At least, I seem to remember the GWB started the 'war on terror' rhetoric.
Which he appropriated from the "War on Drugs" and the older "War on Poverty" rhetoric of the past. But these are just rhetoric, right? Rhetoric carries emotional and political value but no legal value. War is practically one of the Four Horsemen. Terrorist, Drugs, Poverty, Child Molesters.
SJR 23 gives the president authorization to use military force against ANY person, nation, or entity he associates in practically any way with 9/11. Period. That can be a pretty damned big umbrella. I'm not agreeing with it (just in case it's not obvious I disagree with it), just saying it like it is. I quoted the precise language. It doesn't say anyone the Judicial branch or the legislative branch, or the Dod, FBI, CIA, VP, or NSA determines. Just him. In practice it means any link however tenuous.
As much as it may suprise people, SJR 23 didn't give him authorization to attack Iraq w/o such a connection. But SJR 23 is irrelevant unless needed. And it was not/is not needed. You see, the first Gulf War was never officially ended. It was merely in a cease fire state. Further (and again I don't like it) it was authorized under UN language and US laws regarding treaties.
Convenient thing about the 'war on terror' is that its self-sustaining. The more we fight it, the more terrorists appear. Since we invaded Iraq, international acts of terror have increased, not decreased, and Iraq went from having no terrorist problem to a thriving terrorist export market. I think your point the congress is as much to blame makes sense in any event.
Actually international terrorist attacks have not increased globally. Attacks against military targets, yes. But the vast majority f those do not qualify as international terrorism any more than a flight between Iowa airports is an international flight.
Further, there is a specific goal for ending the war. Most have forgotten it, however. "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." - George W. Bush 20 September 2001 in congressional address.
So there you have it: when you've stopped the global groups that have "global reach", you've accomplished the mission. How many groups still have this? Arguably al-Qaeda was the only one with it, and it is arguably no longer in possession of that capability. It just takes an honest and gutsy government to admit it.
But don't hold your breath. Even if Bush did so and called an end to it, the Congress will grip to it tightly, even more so. If Bush declares victory and proceeds to "power down" the war machine, the Democrats in particular will wail and gnash their teeth because it would de-fang their limited campaign platform. They'd claim he is merely saving face, and that there is a lot more to do. And so would Republican congress-critters.
Finally, Wii will also make it possible to browse the web on your television.
WebTV made that possible more than 7 years ago. As someone who has done it, unless you have a hi-res TV, you really don't want to browse on the TV. Even with a hi-res TV it isn't that great.
Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'),
Ahem... nice ploy. But you forget that Congress is complicit in this 'plan', even the Dems. Historically, Congress has given a President authority to carry out use of military force against unspecified countries. This time they added in unspecified persons and organizations
Section 2(a) of the joint resolution 23 which passed 98-0 in Senate and 420-1 in the house IIRC, authorizes the President
"to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
It isn't so much as a grab as it an abdication by the congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. Congress essentially handed him a writ of war against any person, nation, or organization he wanted so long as he could claim they aided the attacks of September 11, 2001. Period. Bitch all you want, the primary fault lies in the Congress handing him a "blank check of force use". History proves time and time again that given such blank checks, those in power will use them however they choose to, and the rest of us won't generally like it.
This is very much like the story of the scorpion and the frog. Teh scorpion wants to cross a pond and asks a frog to carry him across. The frog says "But you are a scorpion, it is your nature that you will sting me and I'll die." The scorpion replies "That would be foolish of me for if I sting you, I too will die." So the frog agrees. As the frog is swimming across the pond with the scorpion he feels a sting. He tells the scorpion "What have you done? We will now both die! You tricked me.". To which the scorpion replies "You knew what I was when you allowed me on yor back.".
For those who missed it, Congress is the frog and the blank check is the scorpion. yes, Bush is responsible for his actions. But in this case so are the 518 Congress critters who gave him the authority to do it. People like you only want to blame Bush. That is a mistake of monumental proportions. The people who gave him the legal authority need to scolded and put out of office as well. After all, Bush going away does not remove the authority. The Congress gave the Office of the President, not George W. Bush the authority.
