...patent offices need more resources to identify bad patents and prior art.
I used to contract for the USPTO. If there's one thing they're not for lack of, it's resources. Of course, they'll squawk about not having enough examiners, deriding the backlog in their system (I heard the CFO repeatedly call it the five hundred million dollar problem -- and he was serious). All the while ignoring the fact that their backlog problem (if it's even a problem), is a direct result of myriad ignorant policies (many discussed here ad infinitum) incentivizing more filings; worthless, wasteful, defensive or trollish filings.
Further, with regard to the USPTO at least, they are culturally ill-equipped to be charged with identifying poor patents. In my two years there, I didn't once get wind of the sentiment that patents should be rare, worthy beasts. Oddly, it did seem as though the trademark group, the red-headed stepchild of the patent office, viewed their charge in this light.
It's double the number of bits. If you look at the largest value a 16 bit number or a 32 bit number can store, its not "double" in size.
When it comes down to it, they're just bits, how you use them is up to you. I suppose that's a lot like saying IPv6 "quadruples" the number of addresses of IPv4 -- you know, 128 bits versus 32 bits. I mean, they're just bits, right?
It's only a tuple because print is a statement, not a function. This statement, sans parens, allows me to pass it an n-length tuple and it concatenates the __repr__ of these items into a nice string, separated by commas...
Now, I agree that perhaps print *shouldn't* be a statement. Perhaps I *shouldn't* be abusing it so, but I am. Of course, the 2to3 tool will no doubt patch up my unpythonic ways, and I'm alright with that. But you and GP are incorrect -- there _will_ be backward incompatibilities in my not-too-distant future.
I disagree that it's the most common case, but as the PEP you pointed to mentions:
Luckily, as it is a statement in Python 2, print can be detected and replaced reliably and non-ambiguously by an automated tool, so there should be no major porting problems (provided someone writes the mentioned tool). Works for me.
...the function call approach works in both 2.5 and 3.0... I call bullshit:
C:\Documents and Settings\bullshit>python Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Apr 18 2007, 08:51:08) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> print 'Old approach in python', 2.5 Old approach in python 2.5 >>> print('Function call in python', 2.5) ('Function call in python', 2.5) >>>
The function call approach outputs prints a tuple to stdout -- quite different.
That dubya in WAN does not stand for Wireless. It stands for "Wide:, as in, as wide as the internets. That Belkin you speak of creates its own little LAN; a WLAN, if you will.
I'm running 2.20.3 on Ubuntu Gutsy...
when working on an indented line and press enter, the next line is indented the same distance. Edit > Preferences > Editor > Enable automatic indentation
When the cursor is next to a bracket (brace, etc.) {([ ])}, or even quotes ' " " ', it highlights one that matches it. Edit > Preferences > View > Highlight matching bracket
I'm not sure when the features came in, but perhaps you need a minor version upgrade?
We let Microsoft and other big American companies con Congress into this Mr. Gates, circa 1991:
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors. I enjoy a good MS bashing just like the next slashbot, but lest we not forget our history. It's only recently that ol' Gatesie has changed his tune.
Wrong. It's meant to protect you from a society of idiots whom would systemically label you a jackass. There's a big difference. Any idiot can call you a jackass. Jackass.
If you can skip or stomach the first 80% or so, the last 20% is a pretty good read. It's a much better reasoned critique of the nature of the consulting beast. Specifically, he's attacking ThoughtWorks which I know little about, but he generally nails the sad state of software-hiring-by-accountants I see too much of.
On the other hand, for all its weaknesses, HTML offers all sorts of things that Word lacks (e.g. accessibility and reformatting for differetn devices, universal browser support, Net-friendly, strong semantics), and is probably good enough for most uses. Thoughts?
Bingo.
I just can't see how hard it would be to mod up a beautiful piece of javascript like TinyMCE into something closely resembling Google Docs. It could run locally, give you all the lovely versioning features, plus well-formed XHTML. All the "features" you get in a OOo or Word can even be hacked into the editor in a much cleaner fashion (proper handling of cites, footnotes as # links etc.).
The future is open-source...web-apps...on the desktop...or something.
The "Well I'll just switch to Linux then," almost seems to be the sysadmin equivalent of a tantrum in some cases. They threaten with a switch that they not only have no real intention of making, but indeed no idea what would be involved.
Well put. I never thought of it that way, but I'd been making that empty threat for years -- and they really were empty. I was lost without Windows. Sure, I'd boot into this or that linux partition, but I'd always end up snuggling back up to Windows -- usually for the Macrodobe products, but even the simple things would pull me in.
One day, about a year ago, I just didn't switch back. Just didn't think to. Eventually, when I _did_ need something done I only knew how to do in Windows, I'd just RDP into a Windows box and get 'er done. I still have that Windows partition, but it's been collecting dust for months now that I've wrapped my head around GimpShop and kicked Flash to the curb for webdev work.
