Slashdot Mirror

That's funny, because the DOE says that, "In some cases, water levels were so low that power production at some power plants had to be stopped or reduced." Oh, and there is another article on the subject here. I could probably find more info for you, but I promised myself to only spend a couple of minutes googling the topic.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "certain areas?" Do you suppose this is some conspiracy to thwart your world views with facts?

I don't have to pretend, that's what free market DID do before intervention by government, that really started in 1913.

Free market DID create all sorts of things and it DID provide all sorts of research. From airplanes, to cars, to telephones (so the phone infrastructure), and electrical power plants (and that infrastructure) and roads and rail roads as well, which were destroyed during the ridiculous 'new deal'.

The transistor is all pure research, but it was useful and it was done privately. Same with thousands of other things, from chemicals to electronics to medicines and metallurgy and tools and even rockets. Even physics and math and chemistry and medicine models, not just practice, but theory. Gov't was in fact tiny before it got itself the power to print money and collect taxes that were not proportionate to people's spending, but instead proportionate to people's earnings, which threw gov't, as a spending item off balance with the rest of the economy.

Roads are done privately all the time, I like driving on private roads, they are never closed and they are always better than public. The Internet's precursor were really phones, and the infrastructure there was private UNTIL gov't stepped in and destroyed it and created one giant monopoly destroying thousands of competitors in the process.

If you want to avoid a catastrophic shock to the system when energy prices spike with no ready to deploy alternatives already going, however, it can't.

- actually it's gov't complacency, liking to protect its preferred monopolies and power is what causes the shocks. Market without gov't distortion knows about the coming change in energy by looking at prices, the futures contracts and options. All that gov't tries to do leads to higher prices, but unfortunately that's just inflation and it confuses the market, doesn't let it know IN TIME whether there is a need for more energy production and for new investments into any sort of alternative energy resources.

There WILL be a shock and it is going to be caused by the government that can't even understand simple arithmetic.

As to oil spiking in price - only in DOLLARS, but it's falling in price in real money, because there is less usage of oil overall in US because of the depression US is in (also caused by gov't resource misallocations and moral hazards and money printing and regulations that cause massive spikes in labor and other business costs in basic terms.)

You need much better than 150-200C to run turbines efficiently. Much, much better preferably.

And generating electricity is not the only useful thing you can do with geothermal energy. With temperatures as low as 70C you can use it for heating (even ~55C is enough if your heating system is modern enough). And this has been used on a large scale for decades already. For instance, in the Paris area, 170,000 housing equivalents are currently heated with geothermal energy (and no, nothing to do with heat pumps).

Right now, I belive ScriptNo is considered better than NotScript. If nothing else, the installation is easier (no need to input a password to run it), and the UI is better. No idea on technical merits though.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf

Apparently the roughly approximate arm of a roughly approximate man would run in the 3.5-6.5 kg range.

If, in the spirit of wild-ass guessing and general laziness, we assume that your amputee-at-the-elbow loses half their arm mass and needs some, but not a whole lot, of headroom for purely structural replacement, you are still looking at 1.5-3ish kg of battery. A good Li-ion or Li-polymer will give you ~200Wh/kg, so 300-600Wh.

By comparison, the Nokia BL-5K battery in the C7 is a 3.7v, 1.2Ah unit: ~4.5Wh. An arm-battery would be somewhere between 65 and 130 times the capacity...

The other problem is the presence of search data when clicking through to unencrypted sites, if they are google customers. That means google's SSL service is a lie and your unencrypted searches will be sent to certain customers regardless of using http or https.

It seems sorta common sense that if you click on a link to a site, that site will know you clicked on it and where you're going. Similarly, if you have a cookie on a site, that site will know when you've been there and will be able to correlate all kinds of things you typed into that site with links, etc.

Google possesses this information, they can sell it. That your request travelled over HTTPS means it's secret between you and google, what either side of the transmission does with the information it obtained is strictly the business of either party.

