...with the terms "left" and "right". Socialists of all varieties have used these terms for straw man arguments to vilify thier opponents since the 1930's. The terms origionally referred to the Itallian Parliment, where the communists (international socialists) sat on the left side, and the facists (notional socialists) sat on the right side. Since the facists lost the war, they are the 'bad guys'. What doesn't seem to be recognized here is that BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT REFER TO SOCIALISTS.
There is no place on this political spectrum for those who are not socialists. The world is not that simplistic.
Here in the US, there are the Democrats (pro socialism, relativly quickly) and the Republicans (pro moderate socialism) as the two dominant parties. There are smaller parties that are not pro socialism, but they get margianlized by a generally socialist press.
The term socialism was invented by groups in the late 1800's who advocated government control of the economy for various political reasons. These included eradication of income disparity deemed 'unfair'(Mordern US Democrats), creation of large commercial ventures (Monopolies) for national prestige (Modern US Republicans), and simple power grabs (Modern Communists). I have given examples here from the US, but corresponding groups can be found in Europe or Asian politics too.
As you can see, both 'left' and 'right' are Federalists. Federalists are people who advocate a polwerful and controling government. Very Hobbsian. (After Thomas Hobbs, a political philosopher from the 17th Century who advocated a powerful monarch for England.)
Opposed to this are those who advocate allowing personal freedom by having a limited government. These 'libertarians' are in the minority, but are very influential. They are often viewed as 'crazies' of one sort or another by the ruling federalist powers. (Crazies are any group that doesn't want a powerful central government that can control the population.)
As long as you continue to fall for the rherotical device of 'left' and 'right' you will never understand the dichotemy you see here. The division is that Federalists favor controlled products while the Libertarians favor OSS, both for philosophical reasons. You should see that both Tories and Labor are Federalist in thier views, but that both groups have some libertarians in thier ranks. There will be more OSS users in the party that is less distastful to those who value personal freedom. The difference between Torrie and Labor is only in what they want the powerful central government used for. A difference in degree, not in kind.
Linux IS too hard, if you assume that to use it you have to install it, while to use Apple or windows, you just start the machine.
Personally, I only install an OS once on a machine. (OK, I used to install Win 98 about 4 times a year, when it got too messed up. XP is better now. Mostly.) Linux on my laptop (Debian Etch) works just fine. So does Win XP. Click on an icon, the program launches. Same as Apple, same as Windows. In a corporate setting, you don't want most users to install 'random stuff' anyway. There is usually a deaprtment of specialists to install what you do want. So, the options are really the same from a usability standpoint. This far, Amiga and BSD are also 'there'. But...
You also have to get applications that you agree everyone can use, but that is a different issue. Microsoft spends a lot of money to assure that ONLY they can run most of the required applications. They also spend a lot of money on advertizing to convince people who make decisions that they are more necessary than they really are. That gap is narrowing every year, both in reality and in perception. It's still not gone though.
I looked at moving to Linux for my engineering office several years ago. CAD was the reason I couldn't do it. CAD in Linux is still not there. CAD on Mac is behind, and slipping further behind each year. More and more though, in application space, Linux is 'there'. Yes, Apple is easy to use (for many people, for people more comfortable with verbal rather than visual skills, a Mac can be a nightmare), it shines with some tasks, but there is also a lot that it doesn't do well. The article writer clearly loves his Mac, but his reasons for dominance are just fantasies. Sorry, the Mac will never have twice the market share it has now.
As I live in Arizona, where we don't do Daylight Savings Time, the solution is easy. Ignore it, it'll still be the same time next week as it is today. For everywhere else, the conversion routines will be sticky, giving incorrect answers for a lot of before/after conversions, but it's only acocuntants that'll mess up. So, hope you enjoy the conversion.
Just wait till the task force has to tow a couple of these destroyers back to port. Thats what happened when the US Navy tried to control a destroyer with Windows 2000.
(By the way, what do they do when Windows autoboots in the middle of a battle. Most servers powered by Windows need to do that about 1 time a week. Knowing when the autoboot is set for might just become a very improtant piece of military knowlege)
Other systems will get a chance when this one fails. Don't worry, it will.
