I wonder how many scientists are willing to give up intellectual property rights from the fruits of their research?
I don't want a patent on anything I work on (I work at a University). Yet I am forced to run any publication past the patent lawyers who get to check for patentablity. Yep a lawyer decides if something is inventive, and I can't cancel the patent if they decide if they want to proceed. Thats the agreement for the funding. I do however get 20% and the department another 20-40% IIRC of the royalties. But am not allowed to set the royalties or have anything to do with "marketing" the patent.
I would gladly give all that up. I want my stuff public domain. I don't want to have any patents and I don't want others to patent it. There are many more like me.
I don't follow. Copyright and patents are quite different. Patents are, by and large about inventions, while copyright is about a specific piece of work.
The list of stupid patents goes a long way back. If there is a way to effectively challenge a patent in *under* a year (I think it perhaps takes over 5 currently) then folk won't try to get patents for things that are stupid. Then the large amounts of patent applications goes down and hence the quality of patent review goes up.
Forcing all of this on the patent office could work if there was a lot more money *for the patent office*, as opposed to lawyers. Either the fees goes way up and/or they get a bigger slice of the Federal tax pie.
Personally I see the incentive to innovate being more protected by an easy and even *lawyer less* (null lawyer model) method of challenging patents with prior art etc.
The problem with patents is not so much that they are issued left right and center for just about any stupid claim. Its that is so expensive in terms of lawyers and most importantly *time* to challenge them. The courts seem to assume that a issued patent is by default valid where this is clearly not that case. At least not currently.
The second biggest problem is that "someone skilled in the art..." really means a Judge who is skilled in legalese.
The problem with these locations are just like high latitudes on earth. The sun is very low in the sky limiting collection without some kind of very tall structure.
Night time on the moon is kinda long (weeks). What do you do then? Batteries that can store weeks worth and PV arrays that run at over 2x capacity are not really going to work all that well. Well not as well as a 24/7 nuke plant.
Re:Ignorance vs. the Unknown
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Just remember - when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.
The usage for theora lies in specialized software playback such as games
I hear that. I am making a game and Dirac hits the CPU too hard and is too new. But there are other issues with the likes of H264 etc. with fees for content production.
Now someone will say the fees are quite low, and thay are if thats all you pay. But you don't. Theres contracts, lawyers and fees and lots of extras. If you are a indy developer this makes anything like H264 for a game a no show.
Thats just bunk. What evidence do you have that with all this "sloshed" money? You read about in a newspaper? Or perhaps it was A. Gore that told you? Yep He would never lie about that sort of thing now would he. Newspapers and popular press would never make a false accusation for a high impact headline either right?
I was working with a climate group more or less back a few years ago. My boss took the "models need a lot more work...." type thing at an interview. The newspapers printed that we must be getting oil money. In the next interview where was directly accused of taking "oil" money, he gave the address where the companies could send the money, because we didn't get a dime from them. In fact because of these accusations we lost almost all of the government funding.
And look around, all the faith that we did it and yet hardly a soul is changing anything about there energy usage. The "oil companies" don't need to care because even the AGW doom sayers what to drive there SUV's.
If you are a climatologist thats vocally skeptical about AGW its almost impossible to get funding.
The debate about whether global warming is happening and whether it is man-made is over.
This is just wrong. The debate on how much man-made warming vers natural warming even spills over into the popular press. The IPCC report has a lot on how much is man vers nature. Most climatologists I know and the papers they write indicate that most think that at least some part of the warming is *not* man made.
Perhaps the statement that there is global warming is hardly debated now is true. But that we did it or more importantly how much we perhaps have done and may do *is* debated.
A lack of debate is not necessarily a good thing either.
If you have a model that better matches the data, then go ahead and get it published.
Thats the problem. With all the guesstimates in the current models its easy to get what you want out of them and still fit the *historic* data. There is little sensitivity analysis being done and I have some strong criticism of the ones that are.
