What zona.net has developed sounds somewhat like the RTIME networking system. You might want to be careful here -- RTIME was issued a substantial patent covering their technology, and now that Sony owns the patent and the technology, zona might be getting a nasty letter sometime.
IMHO, what made things look really stupid was the voters who can't handle a simple punch ballet. In the past, we used them in Washington State, and it wasn't rocket science -- punch the ballot completely, pull out of machine, make sure all the punches are clean, put ballot in box. If you can't handle that, I argue that you're too clueless to vote.
If you're going to allow the "divining the voter's intent" game (that is, try to detect hanging/dimpled chads) as Florida did, and the number of ballot that need divining exceed the margin of victory, then either candidate can win, depending on how the divining is done. You might as well toss a coin.
As for the effectively even vote distribution -- speaking in a wildly oversimplified manner, in this election the number of motiviated right wing whacko/pro-business/anti-union/anti-environmental people was about the same as the left wing whacko/union boss/trial lawyer/pro-choice count. That is a possible outcome, and not a flaw in the system.
Actually its either an A320 or A340. The 380 doesn't go into service till 2006.
True, the A320/330/340 familes are subsidy children as well. While I was taking about the $6b euro subsidy for the A380, I think the US should stick it to Airbus for all their subsidies. Heck, if they can meddle with our aerospace companies (e.g., the Boeing/McD merger), we should return the favor. How about a $1b fine for illegal subsidies and antitrust, for starters?
And the US government paying Boeing billions of dollars to completely half-ass the operation of the space shuttle fleet isn't a subsidy ?
No -- Boeing was the low bidder on the shuttle ops contract (Lockheed lost, IIRC.) Government contracts typically come with ~8% profit (assuming no contractor screwups.) The "government contracts are subsidies" is a lame attempt by Airbus to deflect attention from their massive subsidies.
While I think we would all have liked better performance from Boeing, remember that all fly/no-fly/safety-of-flight decisions are made by NASA personnel.
The 8% profit pales in comparison to the EU governments saying "Here's $6b euros, go compete with the Yanks." With Airbus' cost of capital effectively zero, they can make offers that a real company (Boeing), who has to pay market rates for capital, can't match.
It is especially galling that the EU has meddled in US company business (Boeing/McDonnell merger, Honeywell/? merger, Microsoft), whining that "they aren't fair", while they subsidize their own. I think it is time that the US returned the favor and effectively kill the A380 after the EU spends $6b euro. Of course, it is total trade war when that happens.
You think? In case nobody has noticed yet, the U.S. and the EU have been gearing up for a major trade war, and this is just the latest step. This is essentially the EU trying to stop its' citizens from buying U.S. products.
You've got that right. For our next trick, just wait until the US puts a, say, $100000 fee every time an Airbus A380 lands in the States, as compensation for the $6 billion euro government subsidy. The Sh*t is gonna fly...
Before you say "they can't do that!", remember that when an important customer buys Airbus over Boeing, Airbus works with the European national government to give that customer several precious landing slots (which sometimes can't be bought at any price) at a busy hub airport (London Heathrow, Frankfurt, etc.) The extra US landing fee can be considered to be an "anti-slot".
California, where no-competes are unenforceable. Note that you could still get the soon-to-be-ex-CTO with inevitable disclose of company secrets, but you have to go to court for that one.
What those "skilled in the art" think is centrally important because it is they to whom the subject matter as amended by the patent is obvious or not.
True enough, I should have been clearer. Soon after I posted, I had this nagging feeling that someone would catch me with this.
As 35 USC 103(a), said "a patent may not be obtained... (if)... at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art..." (emphasis added.) The fun comes on how you tell what the person having ordinary skill knew at the time the invention was made.
Since we don't have a wayback machine, what we're left with is the discoverable writings when the invention was created. I assert that these writings contain a small set of the "ordinary skill" at the time. So we're left with a less-than-perfect system, and people can take advantage of that.
So, when you or I say "that's obvious!" N years after a patent is filed, it doesn't legally matter. We have to be able to prove (via evidence) the obviousness of the patent; that evidence does not include a herd of slashdotters screaming "that's obvious!".
Somone need to trump this guy before he makes it impossible for anyone to run services.
That "someone" needs a boatload of cash, as well as good prior art.
