Phi for All

Here is an article the OP was probably looking for. It seems a whole range of contraceptives are being made available due to a baby outbreak. Do you still mean this? Can I ask why?

Oh, come on, no way! Don't say that! Huh-uh, no, not really, not... you know. Well, maybe.

I can't understand why you feel justified in complaining. I think you feel insulted when there is no intent to insult. There is no point in your continuing.

CrazCo, ChemSiddiqui and thedarkshade can't be true geeks. No true geek looks like a professional model. Unless they're a PhotoShop geek....

We do *not* give you your answers in Homework Help. Asking guidance on a classwork problem and receiving helpful hints and nudges towards the answer is what that section is all about. That's why we move obvious homework questions there. The other sub-forum posters are much more likely to just give you answers and that doesn't really help students in the long run.

deiscovery, it has been our experience that scientific method can't be applied to the supernatural. Further, we have also determined that theistic arguments can't rely solely on a deity which can transcend Its own physical laws. Both lead to circular arguments requiring non-existent proof on the one hand, and omnipotent guesswork on the other. While there is no real reason science and religion can't get along, neither has the tools to meaningfully assess the other.

What I meant by squelching news related to new technology was more general sources of such news. The general public, those people who could hopefully influence their representatives in government, aren't watching the patent office on a regular basis. They rely on media which is more and more in the hands of those who stand to profit by keeping new technology quiet. Many people never heard about the electric car trials conducted in California in an attempt to comply with zero emissions legislation being considered there. Most people never heard about those cars being recalled and scrapped even though the people leasing them loved them and wanted to purchase them. It seems this would be a good place to start if we wanted to change existing patent laws. We would also need provisions so that court cases can't be protracted just because one entity can outspend another.

Untrue statement. I think you were referring to the fact that coffee itself has many things in it which may affect the body. But there is nothing but roasted coffee beans and water to an espresso. More oil from the roasted coffee beans is removed via the process, but it's still just roasted coffee beans and water.

Oh yeah.

How does a person profit from getting so angry they accidentally kill another person? Is it still a crime if they really gain no benefit other than venting their wrath? It's not just individuals at that level. The immense corporations involved have teams of attorneys combing over every document that comes their way. Why punish them? To make them and everyone else think twice before abandoning their legal principles in the future. So if I see someone walk into a crowded mall and something leads me to believe they are carrying a bomb and I use lethal force to protect the lives of those around me, and it turns out later that it was just a bulky sweater, are you going to let me go free because I screwed up and let fear override my better judgment? Why do I deserve to be punished for being over-protective? If it turns out later that I knew exactly what I was doing, would you be wrong for having granted me immunity? I'm all for questioning laws. But while they are in effect they need to be obeyed by everyone who isn't prepared to face the consequences for breaking them.

We may be stupid and not to be trusted but that's why we have a judicial branch. How do you think the public's stupidity would force a judge or jury to make a decision like punishing a telcom for obeying a (then) legal request? How would our stupidity hold up under repeated appeals? I'm very concerned with allowing corporations to grow so big that they can manipulate legislation, the media and competitive technology to suit themselves, but I'd be the first one to defend them if they were working within the law. Granting immunity is not necessary if they were, and it's a favor they don't deserve if they weren't.

I have no problem with that either. It's up to the inventors to do what they wish with their ideas. And if they let the $ in their eyes blind them to the fine print in a contract and sign away their invention for royalties that will never materialize because of patent-squatting, that's their own fault. They should have asked for a clause that protects them. I guess it's the idea of corporations so large they can afford to squelch competitive technology and also pay to spin or prevent media reports on new technology that bother me most. These big guys can even lobby for laws to be passed that protect their investments. waitforufo, you mentioned that patent periods and extensions were changed at some point. Do you know when and who and (supposedly) why?

This seems like a really fair compromise, and one that would actually make patent-squatting (oh please, someone come up with something better) less attractive to the big boys. It also keeps the market fresher, the inventors invigorated (think of all the hopefuls that signed deals to receive royalties on every unit sold, only to have their inventions shelved), and the patent purchaser protected on his ROI. The phrase, "actively working" would need some more refined language. I see a lot of wiggle-room and opportunities for abuse. What about technology that is critical, like the NiMH batteries? Thousands are dying over oil and most everyone is crying out about foreign dependence while technology that could help is being suppressed... by an oil company. It seems almost treasonous and that's where this idea of technology suppression crosses the good business line for me. Is there some way critical technology could be treated differently?