I wouldn't want this to be where all of my business resides, but as an adjunct service, it's great. I can create (or import) a document, and access that document from anywhere with a good internet connection. Browser independence is a plus. That means if I'm in somebody elses office, we can collaborate.
I wonder how easy it will be to move these documents from Google to my computer and back? That's what would make it a good tool. I also wonder what format options I might have. Time will tell. I use Open Office, Word Perfect, Abi Word and MS Word (97, 2000 and XP) on different machines. Are all those formats supported? If so, it'll fill a need for me right now. Bye Bye Sneaker Net.
As Eli Whitney found out in the early years of the 1800's, Patents protect companies, not inventors.
An inventor will market a device for one reason, PROFIT. A business will too. They would like to be a monopoly, but you don't start a business with that power. Not without harming an awful lot of people. Harm to innocent third parties is the ultimate reason to reject broad patents.
Many large corporations will routinely steal patents from lone inventors, and then just tie them up in courts while they wait for him to die. Check out RCA verses Philo Farnsworth sometime. Classic example.
The modern patent system was started as a way to restrict industry to friends of the crown in Britain. 'Promoting Invention' was used later as an excuse. Reality is that patents still are just a means of limiting innovation. That's why they have only means limit use granted. It' not that the ends justify the means, it's that the means are the ends. All the justifications that I have seen are just that. Attempts after the fact to excuse the process. Any competent economist will tell you that monopoly creation on anything harms most of the people. All patents are letters patent granting a monopoly. (So to a lesser extent are copyrights and trademarks.)
That said, there is an argument to be made that patents do help society by limiting inventiveness to a rate that can be assimilated by society. Rapid change causes other problems. I've never seen that argument used to justify the patent system though.
Probably came from moss or algae. Any biomass will decompose if left buried. Methane is one of several gasses released. Microbes do a lot of that work It'll happen anyway, but Microbes accelerate the process. Methane is just one of thier waste products. Here it got trapped in the ice. Doesn't have to be from bioligical origins either. Anything with carbon and hydrogen but no oxygen will release methane if you wait long enough. Also the area is not near old enough to be from dinosaurs. This was only 25 ft below the surface, bottom of the permafrost layer. Probably laid down after the last Ice Age. May not even be old enough for mammoths. Be nice to ask a real geologist.
You accelerate until you are half way there. Then you decelerate until you arrive, at rest relative to your destination. TV never shows it that way, but that is how it will really be done, if we ever get a power source that large.
I do have some problems envisioning a ship with an engine with a power output that rivals the Sun. I'm not sure I'd want to spend a few years being just 50 meters from the center of that. Too many things can happen to make it go boom. Just a small leak, relative to the total output could vaporize most of the ship.
At that rate, (1 G constant accelaration) ANY journey could be done in less than 2 years relative time. at 10 Meters per Second acceleration, you reach the speed of light in less than a year (3 X 10^7 seconds). Most of the trip is spent near the speed of light, so the time folks at home think you spent getting there just didn't happen for you. Of course, when you get back you find that like Rip Van Winkle, you missed 20 years, but that's the price you pay in a relativistic universe.
It does increase consumer value. The value you give for a product is the cost you pay. Since DRM increases the cost, then it increases the value. Until the point is reached where you say enough! and stop falling for it. Then the product value falls to zero (the amount you are willing to pay when you have to put up with the aggrivation the product causes you.) That is the point the major labels are beginning to realize they are reaching. Apple realizes it too. They found that they only have a 3% share of the music on thier own players. Zero is only a couple of percentage points away.
See, it all makes sense if you use enough indirect logic, redefine a few words on the fly, and are willing to ignore most of the truth.
One more technology for improving efficency. Post generation use of waste heat for further generation has been studied, and occasionally used for over 40 years. In the industry it is often referred to as a bottom cycle generator or bottomer. There are also toppers. They were being studied and occasionally used in the 1970's when I was in college. This is not really a new idea. It MAY be an improvement over what large coal plants are currently using. It may not. Results and time will tell.
Still, the research will go on. That's why we pay for it. With enough improvements, we may be able to squeeze another 5% efficency out of a large power plant.
The poster places Cuba in North America. It's a Carribean Island. Historicly, Ethnicly and Politically it's part of Latin America (generally Identified with South America).
