Charles Haynes [31/07/07 10:22 +0530]:
That matches my casual observations... but if one assumes that
Hinduism is a syncretism of the various indigenous religious beliefs
then what does it mean to talk about Hinduism as a thing? Is it useful
It probably makes the same kind of logic the european
On 7/31/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Haynes [31/07/07 09:58 +0530]:
> >FWIW it seems to me from admittedly casual observation that while
> >Hinduism might have animistic elements, it clearly has worship of
> >non-animist gods as an important, seemingly primary - e
Charles Haynes [31/07/07 09:58 +0530]:
FWIW it seems to me from admittedly casual observation that while
Hinduism might have animistic elements, it clearly has worship of
non-animist gods as an important, seemingly primary - even central
element.
Let us put it this way - hinduism is the sort of
On 7/30/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I look at definitions of animism, and compare that with what I have been
> taught as a Hindu, the only conclusion I can reach is that Hinduism is
> animism - perhaps organized animism. Does that make it religion?
Animism is a religion so
On 7/30/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 30 Jul 2007 7:47 pm, Lawnun wrote:
>
> The other question I have is whether patents are given for products or for
> the
> product plus the process by which that product is made. For example is it
> possible to patent a single piece "b
On Monday 30 Jul 2007 9:45 pm, Lawnun wrote:
> To take your guilty before proven innocent criminal example a little
> father, it's equivalent to throwing out a perfectly workable system that
> happens to have some failings just because some (but by no means most, or
> even a great many) innocent in
>
> This is vaguely reminiscent of "Guilty until proven innocent"
>
> I patent something that already exists and get away with it, and start
> earning
> money on my patent from people who don't know it exists. Eventually
> someone
> comes along who disputes the patent. He then has to appeal to the
On Monday 30 Jul 2007 7:47 pm, Lawnun wrote:
> Patents, unlike trade secrets, also force knowledge to the fore.
This is an interesting statement that manages to hide more about knowledge
than one might imagine.
Thousands of technologies and processes go unpatented, and the results of that
knowl
On Monday 30 Jul 2007 3:10 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:02:49PM +0530, shiv sastry wrote:
> > This is where the controversy about patenting old and well known stuff
> > comes in.
>
> there is no controversy - old and well known stuff can't be patented. it
> gets patent
In addition to Rishab's fine points, I wanted to add that (at least the U.S.
patent office) has begun to recognize this. Recently, in conjunction with
N.Y. Law School, the office unveiled a program whereby folks can sign up and
contribute prior art to relevant patents that are undergoing the appli
http://blog.shunya.net/shunyas_blog/2007/07/a-prologue-to-t.html
Report on historic treatment of Jews in India.
-- Charles
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:02:49PM +0530, shiv sastry wrote:
> This is where the controversy about patenting old and well known stuff comes
> in.
there is no controversy - old and well known stuff can't be patented. it gets
patented only because overworked patent offices don't find the reference
On Monday 30 Jul 2007 10:52 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
> Patents were introduced to increase sharing of knowledge. Till then
> professional knowledge ("intellectual property") was kept as closely
> held guild and trade secrets.
>
> Patents are intended to increase sharing of knowledge.
In fact peop
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:17:57PM +0530, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote:
> Anyway; this only applies to CRTs where the screen has been maximized.
> Also, it makes no allowance for usability related productivity loss
> which would be quite significant.
Kill standby and wall warts -- a switchable power
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:17:57PM +0530, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote:
> Anyway; this only applies to CRTs where the screen has been maximized.
yeah it shouldn't make any difference to LCDs where the lamp is on for black
pixels too.
On 7/30/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> apparently, "Black Google Would Save 750 Megawatt-hours a Year".
>
> www.blackle.com
Old news by now I would have thought.
Anyway; this only applies to CRTs where the screen has been maximized.
Also, it makes no allowance for usability r
apparently, "Black Google Would Save 750 Megawatt-hours a Year".
www.blackle.com
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:13:31AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> And another one (one of the banned ones) was a woman with a massive
> cleavage and deeply low cut blouse washing clothes at a riverbank.. and
> looks like she's having an orgasm every minute that she's washing a pair
> of und
18 matches
Mail list logo