Anything you can do with a search result from https://google.com/, like for instance, sharing a search result with a friend, google can do with your click stream, like, for instance, sharing it with their friend.

I don't care if customers get my search results. That is google's business model. My problem is they offer an ssl service, but ignore expected ssl behaviors in favor of their business model. If you perform a search using the ssl service, then your search should be encrypted. Always. However, google forwards your search request in the referer header to their customers, regardless of their customer's usage of ssl. That means if you click through to an unencrypted site, the fact that you logged into google to use their ssl service was meaningless.

So saying google's ssl service is a good thing because it promotes a greater adoption of ssl, imo, is wrong. SSL adoption is only a good thing if implemented properly.

Ha I found it "digitaldesk" all one word.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-330.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5772530828816089246

I believe this movie dated june 1991 is the actual movie I watched in '93 at the IEEE meeting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

The movie is well worth watching and I promise my immortal /. Karma that it is not a rickroll.

Other than resolution and 3d acceleration, nothing has really changed in the past 20 years WRT this specific technology.

Makes sense to me; we won't be cooling the core at any usage level below 30TW. If we were directly tapping the core, and there were no radioactive replenishment, the thermal energy comes to about 20,000,000,000 years at current usage levels. I'm not sure where along the line we would run into magnetic field problems, but it will be way after I'm dead, so it doesn't matter. Still, not a fart in a hurricane. ;-)

Probably, the tokenizer doesn't recognize (http://www.google.com) because of the lack of space between the paren and the ( http://www.google.com/ )

4%? try 50%

when was the announcement? Sept?
the stock was 200, now it's 80.

http://www.google.com/finance?cid=672501

ot so simply.
As people are getting their 'bills' they are down grading and peple are leaving. Last qtr they started dropping in revenues
Stock decline
http://www.google.com/finance?cid=672501

Still no profit:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:NFLX&fstype=ii

ot so simply.
As people are getting their 'bills' they are down grading and peple are leaving. Last qtr they started dropping in revenues
Stock decline
http://www.google.com/finance?cid=672501

Still no profit:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:NFLX&fstype=ii

And also ban slashdot for posting this URL
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5uj8jux just for fun.

Why not just deal with it directly so we can fill up cars, trucks, buses, trains and airplanes with MAGMA instead of petroleum products? The waste products are simply heat and rocks. It might be a bit of a problem disposing of warm rocks from an airplane but with little parachutes it shouldn't be a problem.

Handling magma shouldn't be that difficult - sort of a big super insulated coffee mug would be required. Of course, we could get real fancy and move to something like magnetic suspension in a vacuum eventually.

This would also solve power problems for many portable devices by simply using a small Stirling engine running off the heat of a small amount of magma. Of course, proper insulation is going to be required as this brings a whole new dimension to the idea of a hot notebook computer in your lap. But the "battery" life could be a few days instead of only hours. How small could a thermal-to-electric conversion system be? Could we have magma-powered iPhones soon?

I do suggest watching the movie Crack in the World, a 1965 movie about tapping magma for an unlimited source of power for the world. Our friends at Google have made this available to everyone who might be interested.

No it isn't. The Latvian Lat is weaker against the euro in the last couple of years. Sure it is up a little this month (due to the euro having some issues), but that's off of multi-year lows.

You seriously the LVL is the "stronger" item in: http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1319647789518&chddm=1845016&cmpto=CURRENCY:AUDEUR&cmptdms=0&q=CURRENCY:LVLEUR&

The sliding idea to unlock the device was new and the engineer who has invented it should has his or her invention protected for a while.

The company doing the innovation already has a big jump start because they where the first one doing the thing and if it's a thing of reasonable complexity, it will take everybody a while to catch up, which is really all that is needed to profit from innovation. See the iPad, everybody is struggling to match it, no need to throw in patents to make it even harder and stifle the competition.