1. DRM is broader than just music. This one is true. Digital restictions are placed on more than just music. They cause problems for legal purchasers of movies and computer software as well. As Sony showed us a year or so ago, DRM doesn't mix well with other media either.
2. DRM Increases Consumer Value. FALSE. This only shows that the author has no idea what value is. Value is increased by ability to use the product. DRM is all about limiting the ability to use the product. DRM is diametricly opposed to the value of the product. You do not increase by limiting. Limiting DECREASES. Jobs at least got this one right in his letter.
3. DRM will increase electronic distribution. FALSE. Electronic distribution was at it's peak with Napster (the origional, not the current imitator). Record companies never saw thier sales as high as they were when Napster was operating. When it was shut down, sales plummeted. Only with the rise of the P2P services have sales recovered. Somewhat. Experience shows that consumers are not the fools this group hopes they are. Limiting the ability of purchasers to use the product will result in sales declining. (That is after what DRM does. It is all it does.) Electronic distribution is only one more avenue for sales. Choking the users of the product will not result in increased sales. Non DRM media will outsell restricted media in every market where it is available.
4. DRM needs to be interoperable and open. this is just his pitch to be the new monopoly in this space. It won't happen. Microsoft and Apple both have thier eyes set on that little plum, as whoever controls the most used format will have the Hollywood billionaires by the throat. They would both love to be in that position. Both Jobs and Gates would rather see nobody in control, than the other guy in control. That's why they are both making minor moves in an open direction.
The end result should be that the producers realize that giving your business to somebody else is not a good move. The past efforts at 'DRM' have done nothing to deter mass pilfering of movies or music. The latest attempts (Blue-Ray and HD-DVD) were broken less than a week after going on sale. the professional copiers in organized crime were already selling bootlegs on the street by then.
I wish that this whole ugly assault on purchasers by a power mad industry would just go away. But, I don't think they are that smart. Or that honest.
it's 15% Firefox, sure, but there is also 5% Safari, and another 1% that's Opera, Konquerer, and 'other', so they have lost 21% of the market right up front. Might not have been a good choice.
A language is something that cannot be exclusivly owned by one person. It must be common to many people to be useful. Try to have exclusive use of any language, and that language will dissapear. That is the message the Author assumed you would realize without his having to explain. And he is right, it should be a self evident fact. If no one else knows 'your' language, it's just gibberish. If many others know it, you no longer can control it. Without control, there is no ownership (and thus no property).
Some computer languages have existed with a very narrow following that were 'owned'. In every case I know of, they lose out to common languages. And this in a relativly small group of users who have a very narrow range of expression. Widen the group, widen the range of requried expression, and the ownership problems increase geometricly.
He seems to be the base of most of western music. He was an enthusiastic user of his own (and others) for variations, but we really don't know who the earlier sources were.
I do have a problem with drug companies advertizing prescription drugs to the general public. If someone sees the ads and insists that a doctor give him that medication and then develops problems (the advertized drugs are mostly patented and new. The side effects are only poorly understood. Those that are are generally severe), who will take the heat from the inevitable lawsuit? Not the company that created the problem.
That's wrong. I believe that by advertizing, they should be assumed to be liable for all the problems they create. They have bypassed the trained professional to reach the patient, they should be the ones with thier feet to the fire.
Re:Something doesn't add up...
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
The thermodynamics of this are interesting. The temperature drop you get over an airfoil is only a degree or two. to get any meaningful moisture out of it you would have to have the air be very close to dew point. That means the thing will only work under very special and uncommon conditions. (Like during a rainstorm.) Also, the removal of the water as a liquid will release latent heat into the air, warming the air, and so shutting off the process.
The amount of water removed would have to be quite small too, I don't see how you could get more than a liter or so a day out of a dry environment. You'd have to process a HUGE volume of air to get that. When the humidity is low (5% or so is common here in the Sonoran desert during the dry season) the dew point is often about 39 Degrees F, (around 4 C). When the air temperature is typically about 110 F (about 44 C) you would need to have a temperature drop of over 40 degrees C to get ANY water. Using one of these things to water a tree, where you need realisticly 20 to 40 liters a day is just not going to happen.
It will be nice to see third party tests under these conditions. Also, what will happen when content providers try to tweak the systems? I don't think Microsofts developers or any others know. Still, I hope it has all been a tempest in a teapot.