I guess what I'm saying is, as you suggested, change is gradual. There's no better time than now to start getting comfortable with Ubuntu.
I happen to be working on a masters in the library school in parallel to the MLS cohort (right across the river in MD), and I've taken a number of their classes. Gloriously outdated class titles like "ISAR: Information Storage and Retrieval" abound. I've learned of the finer nuances of the differences systems and I agree it's not simple, also for the reasons in the GP post. I also agree that every system has its strengths, but what you librarians fail to see is that they all share a common, easily rectified weakness—a weakness that cannot be rectified by a folksonomy alone, as some (David Weinberger) would have you believe. It wouldn't be particularly hard to roll all of the monotonous, tedious effort of catalogers the world over into an artificial taxonomy—a folksonomy that could accommodate the hierarchy of each and every one of these ill conceived classifications.
The world doesn't need more trained, specialized catalogers—the world needs more people doing the cataloging, and this project is a good first step in that direction. Once we get this data, we can map to and emulate any and all classification the world over.
Any ISP logs every piece of information, remember the AOL search logs? The AOL search debacle wasn't "AOL as ISP" but "AOL as platform" -- that is, if an ISP really is just a bit pipe. This will, however, never broadly be the case if the telecoms have their way.
I'm surprised by how many people here seem to be very confused as to what the GPL actually requires. So what if Microsoft distributes GPL'd software -- they can do it all they want, so long as they distribute the code to any changes THEY make to this software. If they hacked any packages in Ubuntu, then yes, they'd have to abide by the GPL -- but ONLY for the GPL'd software. This doesn't mean they'd have to turn over the source code to Windows -- ever. Nor does it mean they're only protected because they just "pointed" to the software. They could host it on their servers for eternity -- more power to them if they did -- but the GPL cannot automagically change the licenses of their other applications.
...only if we were to modify it, would we run into any license provisions! Still short of the mark. Only if you were to distribute those modifications would you run into any restrictions.
And not in the relic sense -- it's certainly relevant. In the ginormous sense -- slow and lumbering. So focused on "enterprise" buzzwords (they're still pushing SOA!) that it's lost touch with the/. frontier...
But you really think it's IBM that's going to return the favor? Certainly, IBM has the biggest workfoce, GPL's a metric shit ton of code, etc, but they're just a services gig. It's now about the data...whoever owns the data owns us all -- and that who is Google (particularly if MS buys Yahoo as you jokingly suggested in your previous post). Maybe it's a big deal, maybe it ain't, but if Google really does become *the* web platform, we're all in for a new master...
Open source has a number of advantages, but one stands out as increasingly important...it let's *you* own your own data -- even if it's sitting off in Amazon's EC2 cloud, running on hardware you don't own, but software you still administer. Go ahead and fight this battle, and it's no doubt important, but MS is so passe -- we really ought to be thinking about the impending platform war, readying high quality FOSS alternatives to critical web apps, rather than worrying so much about what desktops we're running. The hula project had promised, until Novell nixed it (it's back as bongo, but still slow going). Twitter's becoming *the* presence platform, but can we really trust them with *our* data? Can we trust Google not to _upgrade_ their APIs?
Yours is a worthy battle but it's the wrong war. If you're waxing about tipping points, the world's already tottered that teeter. We've got a different war on our hands...
Slashdot Mirror
...patent offices need more resources to identify bad patents and prior art.I used to contract for the USPTO. If there's one thing they're not for lack of, it's resources. Of course, they'll squawk about not having enough examiners, deriding the backlog in their system (I heard the CFO repeatedly call it the five hundred million dollar problem -- and he was serious). All the while ignoring the fact that their backlog problem (if it's even a problem), is a direct result of myriad ignorant policies (many discussed here ad infinitum) incentivizing more filings; worthless, wasteful, defensive or trollish filings.
Further, with regard to the USPTO at least, they are culturally ill-equipped to be charged with identifying poor patents. In my two years there, I didn't once get wind of the sentiment that patents should be rare, worthy beasts. Oddly, it did seem as though the trademark group, the red-headed stepchild of the patent office, viewed their charge in this light.
It's only a tuple because print is a statement, not a function. This statement, sans parens, allows me to pass it an n-length tuple and it concatenates the __repr__ of these items into a nice string, separated by commas...
Now, I agree that perhaps print *shouldn't* be a statement. Perhaps I *shouldn't* be abusing it so, but I am. Of course, the 2to3 tool will no doubt patch up my unpythonic ways, and I'm alright with that. But you and GP are incorrect -- there _will_ be backward incompatibilities in my not-too-distant future.
Guido's Time Machine will cure what ails ya.
I sense that I already know Py3K somehow.
...the function call approach works in both 2.5 and 3.0... I call bullshit: The function call approach outputs prints a tuple to stdout -- quite different.Insightful? Not Funny? Mods, really?!