What I learned while trying to get a patent, and what the slashdot crowd needs to grok, is that Patents Are Business Tools! The determination of what is novel, unobvious, and what advances the arts and sciences is legal, and not subject to what those "skilled in the art" think. Rather, legal definitions and arguments are the high ground, and must be understood
Because of the cash needed to invalidate a patent, companies usually end up licensing a marginal patent, rather than slugging out in court. It isn't right, but it makes business sense.
... is that Tivo is an independent company, while AOL/TimeWarner/CNN/etc is a conglomerate. Some of the companies in that conglomerate produce content, so I worry about an onerous Digital Rights Management regime (either now or in the future) put in the TimeWarner box at the behest of the movie companies (HBO, New Line Cinema, Turner, etc.)
Do you really want their idea of "fair use" enforced upon you?
Ummm, no. Many of the startups mentioned are working on applications of wireless (for example, Telesym is working on voice over wireless IP), not installing pay-for-use access points al-la Starbucks, T-Mobile, etc.
While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright.
Methods include secrecyorders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)
AWACS is on a 707 airframe
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How many know that the Boeing 747 development was entirely funded by the DOD for building the AWACS.
Ummm, no. The AWACS is built on a Boeing 707 airframe, which is much older and smaller than the 747.
What you might be referring to is that a predecessor to the 747 was the losing entry (Lockheed won, I think) for the C-5, the US military's Really Big Cargo Plane.
Boeing was paid by the Department of Defense to create a prototype design to meet DOD requirements. They lost. Boeing then used the design as a basis for the 747, but note that Boeing absorbed the huge cost of making the 747 acceptable to the US Federal Aviation Administration, which has a far different set of requirements.
The original development was a "work for hire" at the request of the DOD. Every other Boeing aircraft has been internally funded by Boeing. That is a far cry from "here's 4 billion Euros, go build an airplane that competes with the Yanks" tactic of the European governments. Airbus has been a subsidy child since day one.
The US, I think, holds the upper hand here. If nothing else, the US could slap a tariff on the A380 (say, 100% of selling price), or just not certify it to operate in the States. Either action could be a fatal blow to the program. Of course, the EU would have the same options when the next Boeing aircraft is developed, igniting a major trade war.
You didn't say where your grandfather lives, but in Alaska, aircraft have the right of way over cars on the highway. It isn't inherently stupid to land on a road, as long as it is relatively clear of hazards (power poles, dividers, etc.)
However, I wouldn't land on a busy freeway unless I had a red-hot emergency.
I was the co-developer on the Atari 2600 versions of Jungle Hunt and Pole Position.
Yes, there were two players (8 pixel sprites) and two missiles (1, 2, 4, or 8 pixels wide, if memory serves.) And the "easy" way to set up a display line was to write the bitmap and position of the players and missiles during vblank.
However, there was an underhanded way of getting more than two players on a line, if they were separated by enough space (~12 pixels, if memory serves.) While the line is drawn, you keep track of where the "currently drawn pixel" is. When that location is just past the end of a player, you reposition the player to ~12 pixels ahead of the current position, and rewrite the bitmap. We (General Computer Company, a captive developer for Atari) could get up to 6 players on a line, if they were separated by enough distance.
And aren't they usually in the transition from base to final?
True, but that is (usually) a slow skidding (too much rudder) turn from base to final. A stall in that situation is a horrific spin entry which is usually unrecoverable.
My original comment (stall followed by hard rudder) is the entry for a delibrate spin. I should have allowed for simultaneous events (stalling with too much rudder.)
I'm not worried by the lack of a spin demonstration on the SR20/22, for the simple reason that an unintentional spin requires a "double screwup" on the part of the pilot -- a stall, followed by hard rudder (and maybe opposite aileron.)
My worry about the Cirrus aircraft is icing. That neato high performance wing may not behave nicely if there are icy bumps on the lift generating areas. Take a look here for pictures of some nontrivial ice I picked up in a Cessna 182 over South Dakota. That kind of ice on a Cirrus would scare the dogpoop out of me, and might be a reason to use the built-in chute.
Are there any Cirrus drivers on Slashdot who have dealt with ice before?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I'd hate to see you guys work hard and then get bushwacked by a patent lawyer.
What zona.net has developed sounds somewhat like the RTIME networking system. You might want to be careful here -- RTIME was issued a substantial patent covering their technology, and now that Sony owns the patent and the technology, zona might be getting a nasty letter sometime.
"Guess the foot is on the other hand now, Kramer"
Nope, it is a Double Secret Threat.