As I have a side business, I use a CPA. No software can take the place of a real expert. I have tried doing my own electronicly, and by hand. The expert usually saves me enough to pay his fees. And as an added bonus, I havn't been autided since I started using him. When the IRS has questions, the CPA can answer them. (he keeps records.) Government auditors will have respect for a certified accountant.
the Monolithic Dome Institute out of Italy Texas (monolithic.com) has been making concrete domes all over the world by using a concrete sprayer inside a custom baloon. They've built storage silos, warehouses, homes, churches, schools, office buildings, grocery stores, etc. I worked with one Architect who lives in a sprayed dome home, and we built a large church. It went up fast (frame/dome up in a week.) They spray foam insulation on the infalted liner, then anchor rebar to the foam, then spray concrete inside. We did several 50 meter (+-) domes for the church. (seats 2000). That was in 2000. these things have been built since the 1970's. The article just describes a fancier version of the same machines. (The sprayer mounted on a cherry picker inside the dome envelope while it's inflated is a sight.) Wasn't fully automated though. Still needed masons, plumbers, electricians etc. these new versions will too.
Not according to Scientific American Magizine.
The real problem with Adult Stem Cells, as reported, is that they have shorter alleals (sp). They can't last as long after use, and will die quicker. Still, an adult stem cell can be grown, and can take on the charactoristics of the surrounding tissue. Even so, it's still years away from a useful therapy.
So much opinion, so little science. Typical of the slashdot crowd.
Read the article. They got the amniotic fluid during/after delivery. there is about a gallon of it released. There is no danger to the baby. It's already been born. Any hospital could provide liters and liters of the stuff every day.
Too bad they still don't know how to really use it.
First it's an egg, then it's fertilized. A couple of days later it's an embryo. A few months later it's a child. Then still later it's an adult, then a parent. (repeat process). At no point in the process is there a clear difference from the condition near the same point in time. (Except twords the end of the blastocyst stage, when the cells first start to differentiate, or before/after fertilization.)
The lack of science education in the country is really showing in this thread. Didn't any of you study biology?
Slashdot Mirror
...with the terms "left" and "right". Socialists of all varieties have used these terms for straw man arguments to vilify thier opponents since the 1930's. The terms origionally referred to the Itallian Parliment, where the communists (international socialists) sat on the left side, and the facists (notional socialists) sat on the right side. Since the facists lost the war, they are the 'bad guys'. What doesn't seem to be recognized here is that BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT REFER TO SOCIALISTS.
There is no place on this political spectrum for those who are not socialists. The world is not that simplistic.
Here in the US, there are the Democrats (pro socialism, relativly quickly) and the Republicans (pro moderate socialism) as the two dominant parties. There are smaller parties that are not pro socialism, but they get margianlized by a generally socialist press.
The term socialism was invented by groups in the late 1800's who advocated government control of the economy for various political reasons. These included eradication of income disparity deemed 'unfair'(Mordern US Democrats), creation of large commercial ventures (Monopolies) for national prestige (Modern US Republicans), and simple power grabs (Modern Communists). I have given examples here from the US, but corresponding groups can be found in Europe or Asian politics too.
As you can see, both 'left' and 'right' are Federalists. Federalists are people who advocate a polwerful and controling government. Very Hobbsian. (After Thomas Hobbs, a political philosopher from the 17th Century who advocated a powerful monarch for England.)
Opposed to this are those who advocate allowing personal freedom by having a limited government. These 'libertarians' are in the minority, but are very influential. They are often viewed as 'crazies' of one sort or another by the ruling federalist powers. (Crazies are any group that doesn't want a powerful central government that can control the population.)
As long as you continue to fall for the rherotical device of 'left' and 'right' you will never understand the dichotemy you see here. The division is that Federalists favor controlled products while the Libertarians favor OSS, both for philosophical reasons. You should see that both Tories and Labor are Federalist in thier views, but that both groups have some libertarians in thier ranks. There will be more OSS users in the party that is less distastful to those who value personal freedom. The difference between Torrie and Labor is only in what they want the powerful central government used for. A difference in degree, not in kind.
We face the same dilemma here in the US.
Linux IS too hard, if you assume that to use it you have to install it, while to use Apple or windows, you just start the machine.