Oh by the way I am well aware of the current literature on this, but i find the question of "how do you calculate the global temperature" is a good starting point for people to dig deeper. Historic climate prediction is the next question that I think far to many people ignore. My problem with the global warming debate is not that someone disagrees with me but that hardly a soul will look past popular media to get "facts".
Incidentally I don't dispute that we *could* be causing even a strong effect on the climate. But I do dispute that the current models hold even a iota of accuracy for long term predications with the "claimed" confidence. I worked with some of these people and I have worked on similar models. I just wish they would be more honest on what we don't know.
Have you looked for *any* data. Have you read any of the peer reviewed papers? I'm guessing no. In my experience if a horse needs to be lead to water, it *won't* drink.
I haven't seen any evidence that would cause me to seriously doubt global warming is man-made.
And what *evidence* have you seen that causes you to doubt that its at least partly natural warming if not all. What evidence have you looked for. Where do you look for evidence?/. , New York Times, New Scientist? Yep no biases in any of those sources right. Seems to me you have decided what the facts are already. What would even constitutive evidence in your books?
It was right here on/. that the same IPCC report was hammered for watering down the man caused global warming and over emphasizing the role natural global warming. Almost all climatologist agree that there is a degree of warming that was not caused by us. Thats the real debate. How much have we caused and if we double CO2 how much will we cause verses how much would happen anyway.
There was no cynicism if you read the other posts by R2.0, like me you are missing his point. Time and Time again the lay people of the world believe that a general consensus in the scientific community is not subject to whims and popularity of theories. It is quite wrong. Scientist are just people and have the *same* bias's and prejudices and favorite's theories and axes that they like to grind just like everyone else.
And what statistical foundation is there for these percentages? What is the null hypothesis? How do these numbers work? Say in 100 years its on average 2 degress (F or C) warmer, does that mean there is a 95% chance it was our fault. Or is it more like the 95% chance of rain in a given area we see in forecasts. That is, no rain does not mean there wasn't a chance that it could have rained, therefore the forecast was still correct.
These terms just look less vague that ones I used and have about as much statistical backing. I have read the report (well not all of it), these are more or less political estimates, that ironically got hammered here on/. when the report came out. Also the IPCC report put to much emphasis on natural warming according to./
The argument being made is that it HAS been proven, as far as one can prove anything in such indeterministic systems.
If by GW you mean AGW then like hell it has. If you read./ summaries, a few newspapers and A. Gore, then perhaps its a "fact". But read the source peer reviewed articles they claim to summarize. They use phrases like "it suggests", and "gives support to" rather than phrases like "statistically significant".
A good question to ask is how is the "mean" earth temperature measured, both current and Historic and whats the variance?
There are some facts out there that do matter (e.g. CO2 increases from industrialization). But thats not a proof of any claimed causal effects.
We simply have not been doing this sort of modeling long enough nor tested it enough to give credible confidence intervals yet. I'm not saying that mitigation programs now don't make sense. They do, but I can think of a lot of better reasons that AGW.
And in regard to general agreement in the scientific community WRT AGW? If you don't agree or are even just a little bit skeptical, you would have left that community a long time ago. Using a set of examples where there "was general agreement" that turned out to be wrong does not support the idea that "general agreement" on AGW is evidence of AGW.
The problem is where do you hold such event? The EU is out. USA is not going to be better. In fact much of the western world has very similar laws with regard to patent law. The only big difference is Software patents, and thats more of a enforceability issue in some countries. That leave parts of Africa, the middle east, India and China. Well my rescurch group has at least one conference in one of those regions every year, so why not.
So why are CEO's entitled to more privacy than their employees?
If what you say is true for the US (I presume) then they shouldn't have any more privacy. In my country however I would think that none of the above is legal.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many scientists are willing to give up intellectual property rights from the fruits of their research?
I don't want a patent on anything I work on (I work at a University). Yet I am forced to run any publication past the patent lawyers who get to check for patentablity. Yep a lawyer decides if something is inventive, and I can't cancel the patent if they decide if they want to proceed. Thats the agreement for the funding. I do however get 20% and the department another 20-40% IIRC of the royalties. But am not allowed to set the royalties or have anything to do with "marketing" the patent.
