SHP Forums

Well, I don't know if this qualifies as "cool and interesting," but it's definitely bizarre: Arkansas Woman Attempts to Flee Police on Power Wheels Toy Truck.

DeadPoolX wrote:Well, I don't know if this qualifies as "cool and interesting," but it's definitely bizarre: Arkansas Woman Attempts to Flee Police on Power Wheels Toy Truck.

Watch out, Colombian Man. Arkansas Woman might be giving you a run for your money. XD

First hints of dark matter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22155222

a while back, Tawm posted a series of photos of "Urban Decay." Here are a few more examples. http://grigjr.deviantart.com/art/Urban-Decay2-79333494
http://www.thephotoargus.com/inspiratio ... ay-beauty/
http://www.noupe.com/photography/50-stu ... raphy.html
http://myscienceacademy.org/2013/04/14/ ... the-world/
http://abandonedography.com/

So sad, yet so beautiful.

Wow, there are a number of really good images there. I especially like the surreal looking one with the sand and the doorways.

Swallowed by the sands of time.

The one I like the most is the overgrown factory. Beautiful.

New Zealand Government Announces That Software Will No Longer Be Patentable

http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen ... atentable/

This is an interesting concept. I can see both sides of the fence. In my view, an invention is a technique, method, or physical item (or combination of such in a new way that has never been done before). I somewhat view software as an implementation of a technique or method, not a technique or method itself. If a software package is patentable because of what it does, then what and how it does that should be patentable. A new style of user interface (such as the first graphical user interface), or the first time data may be correlated and presented in a new way.. The fact that it is implemented in C or JAVA shouldn't matter. By that token, software patentability is rather moot. Patent the technique or method, and your software implementation is protected.

..dane

Creators/inventors need to be able earn a profit on their endeavors, but all technology and even civilization, too, is built on top of what came before it. Having the Disney laws holding everything tied up in copyright and patent in perpetuity is a drag on us all. Patent and copyright law needs to go back to something like what it used to be. Long enough for some reasonable profit, but short enough for others to be able to build on top of it. And some things should never be allowed to be copyrighted/patented. Case in point. The test that Angelina Jolie had was more than $4,000 and it is not covered by insurance. This puts it out of reach of many. The reason that it is so expensive is that Myriad Genetics holds the patent on the BRCA gene. The presence of that gene put her at a near 90% chance of developing breast cancer.

Oh don't get me started on that.. I just _discovered_ water, so I'm going to patent it. That's no more absurd than getting a patent on a gene that you did not CREATE, you just DISCOVERED. You cannot patent helium or argon. You can patent a way to TEST for it, or a way to DO something with it, but you cannot patent something that naturally exists without your help. But somehow that's what a lot of the medical field is getting away with. It's ludicrous.

And yes, as someone with his name on at least one patent, I'm all for patent protection. But I agree, it should be for a reasonable, limited time. What length of time is "reasonable" is subjective of course (is 20 years long enough to recover a patent that is the result of USD$10B research? 25? 30? What about a patent that only cost USD$250K of research before figuring out something worth patenting?).

..dane

They are just incredible. Thanks, Collector!

Those were awesome - but the bonus one is amazing.