Similar? Court should propose statistically significant research asking people whether they find logos confusing or similar. The cost should go to the loser.
I assume not. I am pretty confidnet the whole purpose is for the cells to never grow.
It works by editing cell information. If you let original cells divide there will be more unedited cells. So the eariler in the development you apply modification the more prononuced the effect. I think I read somewhere that they could alter amount of pigmentation by timing application of treatment. So that would fit.
It doesnt work by killing existing cells. Maybe it could work if old cells died and new ones would be edited, so they could gradually replace original ones but I guess its pretty hard to deliver gene editor to so many cells.
"a prolific patent litigant" that should be urban dict definition for a patent troll. And with addition of "losing majority of actual trials" a regular dictionary.
I think it's becoming if not already became apparent that IP law is deeply flawed. The sole existence of legitimate business model of patent trolls is an indication as well as solutions hurting public designed to avoid corporate litigations such as you tube content infrifiment marking. Its biased against individuals.
But, oh well,bills and laws are not sponsored by public, so it's hard to expect they work in their favour.
Yea, but they would have to blink a significant portion of their galaxy for us to notice.
The top of our capabilities is indirect planet discovery. So alien civilization would need to affect ceartain stars on a scale that a planet does and make it look not natural, like prime number periods or something.
Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service.
So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game.
Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.
By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.
The song isnt anything special itself, especially for this artist.
It's clearly a critizicm of governing party approach to lockdown and martyrology. They clearly set the rules to avoid limitations and even avoid the rules. They also lost most relatives in 2010 crash including twin brother of the leader of governing part, then president in office. Though he doesn't hold any formal position he is most influential. So he used position to visit the grave, they made it an official celebration.
So the song is just a criticism of perceived abuse of political power. Normal stuff with out any judgment.
The funny thing starts at the radio. President of Polish Radio (national broadcaster) is politically appointed. They appointed CEO for this station. The station were run by people with 15-30 years within, so all govts basically, even when current party was in charge some time ago. Some of the redactors left, were forced out or let gone before. The chart is published for like 30 years, by same few people. The CEO knew the critic song will top it. Blocks whole programm, says vote was a fraud by chart leaders and listeners had right to know chart was bothched, this is almost a literal citation. Chart runners leave because of accusations. Their friends leave over all of recent managment. The station's programme director, which wasn't politically swapped showed SMS from the night before chart was supposed to be aired from polit CEO "To make sure the song they talked about is not aired". Supposedly CEO wanted redactors to sing paper saying vote was erroneous, they refused, so CEO blocked the air resulting in censorship. It's basically PR Chernobyl, and it was most iconic station in Poland.
Sorry for long text but it's still a summary leaving few details. It shows overreaction blown out of proportions and mindset of people placed as directing managers. They could let the chart run and deal with it later but they choose worst option for some reason. They wanted to appease the party or were afraid of consequences of letting it air. Even the party leadership voices were saying it's poor decision making or straight up unacceptable, even if the song is crap.
So, there's nothing in the song, it was the people appointed to run the thing.
Much better, because what the heck is "internet speed". The most sensible definition to me is payload over IP protocol possibly on an existing commercial link. That's the only way I see relation to internet and the internet.
Like every so-called basic science. 1st batteries, radio, lasers etc also looked like that.
I see a strong parallel. It's a poor performance but important proof of concept.
Also, it's general in computing trend since assembly. Why compile when you can write machine code, waste of resources. Why have abstract compiler, when you can write assembly. Why have higher level language when it cant generate code optimal for target when it doesnt know it. Then web came, it's not faster than 20 years ago because with increased computing power bloat came. Somehow it always turns that seemingly wasteful apporach outweights its cons. Empirically lowered entry cost and increased applicability has very very high value. At least higher that I used to assess.
You just identified society as corporation and corporation is dictatorship.
He didn't got booted by society and collective ostracism but by a business decision. That's a corporation making decision for the peoole which information the society should be exposed to.
If the society is not resistant to stupid ideas and need to rely on corporations and politicians to police information, that's a malfunctioning society.
> There is a part of me that dislikes this level of insight someone can have into my life and habits ( yes, it is intended for owner use, but the data is there, neatly organized for someone to access ).
Well this is already happening. Google and facebook for example earns basically all of their money from this. They replaced advertisment middle men because they can track and quantize human behaviours and identities. They do it because they are able to aggregate the data and provide API for marketing people.
This is a tool that brings it closer to you as the creator of the data. it doesn't do anything new just exposes what's going on.
If you are able to open pages through EU check out data processing partners from GDPR consent you have to accept. Lists on every professionally built services are long. There are literally thousands of companies accessing, aggregating, processing and reselling the data and their analysis.
The tools you are afraid of already exist and are commercially available.
Well, this is interesting because, subset of people deciding one is "radioactive" is very small compared to whole society, but in general the society is selforganized. There is no oppression. People have money and power because other people give it to them.
I guess people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. I don't see other reason "western" societies don't change people in power when they actually can.
Depending on the context this is either simply false or a truism. And thus imho offers no real informational value.
You can't design complex system without some buiding blocks which basically definition of 'complex', but you can design a complex system before it's deployed and it can succeed.
Itreatively designed system can hit a scalabilty wall or plateu where adding features is slower that a redesign. An evolving system design is a subject to a local minima of scalability and it needs careful apporach to maintain it.
This sounds kinda like a rephrased "there's no problem that can't be solved by adding another abstraction layer".
"Lobbyist help politicians accomplish what they already wanted to do."
Absolutely not. This is expertise.
Lobbying is persuasion. Those are two different things. Purpose of lobbyingis to achieve specific decisions. If those decisions are defined by objective expertise, then they are alined but lobbying usually have different goals.
No. You gotta be extra careful when you introduce relativistic mass.
Photon has momentum, zero rest mass. Energy mass equivalence says that you can annihilate mass to create a massless particle. This is true for all the observers.
Relativistic mass is a perceived mass dependent on the observer.
That's the same if you're a contractor or work on per hour basis.
Everyone's time has value. It's just more visible in certain cases. Streaming and other modern entertainment stars are not the only ones who have this problem. If fact it's true for everyone.
I guess it's kinda like with terminal disease. Everyone will die and noone knows how much time they have ahead, but when you get a kind of tangible upper limit then suddenly this awarness materializes, even though it shouldn't change much. I think the parallel is that when you can estimate how much money you could get for your time it's harder to discard it. If your time were worth the same without your knowledge it'd be easier. It's just matter of being aware of the number.