IMHO, what made things look really stupid was the voters who can't handle a simple punch ballet. In the past, we used them in Washington State, and it wasn't rocket science -- punch the ballot completely, pull out of machine, make sure all the punches are clean, put ballot in box. If you can't handle that, I argue that you're too clueless to vote.
If you're going to allow the "divining the voter's intent" game (that is, try to detect hanging/dimpled chads) as Florida did, and the number of ballot that need divining exceed the margin of victory, then either candidate can win, depending on how the divining is done. You might as well toss a coin.
As for the effectively even vote distribution -- speaking in a wildly oversimplified manner, in this election the number of motiviated right wing whacko/pro-business/anti-union/anti-environmental people was about the same as the left wing whacko/union boss/trial lawyer/pro-choice count. That is a possible outcome, and not a flaw in the system.
My ip address is 127.0.0.1. Knock yourself out.
Actually its either an A320 or A340. The 380 doesn't go into service till 2006.
True, the A320/330/340 familes are subsidy children as well. While I was taking about the $6b euro subsidy for the A380, I think the US should stick it to Airbus for all their subsidies. Heck, if they can meddle with our aerospace companies (e.g., the Boeing/McD merger), we should return the favor. How about a $1b fine for illegal subsidies and antitrust, for starters?
And the US government paying Boeing billions of dollars to completely half-ass the operation of the space shuttle fleet isn't a subsidy ?
...
No -- Boeing was the low bidder on the shuttle ops contract (Lockheed lost, IIRC.) Government contracts typically come with ~8% profit (assuming no contractor screwups.) The "government contracts are subsidies" is a lame attempt by Airbus to deflect attention from their massive subsidies.
While I think we would all have liked better performance from Boeing, remember that all fly/no-fly/safety-of-flight decisions are made by NASA personnel.
The 8% profit pales in comparison to the EU governments saying "Here's $6b euros, go compete with the Yanks." With Airbus' cost of capital effectively zero, they can make offers that a real company (Boeing), who has to pay market rates for capital, can't match.
It is especially galling that the EU has meddled in US company business (Boeing/McDonnell merger, Honeywell/? merger, Microsoft), whining that "they aren't fair", while they subsidize their own. I think it is time that the US returned the favor and effectively kill the A380 after the EU spends $6b euro. Of course, it is total trade war when that happens.
Flame away
You think? In case nobody has noticed yet, the U.S. and the EU have been gearing up for a major trade war, and this is just the latest step. This is essentially the EU trying to stop its' citizens from buying U.S. products.
...
You've got that right. For our next trick, just wait until the US puts a, say, $100000 fee every time an Airbus A380 lands in the States, as compensation for the $6 billion euro government subsidy. The Sh*t is gonna fly
Before you say "they can't do that!", remember that when an important customer buys Airbus over Boeing, Airbus works with the European national government to give that customer several precious landing slots (which sometimes can't be bought at any price) at a busy hub airport (London Heathrow, Frankfurt, etc.) The extra US landing fee can be considered to be an "anti-slot".
non-compete clause...
California, where no-competes are unenforceable. Note that you could still get the soon-to-be-ex-CTO with inevitable disclose of company secrets, but you have to go to court for that one.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said this week she would seek federal legislation offering rewards for individuals who help track down spammers.
:-)
Lets see more of those! I hope the reward applies irrespective of whether you bring in the spammers dead or alive
Oh please, please, please, let me pistol whip, kneecap, hang, draw, and quarter them. I promise to bring them in (somewhat) alive.
OK, I'll have to wait on quartering them. Then, let us burn them at the stake.
John (who had 30+ emails in my spam trap today.)
... when we can just plant our code in your memory directly.
(ok, ok, there should be some serious security with remote memory. I couldn't resist.)
True enough, I should have been clearer. Soon after I posted, I had this nagging feeling that someone would catch me with this.
As 35 USC 103(a), said "a patent may not be obtained ... (if) ... at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art ..." (emphasis added.) The fun comes on how you tell what the person having ordinary skill knew at the time the invention was made.
Since we don't have a wayback machine, what we're left with is the discoverable writings when the invention was created. I assert that these writings contain a small set of the "ordinary skill" at the time. So we're left with a less-than-perfect system, and people can take advantage of that.
So, when you or I say "that's obvious!" N years after a patent is filed, it doesn't legally matter. We have to be able to prove (via evidence) the obviousness of the patent; that evidence does not include a herd of slashdotters screaming "that's obvious!".