Also about the iPhone lock I might want to point you to this little NintendoDS demo I wrote before the iPhone was even announced: Windstille: Demonstration of door interaction, notice how the door is opened at 0:20? Doing a trivial slide to unlock action is not rocked science, it comes pretty natural when you toy around with touch interfaces.

Since dates and time frames are the subject, I'm just going to comment on your sig since it's tangentally related.

3.5GY - 4GY, not 3GY.

one link I found places life at, at least, 3.85GY.
http://books.google.com/books?id=csJlqn4BokIC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=fossilized+bacterial+mounds+australia&source=bl&ots=Sdw9htUNHx&sig=kOTPe0YO_Y0snxGJ2XGnLaLQa_o&hl=en&ei=ThWoTvmhCfT5sQL33eHsDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

<SARCASM>
Damn you 3GY young earthers. Trying to be trendy like the 6KY young earthers while still trying to fit into the scientific community! :-P
</SARCASM>

Apparently some serious photography was available as early as 1794. (source: Baltimore Afro-American - May 11, 1794)

On a related note, I was quite surprised to find out (via the same paper) that people liked to ride through the prairie on their 8-HP transaxle lawn tractor. A 36-inch mower, no less!

I think someone already beat them to it.

Not really. A drop of $1 over a shareprice of $180 isn't a steep drop. In fact, most the market did somewhat fall that day. Looking at the monthly trend however, IBM and Apple are the only ones that have had a significant dip over the last month (google finance on IBM).

Excellent question -- I was very surprised to see absolutely no analysis of this in TFA!

Doing a very quick test googling my own blog from https://google.com/ the referer I end up seeing is like this:

"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrionv.com%2F&ei=fjynTpC4KoSqiQLFvezYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHi_Ia5lQINhrMRGTJyRLFc4ZOajw"

I don't have any Google ads on my site, so I guess this would be in the "Ordinary Site (http: = non-SSL)" category, which TFA claims gets no referer -- but I do get a referer, and it's an intermediary redirect that's on http, leading the browser to happily send that as referer info.

Following the same link from https://encrypted.google.com/ shows no referer, indicating that it either went through no intermediate redirect, or an https one (you can see by testing that there is one, also on https://encrypted.google.com/) that didn't pass on referer info from the browser.

SSL pages on my own site don't seem to be in index, but the intermediate redirects I see on other things like mailing list archives that are in there look the same -- http: redirects from https://google.com/ and https: redirects from https://encrypted.google.com/

I think it's just sending everything through an http redirect so everyone sees referer data, unless you search from encrypted.google.com.

Excellent question -- I was very surprised to see absolutely no analysis of this in TFA!

Doing a very quick test googling my own blog from https://google.com/ the referer I end up seeing is like this:

"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrionv.com%2F&ei=fjynTpC4KoSqiQLFvezYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHi_Ia5lQINhrMRGTJyRLFc4ZOajw"

I don't have any Google ads on my site, so I guess this would be in the "Ordinary Site (http: = non-SSL)" category, which TFA claims gets no referer -- but I do get a referer, and it's an intermediary redirect that's on http, leading the browser to happily send that as referer info.

Following the same link from https://encrypted.google.com/ shows no referer, indicating that it either went through no intermediate redirect, or an https one (you can see by testing that there is one, also on https://encrypted.google.com/) that didn't pass on referer info from the browser.

SSL pages on my own site don't seem to be in index, but the intermediate redirects I see on other things like mailing list archives that are in there look the same -- http: redirects from https://google.com/ and https: redirects from https://encrypted.google.com/

I think it's just sending everything through an http redirect so everyone sees referer data, unless you search from encrypted.google.com.

Excellent question -- I was very surprised to see absolutely no analysis of this in TFA!

