I hadn't realised when I read it that there was a real-world equivalent ...
http://futurismic.com/2010/03/01/new-fiction-tupac-shakur-an...
by Sandra McDonald
501 karma · joined January 24, 2009
I hadn't realised when I read it that there was a real-world equivalent ...
http://futurismic.com/2010/03/01/new-fiction-tupac-shakur-an...
by Sandra McDonald
"Test-driven" means we decide what it should do, then we write the corresponding code.
A "test-driven" nation would decide first what the government ought to do, then proceed by writing the corresponding laws.
The system you describe is the exact opposite: let's write some code / law and then see what happens. You have a Cowboy Congress.
You might amend your last sentence to read "Start Test Driven Government" instead.
The article suggests that the available evidence does not support this conclusion. It seems that in historical technology fairs, countries with a weak or no patent system in place performed as well as other countries, both in terms of numbers of inventions they presented, and awards they received.
The article also describes some instances where patents clearly inhibited innovation - for example in the US in 1916, aircraft production halted due to patent disputes between Wright and Curtiss.
I wonder to what extent opposition to teaching evolution improves the chances of these kind of bacteria evolving. Disbelief in, and/or ignorance of how a process works is effectively giving that process a green light.
Conversely, might the appearance of CRE bacteria might sway the evolution debate?
Or to be more blunt, does a disbelief in evolution increase a nation's chances of collectively qualifying for a Darwin award?
Mr Bezos would not be drawn on whether Amazon plans to
release a smartphone of its own.
Amazon's plans in the smartphone market may be influencing Jeff's argument.[0] http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/toda...
T = 00
G = 01
A = 10
C = 11
for example.You could also write an article on "The Use of Clothing to Support Oppression", and again, the problem is not with the clothes.
Insider trading is basically theft, only with no specific victim, and no broken windows; a very clean crime. Insider trading is stealing from other shareholders, which might include pension funds of HN readers.
Some discussion of impacts of insider trading here - http://money.howstuffworks.com/insider-trading3.htm
> Wasn't protection against copying the original purpose of patents?
The original purpose was to provide an incentive for inventors to (a) invent stuff, and (b) disclose their inventions, so that after a limited time, the invention would be free (as in freedom) to use by any other party.
The problem now is that frivolous patents enable trolls to prevent, discourage, and stifle innovation, and the original purpose of the system is turned on its head.
When my cat plays with reflected lights dancing on the floor, she may well be in violation of somebody's patent.
When you see Google/Apple/Microsoft spending giga$ to acquire patent portfolios, it's not because they're short on brains: they need these patents to play the patent game. And that's so much money that's not being spent making better software for you and me.
So you give RPX protection money and they leave you alone. This is what Intellectual Ventures does. Why is it ok for RPX? (never heard of RPX before btw)
Or have I missed something obvious?
See also: Twitter Patent Agreement http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3853949
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Usi...
from http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Lex... -
Such code is also much more friendly to concurrency, which we want to add to Emacs in the near future.
Exciting times ahead ...
National authorities are free to impose taxes on all telecommunications traffic, whether incoming or outgoing.
I don't know how to interpret this document, particularly as it's a work in progress, and looks like the output of a human-powered diff process. But it's hard to conclude that it specifically targets Google or Apple, or the U.S., or even just websites. It's about telecommunications.
Operating Agencies shall endeavour to provide sufficient telecommunications facilities to meet requirements of and demand for international telecommunication services. For this purpose, and to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays
What's the "sending party network pays" principle? I get that if I make a phone call, I pay, not the receiver. But if someone in a village in Africa consults google, _that_ person is the initiator, not google. So I'm not sure what way around this is supposed to work.
Besides, each party is already paying for bandwidth on each end.
"operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements" - this doesn't sound like "tax" (in that governments are not the beneficiaries), it sounds like granting new powers to bandwidth providers. I'm guessing the T-word is linkbait, even if the proposal is horrible anyway.
[0] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resis...
With the lead truck sending instructions, this is a client-server setup, compared to google's independent peer-to-peer approach. It's not self-driving, it's remote-control of a train of cars behind you. The volvo experiment seems much less ambitious than google's, and might be more successful in the narrow case of long-distance motorway travel. But I don't see how to generalise it to everyday driving.
Add an ad-hoc mesh network to google's cars and anything could become possible.