You see, Bush has to go away after the next election. But the congresscritters who made such a monumentally stupid choice have no such limits. They'll be around to do it again. And you can bet your ass that if a Dem makes it in, the Dems will stop whining about the President having the authority they voted to give him. I recall one of them saying in an interview they don't disagree with the president having the authority, they just don't like Bush having it. That doesn't cut it. This mentality is far more dangerous, particularly when coupled with the lack of term limits to get this mentality out.
First: HTML IS NOT CODE, IT IS MARKUP. Ok, with that out of the way...
Spend time with your kids writing HTML, JavaScript, and Excel macros.
But not if you want them to know how to program. The latter two are 'ok' for scripting, but if the goal is to know how to program you will fall short. There is a huge difference between a scripter and a programmer, just as there is between a programmer and engineer (though many scripters and programmers believe themselves to be engineers).
Programming (I'm assuming we are all clear that we are talking about *good* programming) involves being able to determine the best algorith or pattern, knowing the differences between functional an OO, scoping, and so on. Even if you don't know/use the "accepted names" for various algorithms and patterns, you need to know how and when to use them.
What is more telling/troublesome is the fact that so many people think HTML is coding, that so many people who should but do not know the difference between scripting and programming.
Changing your oil, spark plugs, and wires does not make you an auto mechanic. Scripting JavaScript or office macros does not make you a programmer. It isn't a matter of difficulty (a transmission swap isn't difficult either), it is a matter of what is being done. Difficulty is relative, task orientation is not.
Your daughter was right. She wasn't programming, she was scripting. Kudos to her for knowing the difference. Bummer that her father apparently does not.
This game is still selling in the stores. Ten bucks, new. Patches still come out for it (it's still supported). Even if I didn't like the game I'd have to admit that it belongs in any "top X of ALL TIME" list of video games. The game has been selling for what, about ten years now? How many other video games in any genre are still selling in "ordinary" stores after that much time? You can still buy Starcraft at Walmart, Hastings, Best Buy, etc.. This fact alone makes it an objective cause for it to be listed. The fact that such considerations were not done tells me this is just a "i like these games and my opinion matters" production. Big deal.
The top 5 dams of all time: 1. Hoover Dam 2. Benmore Dam 3. Grande Dixence Dam 4. Keban Dam 5. Verzasca dam. You forgot the top dam of all time: God Damn
With extensive labelling. And we also had to call things by the names he learned in school. It had to be 'FQDN' and not 'domain name' or he'd be lost. (He did eventually figure that one out and start correcting us when we just said 'domain name', though.)
So he learned that FQDN != "domain name" and started correcting you guys when you got it wrong? Good on him!
I would say that the individual sent a request for a copy of the recoding to the governors office. The office was foolish and send a copy of the speech to the requestor. Sounds to my like a staff training problem. Staff member will have to go for reeducation, and be reprogrammed.... or erased.
Until AMD has fully purchased AND integrated ATi, your references to Intel's graphics division is irrelevant and disengenuous. When it comes to chips, AMD and Intel have very similar positions on open source AIUI.
Every stinking intel/amd article has this same goddam statement. Who the hell is this insigtful to?
A bunch of people who don't know what "Insightful" means. Slashdot needs a "I like this so I want to mod it up" option so people can leave Insightful to posts that truly demonstrate an insight. Not that it'd be used but it'd be nice in theory.
You need to check again. My wife is looking at picking up one. It is less than a grand including "digitizing software" (their term not mine) that turns any jpeg image to a pattern. It's got a farily good sized hoop and capability. The software is run via a PC connected over USB as opposed to being built in. I've seen them work and they are pretty cool.
I dont' recall the model but it is made by Singer. I can ask my wife if you want to know the details.
It uses ruthenium. Ruthenium runs about 175 USD/ounce. Ruthenium is a member the cateogry called "precious metals". It's a rather limited supply item. Given it's other uses I wouldn't expect to see these things be inexpensive. Also menas it will be unlikely to be viable for larger scale applications such as automotive, residential, or commercial power requirements. Still, it is kinda cool.
There is also the question of lifespan and cycling. While the liter of fluid requirement can be worked around, long term issues such as cleanliness of the proces with regards to catalyst maintenance. I'd be cautios about using the phrase "halfway there" just becuase they are using half the percentage of solution they are looking for. While they are at 15% vs 30%, they are also at 600Wh versus the 2200 claimed in the article. Granted, that's theortical maximum, but the effective use of 30% solution is also theoretical.
