks automatically. The definition of robot is not useless. Although there are some things that might qualify as a robot, that we wouldn't normally associate "robot" with, like your CD drawer that pops out automatically.
There are two essential pieces to a robot. It needs to be autonomous (an RC car is not) and it needs to perform a manual task.
What does "Free Patent Filings when entered into Public Domain" mean? And what does it solve?
If you release something into public domain, the patent doesn't mean anything. TODAY you can release your invention into the public domain, absolutely for free. Of course you need to publish it in some way, but otherwise, it doesn't cost you anything. Anyone can then take your idea and run with it. Of course they can then try to patent it themselves, except your publish it would establish the prior art.
About the only thing your idea would do, is possibly make it easier for the patent examiner find your prior art. Otherwise it does nothing, and solves nothing.
If it is flawed, what is the solution?
There would be some potential issues with copyleft licenses being unenforceable,
Some? SOME?
It would be entirely unenforceable. What is there to enforce? "Hey you! You can't copy that because you didn't release the source code." "Uhhh dude, you, nor anyone else owns the rights, so I can copy it all I want."
Neither patents nor copyrights need to go.
Patents system needs to give out fewer patents, especially on obvious things. And no software patents.
As per the constitution, Copyrights should have a LIMITED lifetime. Limited as in ones lifetime. I don't know the time frame, but way shorter than the current century.
Are new drugs actually better for you...or better for making money for big pharma. Discuss.
Why do people ask a question. And then say "Discuss?"
This isn't a classroom, and you aren't the teacher. Just ask the freaking question. If you have an opinion on the topic then add it as well. If people have opinions, they'll discuss it. You don't need to tell people to discuss the topic.
Unfortunately there is no evidence of people NOT creating something, for fear of big business stealing it from them. There is evidence of big business stealing from the little guys though.
Patents have nothing to do with "shortened time to market." The idea behind patents is to protect the inventor. Let the inventor make some money off the patent, with the hope that the inventor will invent more things. I would actually argue that patents allow small inventors to lengthen the time to market. It gives them time to build capital and build the product on a shoestring. Without the patents, big business would swoop in and steal the idea, and bring it to market faster (with their larger capital)
I think abolishing patents will be a bad thing, especially if only done in the US. Abolishing software patents, on the other hand, is a good thing. Copyright should be good enough to protect software.
So, do we actually believe that a college-age man is sufficiently motivated to troll the same person, including offline, for weeks on end; but so obtuse that he doesn't realize such trolling's effects,
Yes
the information of a dead person is of no pactical value to facebook or its advertising customers
Yes you are right, because no one looks up information on dead people. When someone dies, no one ever bothers to visit any pages that have info about that person.
Facebook doesn't just sell stuff to you, it sells stuff to your friends.
A tablet is great as a consumer device, horrible as a creator device.
There is a kindle addition, but the price has been set by the publisher. Guess I won't be reading it any time soon.
1. Always wear a space suit in combat. Duh.
Probably a good idea, but if your ship is blown up, and you are still alive, the chances you are going to be rescued is close to 0.
3. Surprise! You can only decellerate as fast as you can accelerate! What? You mean I have to spend half of my time rushing at my opponent slowing down?
Only if you accelerate and decelerate at maximum.
6. Yes, even your friends and main characters. Stray missiles suck.
I'v always admired an author who has the balls to kill off a main character early in a story... But I also hate it, cause it means I won't be able to read about the character anymore. I do agree that too few authors do this. It is the famous "the bad guys never hit"
Just what is "new technology?"
What qualifies as new technology? Does that mean ANY patent?
And what if you upset the existing business model with old technology?
Congress doesn't exist to keep the status quo.
It is interesting, because when I read TFA (I assume in the font in question) it was VERY difficult to read. Gill was better, but the words just didn't come flying off the page. It is too bad, because it would be nice to have a good font that works for everyone.
I would suggest changing banks. Yes I've had problems. My favorite was "I'm taking a 1 month vacation, I leave tomorrow" "Ok we've noted it" Arrive at my first hotel, car is rejected. I call the company, and they tell me the charge was suspicious because it wasn't in my town...
But I've never had a problem contacting my credit card company and getting a charge fixed, at any time of day or night.
If you have to pay $100 for one book, or $0 for another, I'm pretty sure you will claim that the $0 book is free.
Sure there was a cost involved with creating the book. The cost was time and or money or other resources. But to the poor starving college student, the only thing that matters is the actual cost of the book... In other words free.
I though there job was to "protect and serve"
This sounds like a bit of overkill. But if they felt it was good for the community, then it is their job to do it.
The reason I keep my keys in my pocket, and lock my doors, is to stop the random bored teenager who is out looking for some fun.
I didn't use to lock my sliding glass door. But then I figured locking the door would stop the kids who are just bored, out looking for some fun. Of course the lock won't stop a real thief from entering through my HUGE sliding glass door.
I don't lock my car doors, because the convertible top is worth more than most of the contents in my car. I'd rather someone not slice it open, trying to get into my car. I keep my car keys in the pocket, not to stop the professional thief, but to stop a random joy riding teenager.
Thats awesome. And they are trying to amend the law to allow you to warm up your car in your driveway if the temp is below freezing.
How about, let me do what I want to do?
The claim is 40% of cars that are stolen, have the keys in them. Does this mean they won't arrest the car thief now, if you leave your keys in the car?
And what will they do when 100% of the cars that are stolen, don't have the keys in them?
Sweet, more room for me, and less people to get in the way of my photos!
The opt out process is not bad at all in the US
Yes, yes it is bad. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a waste of time and money. Yes, they don't touch your junk, but they still stick their hands down your pants.
Patdown in Amsterdam is generally easier and quicker than any I've had in the states. It still doesn't make it right.
Just get rid of the theater. Let anyone in the airport. Let the airline decide who gets on the plane (got a ticket? get on)
As long as the people are OK with body scanners at the airport, there’s very little that can be done in a court.
The court as nothing to do with the people. I'd argue that as long as people are OK with the body scanners, the only thing left to do is go through the courts.
It is difficult to not give an airport your business. You may as well just not fly.
In the case of the scanners. Opt out. Sure it takes an additional 10 minutes to get processed. But if enough people opt out...
And "enough people" isn't really all that many.
Flying is a privilege, not a right. You need to abide by the rules of the road as set forth by the governing bodies,
So we aren't allowed to discuss changing the rules of the road? We just have to sit down and shut up?
The "rules of the road" are wrong. They are stupid, pointless, a waste of time and money, and need to be changed.
We'll leave the "flying is a privilege" discussion for another day.
You wouldn't believe how many people don't understand that "Buy One Get One 50% Off (of equal or lesser value)" is worse than a 30% discount. Or that it's worse than a 20% discount in many cases.
Could you elaborate in which cases is 20% discount better? Assuming you want two items?