This has always been a sore subject with me, mostly because I'm torn right down the middle: Which is more important, new technology or patent rights? Many huge companies purchase patents on new technology only because it would hurt their business selling the old technology. They buy the rights only to shelve the ideas, never intending to make it available to the public. I just purchased one of James Dyson's clever bagless vacuum cleaners. According to Dyson's biography, his ideas were turned away by the major manufacturers because it threatened the US$500M vacuum cleaner *bag* market. If the Japanese hadn't loved his wonderfully engineered machine Dyson wouldn't have been able to raise the capital to patent and manufacture his design here in the US. Hoover's vice president for Europe, Mike Rutter, said on U.K. national TV, "I do regret that Hoover as a company did not take the product technology off Dyson; it would have lain on the shelf and not been used." http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/dyson.htm Currently, Chevron controls large format NiMH battery technology that could give us a completely electric car with vastly improved range, the only drawback to past examples from Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota. Chevron only allows its subsidiary Cobasys to sell these large format NiMH batteries in gas / electric hybrids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery I realize it's good business to edge out the competition. I also hate the fact that mega-corporations have the finances to buy patents and then do nothing with them. They also have the clout to make sure very little is heard about it if they choose, bypassing the normal power of consumer demand. So where do you stand, with the free market or with the inventors trying to make life better? And is it really a free market if the new technology is being suppressed so established markets can remain past their normal sustainability?

It's not to prevent cheating, it's to prevent accidentally seeing someone else's answer. It's for those honorable puzzlers who love a challenge and have terrific peripheral vision.

Seconded. We're going to start working on making this a reality in the very near future. Ka-BOOM!

It seems pretty clear to me that granting immunity to the telcos is unnecessary. If they acted within the law at the time they have nothing to fear. If they didn't then granting immunity is highly questionable and implies that Bush is somewhat sure there *were* punishable misdeeds. Judicial decision, not executive. I hate seeing voided checks. They upset the balance.

Aye, there's the rub. Once a government gets the books set up to use that revenue they can be quite stupid themselves about it. I'm reminded of the way the US imposed emission controls on autos and required imports to be retro-fitted with catalytic converters and PCV valves as they came into the country. I don't know if they still do it this way but they used to require the cars to be retro-fitted and *then* tested. Many imports, especially those from Germany, actually tested better *before* the conversion but the government didn't want to lose the revenue from Porsches and Mercedes and BMWs by testing them first to see if they passed.

I think the licensing is unnecessary. The individual cost coupled with the health risks for longer-lived modern humans should be enough for most people. I wish we'd increase the taxes here accordingly. Having to pay US$10 for one pack would be enough for even the stupidest American to quit. [/14 years smoke-free gloating]

Are you saying the Chinese are like a cancer?

I think you're wrong after all. Rules are only limiting if you view them that way. They also provide a framework for you to plan exactly how you can be successful within them. Rebelling may make you feel superior to the system but imagine how great it would be to *use* the system's rules to get what you really want anyway. Rebels seem glamorous but find negative consequences everywhere. You don't need to be a sheep and follow the system; be innovative and use the system to *beat* the system. Good consequences will follow. That .2 represents some extra effort that admissions boards are looking for. For GPAs it's all math to them. As others have said, your brother's participation in the science bowl may have been the tie breaker if they could only send a letter to one of you.

Too often young humans mistake rebelliousness for independent thinking and uninhibited spirit. The trick is to play by the system while realizing it doesn't lessen your ability to be true to yourself.

I miss Sayonara3's responses to creationists. It was always fun watching the creationists go around the horn throwing all their favorite dung to see if anything would stick. Sayo would calmly dodge each gob like a Shao-lin monk on Red Bull, all the while deftly debunking their claims, correcting their misconceptions and throwing subtle insult-shurikens they were just too dumb to recognize. Eventually though, the creationists would exhaust their reservoirs of crap, only to start right back at the beginning like nothing had ever been said. Even the Master got tired of the eternal laziness.

Yes, that you're the ugly brother. j/k Are your brother's grades better or worse? Did he do a lot of clubs? What did he do differently?

Who are you and what have you done with the tree?