If Tor users include Kiddie Porn, then Tor must be bad and eliminated. Especially if it interferes with policework. So start associating the two and eventually people will be happy to make other people give up their rights.
If Netflix sat as the only one for too long, they would inevitably succumb to greed.
They already had. Prices for their accounts had risen until BB entered the field. Then they both got into a pricing war. End price was several bucks/month lower than Netflix had been charging just prior to BB's arrival.
Maybe it doesn't seem original now that everyone is getting in on the act, but original and novel is exactly what it was.
No, it wasn't. There is NOTHING novel or orignal about doing the same thing you've been doing over a new channel.
Prior to the Internet I was able to do the same thing with the library for books, VHS/LD, and audio (Cassettes and LPs then laters CDs). Yes, this applies becuase the patent is NOT about DVDs. It is about "items". So *any* item done this way prior to 1998 counts. The library had a maximum number of items you could have at one time, would only send you items that were available, sent them via mail, had no-charge return containers (or you could return to your local library. You could do it via phone, person, or *gasp* a telnet based system you dialed into.
There is nothing non-obvious about taking an existing business method and using the internet. Hell I bet you can find the concept in several Science Fiction books that predate even the Internet's existence. If you look at Star Trek you'll even find "one-click" ordering there. Ten bucks says the "Adult Movie" industry beat Netflix to it by at least two years. The Library of Congress has had this for a long time, no idea when it started. You'll probably find in in sci-fi based RPG games dating back a decade or more. At least.
It was thus neither original, nor novel.
And they had to overcome several hurdles and solve a lot of problems before it became workable and profitable -- such as finding a way to send dvds through the mail without incurring overly frequent breakage, or paying too much in shipping costs to offer the service at a reasonable price.
Yup, and it's called software an non-patentable "trade secrets". Their internal processes are essentially Trade Secrets unless they make them publically available. Their software is also protected.
For businesses the Internet is *only* a distribution/sales/communication channel and nothing more.
Simple rule #1: If it was not patentable when it did not involve the Internet, it is not patentable because it involves the Internet. Simple Rule #2: If you "method" or "process" relies on others that are not patentable, yours is not patentable.
Linux and other Unix-like OSes have supported IPv6 for years, and they haven't managed to kill DNS yet. Most Vista installations, like most Linux installations these days, are going to have IPv6 disabled anyway, so this is not going to have any real impact at all.
Is innacurate and incomplete thinking.
Let us say the traffic increase per machine was 20% regardless of OS. Which will cause more load assuming equal uptimes: 100,000,000 Vista machines or 10,000,000 Linux machines?
If you run a server that needs to handle a lot of email, and do so in a timely manner, this will hose you. if you run an enterprise environment where there are applicaitons (usually JavaMail based ones) that bork and die on this but are sending legitimate mail, this will hose you.
There are many legitimate applications that will die if you do this. To recommend this as a general solution is a mistake. Sure, we would all love it if the legitimate apps worked properly, but that isn't the real world. The real world is painful.
If you want a personal or small-medium user amount email address that your friends/family/etc. can send you email to but get no spam, you can set up an encryption based mail system. Only encrypted and/or signed mail is allowed in. Period. You can run this type of system in two ways:
1) Look for signed/encrypted message, extract key and verify signature. Check key against your key database. If it is not a valid signed/encrypted AND is not in your trusted/accepted keys list: reject it.
OR
2) Look for signed/encypted email, verify signature and if the signature is not correct reject it.
I use it on one of my addresses and am transitioninng all other than mailing lists to it. 100% spam free. I use option 1. If someone with a valid key does send a signeed and/or encrypted spam I can remove that key from the allowed list and that problem goes away. The likelihood of getting spam from this account is slim to none.
Not useful of unsolicited emails, but I have an application mechanism for people who want in. The time I spend validating new senders is a tiny fraction of the time spent cleaning spam, running spam filters, and trying to keep up with the latest spam fighting techniques on the server.
Given this, it only makes sense for them, or any company for that matter, to patent any ideas for present or future functionality that they might have.
No, it makes sense for them to apply their massive weight and funding to working to stop software patents and the system that manufactures from nothing the whole submarine/stupid/etc patents used as weapons to take the work of other people.