Personally, I only install an OS once on a machine. (OK, I used to install Win 98 about 4 times a year, when it got too messed up. XP is better now. Mostly.) Linux on my laptop (Debian Etch) works just fine. So does Win XP. Click on an icon, the program launches. Same as Apple, same as Windows. In a corporate setting, you don't want most users to install 'random stuff' anyway. There is usually a deaprtment of specialists to install what you do want. So, the options are really the same from a usability standpoint. This far, Amiga and BSD are also 'there'. But...
You also have to get applications that you agree everyone can use, but that is a different issue. Microsoft spends a lot of money to assure that ONLY they can run most of the required applications. They also spend a lot of money on advertizing to convince people who make decisions that they are more necessary than they really are. That gap is narrowing every year, both in reality and in perception. It's still not gone though.
I looked at moving to Linux for my engineering office several years ago. CAD was the reason I couldn't do it. CAD in Linux is still not there. CAD on Mac is behind, and slipping further behind each year. More and more though, in application space, Linux is 'there'. Yes, Apple is easy to use (for many people, for people more comfortable with verbal rather than visual skills, a Mac can be a nightmare), it shines with some tasks, but there is also a lot that it doesn't do well. The article writer clearly loves his Mac, but his reasons for dominance are just fantasies. Sorry, the Mac will never have twice the market share it has now.
Better luck next time, fella.
As I live in Arizona, where we don't do Daylight Savings Time, the solution is easy. Ignore it, it'll still be the same time next week as it is today. For everywhere else, the conversion routines will be sticky, giving incorrect answers for a lot of before/after conversions, but it's only acocuntants that'll mess up. So, hope you enjoy the conversion.
Just wait till the task force has to tow a couple of these destroyers back to port. Thats what happened when the US Navy tried to control a destroyer with Windows 2000.
(By the way, what do they do when Windows autoboots in the middle of a battle. Most servers powered by Windows need to do that about 1 time a week. Knowing when the autoboot is set for might just become a very improtant piece of military knowlege)
Other systems will get a chance when this one fails. Don't worry, it will.
I wouldn't want this to be where all of my business resides, but as an adjunct service, it's great. I can create (or import) a document, and access that document from anywhere with a good internet connection. Browser independence is a plus. That means if I'm in somebody elses office, we can collaborate.
I wonder how easy it will be to move these documents from Google to my computer and back? That's what would make it a good tool. I also wonder what format options I might have. Time will tell. I use Open Office, Word Perfect, Abi Word and MS Word (97, 2000 and XP) on different machines. Are all those formats supported? If so, it'll fill a need for me right now. Bye Bye Sneaker Net.
As Eli Whitney found out in the early years of the 1800's, Patents protect companies, not inventors.
An inventor will market a device for one reason, PROFIT. A business will too. They would like to be a monopoly, but you don't start a business with that power. Not without harming an awful lot of people. Harm to innocent third parties is the ultimate reason to reject broad patents.
Many large corporations will routinely steal patents from lone inventors, and then just tie them up in courts while they wait for him to die. Check out RCA verses Philo Farnsworth sometime. Classic example.
The modern patent system was started as a way to restrict industry to friends of the crown in Britain. 'Promoting Invention' was used later as an excuse. Reality is that patents still are just a means of limiting innovation. That's why they have only means limit use granted. It' not that the ends justify the means, it's that the means are the ends. All the justifications that I have seen are just that. Attempts after the fact to excuse the process. Any competent economist will tell you that monopoly creation on anything harms most of the people. All patents are letters patent granting a monopoly. (So to a lesser extent are copyrights and trademarks.)
That said, there is an argument to be made that patents do help society by limiting inventiveness to a rate that can be assimilated by society. Rapid change causes other problems. I've never seen that argument used to justify the patent system though.
Probably came from moss or algae. Any biomass will decompose if left buried. Methane is one of several gasses released. Microbes do a lot of that work It'll happen anyway, but Microbes accelerate the process. Methane is just one of thier waste products. Here it got trapped in the ice. Doesn't have to be from bioligical origins either. Anything with carbon and hydrogen but no oxygen will release methane if you wait long enough. Also the area is not near old enough to be from dinosaurs. This was only 25 ft below the surface, bottom of the permafrost layer. Probably laid down after the last Ice Age. May not even be old enough for mammoths. Be nice to ask a real geologist.