Doing a very quick test googling my own blog from https://google.com/ the referer I end up seeing is like this:

"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrionv.com%2F&ei=fjynTpC4KoSqiQLFvezYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHi_Ia5lQINhrMRGTJyRLFc4ZOajw"

I don't have any Google ads on my site, so I guess this would be in the "Ordinary Site (http: = non-SSL)" category, which TFA claims gets no referer -- but I do get a referer, and it's an intermediary redirect that's on http, leading the browser to happily send that as referer info.

Following the same link from https://encrypted.google.com/ shows no referer, indicating that it either went through no intermediate redirect, or an https one (you can see by testing that there is one, also on https://encrypted.google.com/) that didn't pass on referer info from the browser.

SSL pages on my own site don't seem to be in index, but the intermediate redirects I see on other things like mailing list archives that are in there look the same -- http: redirects from https://google.com/ and https: redirects from https://encrypted.google.com/

I think it's just sending everything through an http redirect so everyone sees referer data, unless you search from encrypted.google.com.

Excellent question -- I was very surprised to see absolutely no analysis of this in TFA!

Doing a very quick test googling my own blog from https://google.com/ the referer I end up seeing is like this:

"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrionv.com%2F&ei=fjynTpC4KoSqiQLFvezYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHi_Ia5lQINhrMRGTJyRLFc4ZOajw"

I don't have any Google ads on my site, so I guess this would be in the "Ordinary Site (http: = non-SSL)" category, which TFA claims gets no referer -- but I do get a referer, and it's an intermediary redirect that's on http, leading the browser to happily send that as referer info.

Following the same link from https://encrypted.google.com/ shows no referer, indicating that it either went through no intermediate redirect, or an https one (you can see by testing that there is one, also on https://encrypted.google.com/) that didn't pass on referer info from the browser.

SSL pages on my own site don't seem to be in index, but the intermediate redirects I see on other things like mailing list archives that are in there look the same -- http: redirects from https://google.com/ and https: redirects from https://encrypted.google.com/

I think it's just sending everything through an http redirect so everyone sees referer data, unless you search from encrypted.google.com.

Excellent question -- I was very surprised to see absolutely no analysis of this in TFA!

Doing a very quick test googling my own blog from https://google.com/ the referer I end up seeing is like this:

"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrionv.com%2F&ei=fjynTpC4KoSqiQLFvezYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHi_Ia5lQINhrMRGTJyRLFc4ZOajw"

I don't have any Google ads on my site, so I guess this would be in the "Ordinary Site (http: = non-SSL)" category, which TFA claims gets no referer -- but I do get a referer, and it's an intermediary redirect that's on http, leading the browser to happily send that as referer info.

Following the same link from https://encrypted.google.com/ shows no referer, indicating that it either went through no intermediate redirect, or an https one (you can see by testing that there is one, also on https://encrypted.google.com/) that didn't pass on referer info from the browser.

SSL pages on my own site don't seem to be in index, but the intermediate redirects I see on other things like mailing list archives that are in there look the same -- http: redirects from https://google.com/ and https: redirects from https://encrypted.google.com/

I think it's just sending everything through an http redirect so everyone sees referer data, unless you search from encrypted.google.com.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~artkuo/Passive_Walk/passive_walking.html

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=4&gs_id=a&xhr=t&q=McGeer+Passive+Dynamic+Walking

Best alert ever. And no confusing it with an actual emergency.

The other problem is the presence of search data when clicking through to unencrypted sites, if they are google customers. That means google's SSL service is a lie and your unencrypted searches will be sent to certain customers regardless of using http or https.

It seems sorta common sense that if you click on a link to a site, that site will know you clicked on it and where you're going. Similarly, if you have a cookie on a site, that site will know when you've been there and will be able to correlate all kinds of things you typed into that site with links, etc.

Google possesses this information, they can sell it. That your request travelled over HTTPS means it's secret between you and google, what either side of the transmission does with the information it obtained is strictly the business of either party.

Anything you can do with a search result from https://google.com/, like for instance, sharing a search result with a friend, google can do with your click stream, like, for instance, sharing it with their friend.