That "someone" needs a boatload of cash, as well as good prior art.
What I learned while trying to get a patent, and what the slashdot crowd needs to grok, is that Patents Are Business Tools! The determination of what is novel, unobvious, and what advances the arts and sciences is legal, and not subject to what those "skilled in the art" think. Rather, legal definitions and arguments are the high ground, and must be understood
Because of the cash needed to invalidate a patent, companies usually end up licensing a marginal patent, rather than slugging out in court. It isn't right, but it makes business sense.
Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
... is that Tivo is an independent company, while AOL/TimeWarner/CNN/etc is a conglomerate. Some of the companies in that conglomerate produce content, so I worry about an onerous Digital Rights Management regime (either now or in the future) put in the TimeWarner box at the behest of the movie companies (HBO, New Line Cinema, Turner, etc.)
Do you really want their idea of "fair use" enforced upon you?
Ummm, no. Many of the startups mentioned are working on applications of wireless (for example, Telesym is working on voice over wireless IP), not installing pay-for-use access points al-la Starbucks, T-Mobile, etc.
...
You can hardly call Starbucks a startup
Jesus H Christ, a quadruplicate posting.
Either slashdot is serving up some mighty fine drugs this April Fools day, or someone needs to fix their cranial-rectal inversion.
While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright. Methods include secrecy orders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)
Ummm, no. The AWACS is built on a Boeing 707 airframe, which is much older and smaller than the 747.
What you might be referring to is that a predecessor to the 747 was the losing entry (Lockheed won, I think) for the C-5, the US military's Really Big Cargo Plane.
Boeing was paid by the Department of Defense to create a prototype design to meet DOD requirements. They lost. Boeing then used the design as a basis for the 747, but note that Boeing absorbed the huge cost of making the 747 acceptable to the US Federal Aviation Administration, which has a far different set of requirements.
The original development was a "work for hire" at the request of the DOD. Every other Boeing aircraft has been internally funded by Boeing. That is a far cry from "here's 4 billion Euros, go build an airplane that competes with the Yanks" tactic of the European governments. Airbus has been a subsidy child since day one.
The US, I think, holds the upper hand here. If nothing else, the US could slap a tariff on the A380 (say, 100% of selling price), or just not certify it to operate in the States. Either action could be a fatal blow to the program. Of course, the EU would have the same options when the next Boeing aircraft is developed, igniting a major trade war.
You didn't say where your grandfather lives, but in Alaska, aircraft have the right of way over cars on the highway. It isn't inherently stupid to land on a road, as long as it is relatively clear of hazards (power poles, dividers, etc.)
However, I wouldn't land on a busy freeway unless I had a red-hot emergency.
... is a lot like an erect penis. It stays up as long as you don't fuck with it.
(sadly, source unknown)
I was the co-developer on the Atari 2600 versions of Jungle Hunt and Pole Position.
... but oh, what memories.
Yes, there were two players (8 pixel sprites) and two missiles (1, 2, 4, or 8 pixels wide, if memory serves.) And the "easy" way to set up a display line was to write the bitmap and position of the players and missiles during vblank.
However, there was an underhanded way of getting more than two players on a line, if they were separated by enough space (~12 pixels, if memory serves.) While the line is drawn, you keep track of where the "currently drawn pixel" is. When that location is just past the end of a player, you reposition the player to ~12 pixels ahead of the current position, and rewrite the bitmap. We (General Computer Company, a captive developer for Atari) could get up to 6 players on a line, if they were separated by enough distance.
Yes, I am dating myself
The Passat is nothing more than an Audi A4 in drag. The Audi tends to be more up-market (more options, chrome, etc.) but the platform is the same.
True, but that is (usually) a slow skidding (too much rudder) turn from base to final. A stall in that situation is a horrific spin entry which is usually unrecoverable.
My original comment (stall followed by hard rudder) is the entry for a delibrate spin. I should have allowed for simultaneous events (stalling with too much rudder.)
My worry about the Cirrus aircraft is icing. That neato high performance wing may not behave nicely if there are icy bumps on the lift generating areas. Take a look here for pictures of some nontrivial ice I picked up in a Cessna 182 over South Dakota. That kind of ice on a Cirrus would scare the dogpoop out of me, and might be a reason to use the built-in chute.
Are there any Cirrus drivers on Slashdot who have dealt with ice before?