That dubya in WAN does not stand for Wireless. It stands for "Wide:, as in, as wide as the internets. That Belkin you speak of creates its own little LAN; a WLAN, if you will.
Wrong. It's meant to protect you from a society of idiots whom would systemically label you a jackass. There's a big difference. Any idiot can call you a jackass. Jackass.
Sure, unconstrained writing, for now. But there are countless applications with controlled vocabularies that stand to benefit today.
If you can skip or stomach the first 80% or so, the last 20% is a pretty good read. It's a much better reasoned critique of the nature of the consulting beast. Specifically, he's attacking ThoughtWorks which I know little about, but he generally nails the sad state of software-hiring-by-accountants I see too much of.
Bingo.
I just can't see how hard it would be to mod up a beautiful piece of javascript like TinyMCE into something closely resembling Google Docs. It could run locally, give you all the lovely versioning features, plus well-formed XHTML. All the "features" you get in a OOo or Word can even be hacked into the editor in a much cleaner fashion (proper handling of cites, footnotes as # links etc.).
The future is open-source...web-apps...on the desktop...or something.
Well put. I never thought of it that way, but I'd been making that empty threat for years -- and they really were empty. I was lost without Windows. Sure, I'd boot into this or that linux partition, but I'd always end up snuggling back up to Windows -- usually for the Macrodobe products, but even the simple things would pull me in.
One day, about a year ago, I just didn't switch back. Just didn't think to. Eventually, when I _did_ need something done I only knew how to do in Windows, I'd just RDP into a Windows box and get 'er done. I still have that Windows partition, but it's been collecting dust for months now that I've wrapped my head around GimpShop and kicked Flash to the curb for webdev work.
I guess what I'm saying is, as you suggested, change is gradual. There's no better time than now to start getting comfortable with Ubuntu.
...and find a massive amount of water to grow the algae in. Yeah, whereever will we find that ?I happen to be working on a masters in the library school in parallel to the MLS cohort (right across the river in MD), and I've taken a number of their classes. Gloriously outdated class titles like "ISAR: Information Storage and Retrieval" abound. I've learned of the finer nuances of the differences systems and I agree it's not simple, also for the reasons in the GP post. I also agree that every system has its strengths, but what you librarians fail to see is that they all share a common, easily rectified weakness—a weakness that cannot be rectified by a folksonomy alone, as some (David Weinberger) would have you believe. It wouldn't be particularly hard to roll all of the monotonous, tedious effort of catalogers the world over into an artificial taxonomy—a folksonomy that could accommodate the hierarchy of each and every one of these ill conceived classifications.
The world doesn't need more trained, specialized catalogers—the world needs more people doing the cataloging, and this project is a good first step in that direction. Once we get this data, we can map to and emulate any and all classification the world over.
Or...
They don't need to. Management rarely tries to understand even the most basic of these job descriptions.
I'm surprised by how many people here seem to be very confused as to what the GPL actually requires. So what if Microsoft distributes GPL'd software -- they can do it all they want, so long as they distribute the code to any changes THEY make to this software. If they hacked any packages in Ubuntu, then yes, they'd have to abide by the GPL -- but ONLY for the GPL'd software. This doesn't mean they'd have to turn over the source code to Windows -- ever. Nor does it mean they're only protected because they just "pointed" to the software. They could host it on their servers for eternity -- more power to them if they did -- but the GPL cannot automagically change the licenses of their other applications.
...only if we were to modify it, would we run into any license provisions! Still short of the mark. Only if you were to distribute those modifications would you run into any restrictions.And not in the relic sense -- it's certainly relevant. In the ginormous sense -- slow and lumbering. So focused on "enterprise" buzzwords (they're still pushing SOA!) that it's lost touch with the
But you really think it's IBM that's going to return the favor? Certainly, IBM has the biggest workfoce, GPL's a metric shit ton of code, etc, but they're just a services gig. It's now about the data...whoever owns the data owns us all -- and that who is Google (particularly if MS buys Yahoo as you jokingly suggested in your previous post). Maybe it's a big deal, maybe it ain't, but if Google really does become *the* web platform, we're all in for a new master...
Open source has a number of advantages, but one stands out as increasingly important...it let's *you* own your own data -- even if it's sitting off in Amazon's EC2 cloud, running on hardware you don't own, but software you still administer. Go ahead and fight this battle, and it's no doubt important, but MS is so passe -- we really ought to be thinking about the impending platform war, readying high quality FOSS alternatives to critical web apps, rather than worrying so much about what desktops we're running. The hula project had promised, until Novell nixed it (it's back as bongo, but still slow going). Twitter's becoming *the* presence platform, but can we really trust them with *our* data? Can we trust Google not to _upgrade_ their APIs?
Yours is a worthy battle but it's the wrong war. If you're waxing about tipping points, the world's already tottered that teeter. We've got a different war on our hands...