I would gladly give all that up. I want my stuff public domain. I don't want to have any patents and I don't want others to patent it. There are many more like me.
Or point out that even an ordinarily skilled lawyer can describe some everyday method and append the words "on the Internet?"
A lawyer would still in fact see this as billable hours however, and therefore not without merit. ;)
I don't follow. Copyright and patents are quite different. Patents are, by and large about inventions, while copyright is about a specific piece of work.
The list of stupid patents goes a long way back. If there is a way to effectively challenge a patent in *under* a year (I think it perhaps takes over 5 currently) then folk won't try to get patents for things that are stupid. Then the large amounts of patent applications goes down and hence the quality of patent review goes up.
Forcing all of this on the patent office could work if there was a lot more money *for the patent office*, as opposed to lawyers. Either the fees goes way up and/or they get a bigger slice of the Federal tax pie.
Personally I see the incentive to innovate being more protected by an easy and even *lawyer less* (null lawyer model) method of challenging patents with prior art etc.
The problem with patents is not so much that they are issued left right and center for just about any stupid claim. Its that is so expensive in terms of lawyers and most importantly *time* to challenge them. The courts seem to assume that a issued patent is by default valid where this is clearly not that case. At least not currently.
The second biggest problem is that "someone skilled in the art..." really means a Judge who is skilled in legalese.
The lawyers and patent attorneys are loving it.
Oh dear, I think the point rushed over the top of your head....
So you are for Multiple building select or do you think we should also get rid of multiple unit select?
The problem with these locations are just like high latitudes on earth. The sun is very low in the sky limiting collection without some kind of very tall structure.
Night time on the moon is kinda long (weeks). What do you do then? Batteries that can store weeks worth and PV arrays that run at over 2x capacity are not really going to work all that well. Well not as well as a 24/7 nuke plant.
Just remember - when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.
I call Bunk! Got a reference for that?
Brilliant, simply Brilliant.
I was thinking of something along the lines that he/she must be new here.
A good doctor treats the symptoms with a tested treatment with relatively mild side effects.
What could possibly go wrong. I mean we have always been right about this sort of thing before right?
The usage for theora lies in specialized software playback such as games
I hear that. I am making a game and Dirac hits the CPU too hard and is too new. But there are other issues with the likes of H264 etc. with fees for content production.
Now someone will say the fees are quite low, and thay are if thats all you pay. But you don't. Theres contracts, lawyers and fees and lots of extras. If you are a indy developer this makes anything like H264 for a game a no show.
But for games there is also Bink.
By the way is Matroska still actively developed?
Thats just bunk. What evidence do you have that with all this "sloshed" money? You read about in a newspaper? Or perhaps it was A. Gore that told you? Yep He would never lie about that sort of thing now would he. Newspapers and popular press would never make a false accusation for a high impact headline either right?
I was working with a climate group more or less back a few years ago. My boss took the "models need a lot more work...." type thing at an interview. The newspapers printed that we must be getting oil money. In the next interview where was directly accused of taking "oil" money, he gave the address where the companies could send the money, because we didn't get a dime from them. In fact because of these accusations we lost almost all of the government funding.
And look around, all the faith that we did it and yet hardly a soul is changing anything about there energy usage. The "oil companies" don't need to care because even the AGW doom sayers what to drive there SUV's.
If you are a climatologist thats vocally skeptical about AGW its almost impossible to get funding.
The debate about whether global warming is happening and whether it is man-made is over.
This is just wrong. The debate on how much man-made warming vers natural warming even spills over into the popular press. The IPCC report has a lot on how much is man vers nature. Most climatologists I know and the papers they write indicate that most think that at least some part of the warming is *not* man made.
Perhaps the statement that there is global warming is hardly debated now is true. But that we did it or more importantly how much we perhaps have done and may do *is* debated.
A lack of debate is not necessarily a good thing either.
If you have a model that better matches the data, then go ahead and get it published.