I wish there was a chrome extension to hide referrer data just so that I could avoid that.

Something like, say, this?

Really wish I could go to microsoft.com, enter my product key and sell them back their license (or donate to charity? I know, I know, they should be using linux, but still).

And if you don't go the C compatibility route, wouldn't it make more sense to throw an exception when trying to treat a non-boolean like a boolean instead of saying "everything but boolean true is false"?

Anyway, I just googled it and it appears that this behavior has been accepted as a bug. Well, partially. If the bug is fixed as requested in the bug report, everything will default to true now, with only null and false being false.

Exactly. I can totally see how the huge changes it's made since 10 years ago can be confusing.

http://code.google.com/p/jdart/

Web is boring ;) Let's see Dart running on the Desktop.

"The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction."

I read that Malthus recanted his position in a later edition, but no one pays attention to that.
    http://conservapedia.com/Robert_Malthus
"There were other contemporaries who accepted the Malthusian theory but regarded the policy recommendations as both harsh and ineffective. In a later edition of his Essay, Malthus admitted the probability that "having found the bow bent too much one way, I was induced to bend it too much the other, in order to make it straight." "

See for the quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KRQAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427

And also:
http://factoidz.com/criticism-of-malthusian-theory-of-population/
"(v) Malthusian theory of population gave no proof of his assertion that population increased exactly in geometric progression and food production increased exactly in arithmetic progression. It has been rightly pointed out that population and food supply does not change in accordance with these mathematical series. Growth of population and food supply cannot be expected to show the precision or accuracy of such series. However, Malthus in the later edition of his book did not insist on these mathematical terms and only held that there was inherent tendency in population to outrun the means of subsistence. We have seen above that even this is far from being true."

More: http://www.google.com/#q=malthus+"Later+edition"

A general issue is that while problems can grow exponentially, so can solutions. Example:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

"The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction."

I read that Malthus recanted his position in a later edition, but no one pays attention to that.
    http://conservapedia.com/Robert_Malthus
"There were other contemporaries who accepted the Malthusian theory but regarded the policy recommendations as both harsh and ineffective. In a later edition of his Essay, Malthus admitted the probability that "having found the bow bent too much one way, I was induced to bend it too much the other, in order to make it straight." "

See for the quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KRQAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427

And also:
http://factoidz.com/criticism-of-malthusian-theory-of-population/
"(v) Malthusian theory of population gave no proof of his assertion that population increased exactly in geometric progression and food production increased exactly in arithmetic progression. It has been rightly pointed out that population and food supply does not change in accordance with these mathematical series. Growth of population and food supply cannot be expected to show the precision or accuracy of such series. However, Malthus in the later edition of his book did not insist on these mathematical terms and only held that there was inherent tendency in population to outrun the means of subsistence. We have seen above that even this is far from being true."

More: http://www.google.com/#q=malthus+"Later+edition"

A general issue is that while problems can grow exponentially, so can solutions. Example:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

He isn't. See what he said on this very topic in his first book!

Why would you run it as root for the update function instead of using your distro's repositories?

1. The repository might not be current with Google rapid-fire release schedule
2. You might want Chrome rather than Chromium

I was rather surprised to note that Gentoo was current with Chromium. Firefox is still at 3.6.20. Still no Chrome though.

you still would not run it as root and AFAIK no linux build of chrome contains the auto updating pieces. also if your distro uses either deb or rpm you could just use google's own repository: http://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/

So Linux really is more secure than Windows! ;) You, er, left out a '+' in the above URL. Go figure.

Canon EOS cameras can do just that (See OSK-E3). Unfortunately it's been cracked so it is no longer very useful.

Go figure.

That's a fairly new definition

- that's not true. This is a very old definition of what a free market is.