You accelerate until you are half way there. Then you decelerate until you arrive, at rest relative to your destination. TV never shows it that way, but that is how it will really be done, if we ever get a power source that large.
I do have some problems envisioning a ship with an engine with a power output that rivals the Sun. I'm not sure I'd want to spend a few years being just 50 meters from the center of that. Too many things can happen to make it go boom. Just a small leak, relative to the total output could vaporize most of the ship.
At that rate, (1 G constant accelaration) ANY journey could be done in less than 2 years relative time. at 10 Meters per Second acceleration, you reach the speed of light in less than a year (3 X 10^7 seconds). Most of the trip is spent near the speed of light, so the time folks at home think you spent getting there just didn't happen for you. Of course, when you get back you find that like Rip Van Winkle, you missed 20 years, but that's the price you pay in a relativistic universe.
It does increase consumer value. The value you give for a product is the cost you pay. Since DRM increases the cost, then it increases the value. Until the point is reached where you say enough! and stop falling for it. Then the product value falls to zero (the amount you are willing to pay when you have to put up with the aggrivation the product causes you.) That is the point the major labels are beginning to realize they are reaching. Apple realizes it too. They found that they only have a 3% share of the music on thier own players. Zero is only a couple of percentage points away.
See, it all makes sense if you use enough indirect logic, redefine a few words on the fly, and are willing to ignore most of the truth.
One more technology for improving efficency. Post generation use of waste heat for further generation has been studied, and occasionally used for over 40 years. In the industry it is often referred to as a bottom cycle generator or bottomer. There are also toppers. They were being studied and occasionally used in the 1970's when I was in college. This is not really a new idea. It MAY be an improvement over what large coal plants are currently using. It may not. Results and time will tell.
Still, the research will go on. That's why we pay for it. With enough improvements, we may be able to squeeze another 5% efficency out of a large power plant.
The poster places Cuba in North America. It's a Carribean Island. Historicly, Ethnicly and Politically it's part of Latin America (generally Identified with South America).
That is all they established in thier letter.
1. DRM is broader than just music. This one is true. Digital restictions are placed on more than just music. They cause problems for legal purchasers of movies and computer software as well. As Sony showed us a year or so ago, DRM doesn't mix well with other media either.
2. DRM Increases Consumer Value. FALSE. This only shows that the author has no idea what value is. Value is increased by ability to use the product. DRM is all about limiting the ability to use the product. DRM is diametricly opposed to the value of the product. You do not increase by limiting. Limiting DECREASES. Jobs at least got this one right in his letter.
3. DRM will increase electronic distribution. FALSE. Electronic distribution was at it's peak with Napster (the origional, not the current imitator). Record companies never saw thier sales as high as they were when Napster was operating. When it was shut down, sales plummeted. Only with the rise of the P2P services have sales recovered. Somewhat. Experience shows that consumers are not the fools this group hopes they are. Limiting the ability of purchasers to use the product will result in sales declining. (That is after what DRM does. It is all it does.) Electronic distribution is only one more avenue for sales. Choking the users of the product will not result in increased sales. Non DRM media will outsell restricted media in every market where it is available.
4. DRM needs to be interoperable and open. this is just his pitch to be the new monopoly in this space. It won't happen. Microsoft and Apple both have thier eyes set on that little plum, as whoever controls the most used format will have the Hollywood billionaires by the throat. They would both love to be in that position. Both Jobs and Gates would rather see nobody in control, than the other guy in control. That's why they are both making minor moves in an open direction.
The end result should be that the producers realize that giving your business to somebody else is not a good move. The past efforts at 'DRM' have done nothing to deter mass pilfering of movies or music. The latest attempts (Blue-Ray and HD-DVD) were broken less than a week after going on sale. the professional copiers in organized crime were already selling bootlegs on the street by then.
I wish that this whole ugly assault on purchasers by a power mad industry would just go away. But, I don't think they are that smart. Or that honest.
it's 15% Firefox, sure, but there is also 5% Safari, and another 1% that's Opera, Konquerer, and 'other', so they have lost 21% of the market right up front. Might not have been a good choice.