Thats the problem. With all the guesstimates in the current models its easy to get what you want out of them and still fit the *historic* data. There is little sensitivity analysis being done and I have some strong criticism of the ones that are.
Oh by the way I am well aware of the current literature on this, but i find the question of "how do you calculate the global temperature" is a good starting point for people to dig deeper. Historic climate prediction is the next question that I think far to many people ignore. My problem with the global warming debate is not that someone disagrees with me but that hardly a soul will look past popular media to get "facts".
Incidentally I don't dispute that we *could* be causing even a strong effect on the climate. But I do dispute that the current models hold even a iota of accuracy for long term predications with the "claimed" confidence. I worked with some of these people and I have worked on similar models. I just wish they would be more honest on what we don't know.
I haven't seen any evidence that would cause me to seriously doubt global warming is man-made.
And what *evidence* have you seen that causes you to doubt that its at least partly natural warming if not all. What evidence have you looked for. Where do you look for evidence? /. , New York Times, New Scientist? Yep no biases in any of those sources right. Seems to me you have decided what the facts are already. What would even constitutive evidence in your books?
It was right here on /. that the same IPCC report was hammered for watering down the man caused global warming and over emphasizing the role natural global warming. Almost all climatologist agree that there is a degree of warming that was not caused by us. Thats the real debate. How much have we caused and if we double CO2 how much will we cause verses how much would happen anyway.
There was no cynicism if you read the other posts by R2.0, like me you are missing his point. Time and Time again the lay people of the world believe that a general consensus in the scientific community is not subject to whims and popularity of theories. It is quite wrong. Scientist are just people and have the *same* bias's and prejudices and favorite's theories and axes that they like to grind just like everyone else.
And what statistical foundation is there for these percentages? What is the null hypothesis? How do these numbers work? Say in 100 years its on average 2 degress (F or C) warmer, does that mean there is a 95% chance it was our fault. Or is it more like the 95% chance of rain in a given area we see in forecasts. That is, no rain does not mean there wasn't a chance that it could have rained, therefore the forecast was still correct.
/. when the report came out. Also the IPCC report put to much emphasis on natural warming according to ./
These terms just look less vague that ones I used and have about as much statistical backing. I have read the report (well not all of it), these are more or less political estimates, that ironically got hammered here on
And if they did, would the still work in Climatology. Is there any room for a skeptic? Not from where I'm sitting.
Which is just another way to avoid saying the specific phrase "statistically significant" because there are no such credibility intervals.
hahah, if i had mod points.... I wouldn't be able to do anything :(
Point taken.
Sorry, I did in fact miss that completely then.
The argument being made is that it HAS been proven, as far as one can prove anything in such indeterministic systems.
If by GW you mean AGW then like hell it has. If you read ./ summaries, a few newspapers and A. Gore, then perhaps its a "fact". But read the source peer reviewed articles they claim to summarize. They use phrases like "it suggests", and "gives support to" rather than phrases like "statistically significant".
A good question to ask is how is the "mean" earth temperature measured, both current and Historic and whats the variance?
There are some facts out there that do matter (e.g. CO2 increases from industrialization). But thats not a proof of any claimed causal effects.
We simply have not been doing this sort of modeling long enough nor tested it enough to give credible confidence intervals yet. I'm not saying that mitigation programs now don't make sense. They do, but I can think of a lot of better reasons that AGW.
And in regard to general agreement in the scientific community WRT AGW? If you don't agree or are even just a little bit skeptical, you would have left that community a long time ago. Using a set of examples where there "was general agreement" that turned out to be wrong does not support the idea that "general agreement" on AGW is evidence of AGW.
The problem is where do you hold such event? The EU is out. USA is not going to be better. In fact much of the western world has very similar laws with regard to patent law. The only big difference is Software patents, and thats more of a enforceability issue in some countries. That leave parts of Africa, the middle east, India and China. Well my rescurch group has at least one conference in one of those regions every year, so why not.
So why are CEO's entitled to more privacy than their employees?
If what you say is true for the US (I presume) then they shouldn't have any more privacy. In my country however I would think that none of the above is legal.