Matches for ninjashogun, 1788 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Tue Oct 14 00:39:54 UTC 2014 <nubbins`> wait, ninjashogun is a plant?!
Tue Oct 14 00:39:45 UTC 2014 <assbot> ninjashogun +v failed; L1: 0, L2: -4
Tue Oct 14 00:34:57 UTC 2014 <BingoBoingo> Well I dunno that ninjashogun has ever read anything. It might taint his seekrit ideas with prior art.
Tue Oct 14 00:33:47 UTC 2014 <mircea_popescu> not like ninjashogun can come and say "hei guise, i got 6months in, that's it rite ???"
Tue Oct 14 00:15:13 UTC 2014 <mircea_popescu> all this ninjashogun bs polluting the logs... i keep skipping, who knows what valuable contribution of some legitimate participant falls through cracks thusly
Tue Oct 14 00:09:16 UTC 2014 <mircea_popescu> ninjashogun: For exmaple, i would rate you a 1 (easily) based on our previous conversation, but it wouldn't accept it. << such pandering.
Mon Oct 13 23:33:44 UTC 2014 <mike_c> [19:33] <ninjashogun> have you had a look at the logs? Usually it's barely legal porn and random derping.
Mon Oct 13 23:28:50 UTC 2014 <mike_c> upping ninjashogun is so masochistic.
Mon Oct 13 23:23:06 UTC 2014 <assbot> ninjashogun +v failed; L1: 0, L2: -4
Mon Oct 13 23:22:33 UTC 2014 <ben_vulpes> ninjashogun, PeterL: I know! let's build a rocket with RFNO!
Mon Oct 13 23:12:57 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> see http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=230 for example. Patents in chemistry are super super specific, based on actually synthesized things with very precise enablement steps only, and don't cover classes of things at all.
Mon Oct 13 23:12:09 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> PeterL - It actually matches something really intreresting from patent law. Chemistry is actually one of the sciences where you need to fully e.g. synthesize the thing, actually make it, since it's considered an "unpredictable" art. In other areas it's just enough for it to be obvoius that the design works a certain way.
Mon Oct 13 23:11:32 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> PeterL good point.
Mon Oct 13 23:09:55 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> PeterL - in chemistry, if something exists it doesn't imply that it's chemically possible?
Mon Oct 13 23:08:26 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> PeterL, well, sure, but if you call me an idiot and make an impossibility argument, then a counterexample weakens your case. It also makes it hard to collaborate. It's why I wondered if you ever got any projects to fruition, i.e. actually made anything. There is a continuum from idea through execution and name-caling isn't usually on there.
Mon Oct 13 23:07:08 UTC 2014 <PeterL> ninjashogun: NASA also put a guy on the moon, but there are no companies doing that (yet)
Mon Oct 13 23:06:07 UTC 2014 <*> ninjashogun rolls eyes.
Mon Oct 13 23:05:46 UTC 2014 <ben_vulpes> if the brits can do it, why can't ninjashogun?
Mon Oct 13 23:05:17 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> PeterL - Your point is okay but of course this is a counterexample http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Helios in the sense that this has a payload, and flies indefinitely. So the question is more one of degree than absolute feasability.
Mon Oct 13 23:04:29 UTC 2014 <ninjashogun> PeterL - yes, we discussed this previously, it was a condition of speaking with you about it.