The lame MSM, who need the sheeple to believe that there are two actual sides to every story in order for their clickbait model to keep the the business swirling as high as possible around the toilet bowl for just a few more years, cannot possibly classify any fringe viewpoint as anything other than normal, because that would decimate their business.
Unless, of course, a viewpoint is abnormal enough that the clicks will happen automagically because of morbid curiosity, c.f. flat-earth rocketman.
This is not an edge case. The rules of English, if properly followed by both writer and reader, render the object of Mary's desire unambiguous, and if this is the sort of thing Doug Lenat is focused on, it's no wonder he's falling behind.
They probably warranty the battery for a certain number of years.
Battery life is dependent on many things: number of cycles, how high it's charged up, how low it's drained, the temperature at charge and discharge, the rate of charge and discharge, probability of manufacturing defects, etc.
With Lithium-Ion batteries, limiting the charge and discharge greatly extends the battery life, so if Tesla allows the batteries to be charged more and discharged deeper, they are most likely increasing their warranty returns, which costs them money.
If a customer figures out how to unlock their own batteries, I think that's awesome. But I also think Tesla is well within their rights to limit or void the warranty.
HIPAA is exactly like Sarbanes-Oxley and ISO 9000 in this respect.
The things done in the name of HIPAA, SOX, and ISO are just lip-service provided by drones with no real understanding of the actual goals and how to meet them. It's all just rubber chicken waving, with the rubber chickens rubber-stamped by "expert" law firms.
Engineer who purports to know about patents doesn't know that all patents filed in the last 22 years expire 20 years after filing, not 17 years after issue.
Apparently also hasn't been following Supreme Court patent jurisprudence. If Microsoft is emulating these instructions with software and a general purpose computer, there is a good chance that Microsoft's actions will be found non-infringing.
It may be a closer call if instructions were added to make the emulation easier, though.
Yeah, but it's possible that all the reasoning that goes into that judgment could result in some juicy judicial quotes. Given all the prior art pointed out by the EFF, the characterization of the patent as "stupid" is eminently reasonable, and doesn't even rise to the level of hyperbole.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, reply to gp, not parent... Agree with parent.
Just because you're always thinking of the children doesn't mean that's what this bill is about. Have you sought help?
No, doesn't look like he's the one missing the point. All the people responding to him, however...
You've reinvented the jitney.
The lame MSM, who need the sheeple to believe that there are two actual sides to every story in order for their clickbait model to keep the the business swirling as high as possible around the toilet bowl for just a few more years, cannot possibly classify any fringe viewpoint as anything other than normal, because that would decimate their business.
Unless, of course, a viewpoint is abnormal enough that the clicks will happen automagically because of morbid curiosity, c.f. flat-earth rocketman.
This is not an edge case. The rules of English, if properly followed by both writer and reader, render the object of Mary's desire unambiguous, and if this is the sort of thing Doug Lenat is focused on, it's no wonder he's falling behind.
That would certainly cause no end of mischief.
OK, but what do you think the real problem is?
They probably warranty the battery for a certain number of years.
Battery life is dependent on many things: number of cycles, how high it's charged up, how low it's drained, the temperature at charge and discharge, the rate of charge and discharge, probability of manufacturing defects, etc.
With Lithium-Ion batteries, limiting the charge and discharge greatly extends the battery life, so if Tesla allows the batteries to be charged more and discharged deeper, they are most likely increasing their warranty returns, which costs them money.
If a customer figures out how to unlock their own batteries, I think that's awesome. But I also think Tesla is well within their rights to limit or void the warranty.
Whoosh!
The things done in the name of HIPAA, SOX, and ISO are just lip-service provided by drones with no real understanding of the actual goals and how to meet them. It's all just rubber chicken waving, with the rubber chickens rubber-stamped by "expert" law firms.
"Don't call it free; call it 'without charge'"
Can you even imagine what this sort of proselytizing looks like to a normal human being?
Case in point -- when RMS told Linus to change the name of his O/S to GNU/Linux, Torvalds immediately complied.
A random number is for generating the key, not using it.
I wasn't able to attend it before it went under. Sad.
Is clock boy trying to fly, or what?
Books are heavy.
As far as devices, they aren't covered, which is why law enforcement has such trouble with the iPhone.
Louder sound? That's what I'm looking for! My co-workers will be so happy to hear I'm replacing my Model M!
Apparently also hasn't been following Supreme Court patent jurisprudence. If Microsoft is emulating these instructions with software and a general purpose computer, there is a good chance that Microsoft's actions will be found non-infringing.
It may be a closer call if instructions were added to make the emulation easier, though.
Summary makes it sound like patents are about instruction set emulation, not about the instruction set. Intel has a lot of those.
If Intel was picking on little guys, maybe they'd curl up in the corner. Hard to see it in this case.
Are you deliberately making c6gunner's point for him?
To save you the trouble, I read the article.
tl;dr -- Coding is not fun, everybody should know how to do it, and we need to keep the coders in check.
At least now we know where at least one of the Puritans went.
Yeah, but it's possible that all the reasoning that goes into that judgment could result in some juicy judicial quotes. Given all the prior art pointed out by the EFF, the characterization of the patent as "stupid" is eminently reasonable, and doesn't even rise to the level of hyperbole.