A language is something that cannot be exclusivly owned by one person. It must be common to many people to be useful. Try to have exclusive use of any language, and that language will dissapear. That is the message the Author assumed you would realize without his having to explain. And he is right, it should be a self evident fact. If no one else knows 'your' language, it's just gibberish. If many others know it, you no longer can control it. Without control, there is no ownership (and thus no property).
Some computer languages have existed with a very narrow following that were 'owned'. In every case I know of, they lose out to common languages. And this in a relativly small group of users who have a very narrow range of expression. Widen the group, widen the range of requried expression, and the ownership problems increase geometricly.
He seems to be the base of most of western music. He was an enthusiastic user of his own (and others) for variations, but we really don't know who the earlier sources were.
I do have a problem with drug companies advertizing prescription drugs to the general public. If someone sees the ads and insists that a doctor give him that medication and then develops problems (the advertized drugs are mostly patented and new. The side effects are only poorly understood. Those that are are generally severe), who will take the heat from the inevitable lawsuit? Not the company that created the problem.
That's wrong. I believe that by advertizing, they should be assumed to be liable for all the problems they create. They have bypassed the trained professional to reach the patient, they should be the ones with thier feet to the fire.
The thermodynamics of this are interesting. The temperature drop you get over an airfoil is only a degree or two. to get any meaningful moisture out of it you would have to have the air be very close to dew point. That means the thing will only work under very special and uncommon conditions. (Like during a rainstorm.) Also, the removal of the water as a liquid will release latent heat into the air, warming the air, and so shutting off the process.
The amount of water removed would have to be quite small too, I don't see how you could get more than a liter or so a day out of a dry environment. You'd have to process a HUGE volume of air to get that. When the humidity is low (5% or so is common here in the Sonoran desert during the dry season) the dew point is often about 39 Degrees F, (around 4 C). When the air temperature is typically about 110 F (about 44 C) you would need to have a temperature drop of over 40 degrees C to get ANY water. Using one of these things to water a tree, where you need realisticly 20 to 40 liters a day is just not going to happen.
I smell a scam.
They ran this last year too. Old news, no progress apparently.
It will be nice to see third party tests under these conditions. Also, what will happen when content providers try to tweak the systems? I don't think Microsofts developers or any others know. Still, I hope it has all been a tempest in a teapot.
As I have a side business, I use a CPA. No software can take the place of a real expert. I have tried doing my own electronicly, and by hand. The expert usually saves me enough to pay his fees. And as an added bonus, I havn't been autided since I started using him. When the IRS has questions, the CPA can answer them. (he keeps records.) Government auditors will have respect for a certified accountant.
and look at all the grief thier getting for it.
the Monolithic Dome Institute out of Italy Texas (monolithic.com) has been making concrete domes all over the world by using a concrete sprayer inside a custom baloon. They've built storage silos, warehouses, homes, churches, schools, office buildings, grocery stores, etc. I worked with one Architect who lives in a sprayed dome home, and we built a large church. It went up fast (frame/dome up in a week.) They spray foam insulation on the infalted liner, then anchor rebar to the foam, then spray concrete inside. We did several 50 meter (+-) domes for the church. (seats 2000). That was in 2000. these things have been built since the 1970's. The article just describes a fancier version of the same machines. (The sprayer mounted on a cherry picker inside the dome envelope while it's inflated is a sight.) Wasn't fully automated though. Still needed masons, plumbers, electricians etc. these new versions will too.
Not according to Scientific American Magizine. The real problem with Adult Stem Cells, as reported, is that they have shorter alleals (sp). They can't last as long after use, and will die quicker. Still, an adult stem cell can be grown, and can take on the charactoristics of the surrounding tissue. Even so, it's still years away from a useful therapy. So much opinion, so little science. Typical of the slashdot crowd.
Read the article. They got the amniotic fluid during/after delivery. there is about a gallon of it released. There is no danger to the baby. It's already been born. Any hospital could provide liters and liters of the stuff every day. Too bad they still don't know how to really use it.
First it's an egg, then it's fertilized. A couple of days later it's an embryo. A few months later it's a child. Then still later it's an adult, then a parent. (repeat process). At no point in the process is there a clear difference from the condition near the same point in time. (Except twords the end of the blastocyst stage, when the cells first start to differentiate, or before/after fertilization.) The lack of science education in the country is really showing in this thread. Didn't any of you study biology?