You are right that monopolies do not promote free market, but monopolies are only created by governments. There are no monopolies in markets that are unregulated by gov't force, there are economies of scale, and any economy of scale can seem like a monopoly, but it's not. The reason it's is that there are no artificial barriers to entry into the market with a natural economy of scale, but with government the barriers to entry are not natural, they are artificial.

There is nothing wrong with economies of scale, they provide highest quality, cheapest goods to the markets. Eventually technology changes, new efficiencies can be found and there are new entries into markets where there used to be just a few economies of scale, so those are not actual monopolies.

This is how gov't creates monopolies.

Dunbar's Number

Addendum: This appears to be a bug in NSS, which is maintained by Mozilla, not Chrome. It also is reproducible on Mac, not just Windows. In addition it is not considered a security bug and is publicly view-able in the Chrome bug tracker. More reading.

It appears to manifest on Mac as well. Read more.

And people who pay attention to history, understand that is how the US got there too. I remember as a school child learning about Francis Cabot LowellWho "borrowed" the technology to build a power loom in the US and thereby allowing (with the cotton gin/etc) the US to become an exporter of textiles rather than cotton.

Actually the property (a CPU core) is only being used by one person at a time, it just cycles very rapidly between them.

Hyperthreading.

Same for memory or disk space: each sector can only be used by one person at a time.

The compcache project aims to compress disk cache and swap files, as a modern-day spiritual successor to Connectix's RAM Doubler: "With compcache at hypervisor level, we can compress any part of guest memory transparently - this is true for any type of Guest OS (Linux, Windows etc.). This should allow running more number of VMs for given amount of total host memory." If data from multiple hosting accounts gets compressed into the same sector, then multiple people are using that sector.

Or to put it another way: Multiple people can be watching the same TV set showing the same movie at once. Therefore, a disc with a movie on it is not property. What did I miss?

He paid for his education with military service

So you're saying that he took advantage of a program funded by federal taxes in order to get an education? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it sort of reminds me of Dan Quayle, staunch opponent of affirmative action, who just happened to get into law school via an affirmative action program.

Actually, career biochemists tell me the dipeptide is particularly neurotoxic if not ingested as part of a more complete amino acid chain.

That makes little sense. Your body is very good at hydrolyzing peptide bonds, so it should be broken down rapidly into individual amino acids, the same as if it is present in a longer polypeptide chain. Research supports this rational expectation. Being a career neuroscientist, myself, most of the people I talk to every day are career biochemists or other types of bioscientists, so "some scientist told me" carries about as much weight with me as "I heard it from some guy in a bar." Can these unnamed "scientists" cite peer-reviewed research to support their assertion?

More to the point, while I dislike aspartame for scientific and rational reasons, and I dislike injecting mercury into my blood for scientific and rational reasons, to claim any of these causes some specific effect requires some epic level wizardry.

It would certainly require very high-quality research to support a claim that sounds so obviously ridiculous on its face, and that is not consistent with a large body of research and biological knowledge. But a lot of it would not be technically difficult. What is the evidence that the dipeptide is not broken down rapidly after oral administration? What specific biological targets does it bind to at concentrations comparable to those present in the body after it is administered orally? How, specifically, does it act on that target to produce neurotoxicity?

Google stands up for its products by licensing the IP they need.

The few actual Google products which run Android have licensed the IP. Did you think that the majority (all?) of those android devices on the market were Google products? Sorry.

oh and Microsoft, please sue amazon please, that might turn out to be fun.

Dear Dell623. We at Amazon regret to inform you that we are already licensing Microsofts IP, a fact that has obviously has been kept a secret when someone as well informed as yourself doesnt know about it.

this is pure extortion 'you violate our patents we can't tell you which ones'. Why don't you pay us a small percentage of your sales to make the problem go away?

When they sign the standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry, they find out which patents. Barnes and Noble has skillfully tricked some people that arent well informed into thinking that Microsoft refused to disclose the information, when in actuality it was B&N that refused to enter licensing talks.