If successful, in the end they score massive brownie points with ohh say open source types, they defang all those little vultures, and we all benefit greatly from it. That makes sense. Stooping to the level of the scumbags is not the sensible action.
Sure.Some of these I truly don't know the answer to.
Does the 360 play HD DVDs? Does it render the full scene in realtime at gameplay framerates? Does it play games from the prior XBox? Was it able to play thousands of titles at launch? Why are the graphics no better than is found on PCs? Does it support running two HDTV screens at full-res(1080p)? At the same time? When running in widescreen modes does it take advantage of this and split the screen vertically for multi-player racing games instead of the squashed-to-hell-and-back horizontal split? How about that processor redundancy? Bluetooth? Is it true that the XBox360 only supports up to 4 controllers compared to the PS3's 7? (great for sportsgame players) Metal Gear Solid 4? Does MS encourage and support an the developer community? Can it work with external systems (such as the PS3 working with the PSP) to add new features to games? Does the XBox360 have an upgradable hard drive? If so, is upgrading it supported? If so, how big is the drive?
On the other hand, last I knew the PS3 didn't burn DVDs or pretend to be a TIVO.
1) HD is one of the big things that the PS3 is being billed for. Sony has been pimping that heavily. If it's such a fundamental part of the console, maybe you include the hookups out of box?
I'm in the alleged '5%'. I don't want the cable included. Why? Because it will be the wrong length. It doesnt matter what length it is, it will be just a bit too short or way to friggin long. Just as a cat is always on the wrong side of the door, the legth of OEM cables are always wrong. I'd end up buying a new cable to fit my needs and wind up paying for a cable I couldn't use (the OEM cable).
And the OEM cable would suck. Same principle. OEM cables are always cheap -- even on "premium" set-ups. I buy rather high end stereo and video equipment. Then I buy cabling for it because any OEM cables have always a) sucked and B) been the wrong size.
So, speaking as a "member of the 5%" I say: "Good move Sony".
If you buy a premium, expensive product, you tend to expect to not get gypped on the extras.
That's just it though. "Extras" are by definition not "standard includes" So if you admit that the cable is an extra it must not be included. Then it would not be an extra would it?
My HD projection TV didn't come with cables and it cost more than the PS3 and it is the display portion. Arguably, if any piece is to include the cables, the display should. Most likely the alleged 5% won't give a damn about the cable not included since they'll already know they need one and will either have it or be ready to buy it to fit their desires/physical requirements; and they'll know where to get it.
Or, the 95% of people who don't have the display for it won't need one.
Expensive and/or premium does not necessarily mean "everything". In this case, the PS3 is "premium" because of the alleged performance, "advanced" features such as Blu-Ray and full HD output, it's backward compatibility, and that it is a "Playstation". Like it or not, that last bit matters. Just as many people used to refer to home video consoles as Nintendos even if they eg. Sega.
Apparently this is NYT's way of saying that if you're smart enough to be using Linux, and diligent enough to go beyond the front page, then New York Times isn't meant for you! It could be their strategy to cater to only the dumber sections of the poulace, perhaps?
Slashdot Mirror
"John Spartan you are fined 100 credits for the use of foul language".
At least, I seem to remember the GWB started the 'war on terror' rhetoric.
Which he appropriated from the "War on Drugs" and the older "War on Poverty" rhetoric of the past. But these are just rhetoric, right? Rhetoric carries emotional and political value but no legal value. War is practically one of the Four Horsemen. Terrorist, Drugs, Poverty, Child Molesters.
SJR 23 gives the president authorization to use military force against ANY person, nation, or entity he associates in practically any way with 9/11. Period. That can be a pretty damned big umbrella. I'm not agreeing with it (just in case it's not obvious I disagree with it), just saying it like it is. I quoted the precise language. It doesn't say anyone the Judicial branch or the legislative branch, or the Dod, FBI, CIA, VP, or NSA determines. Just him. In practice it means any link however tenuous.
As much as it may suprise people, SJR 23 didn't give him authorization to attack Iraq w/o such a connection. But SJR 23 is irrelevant unless needed. And it was not/is not needed. You see, the first Gulf War was never officially ended. It was merely in a cease fire state. Further (and again I don't like it) it was authorized under UN language and US laws regarding treaties.
Convenient thing about the 'war on terror' is that its self-sustaining. The more we fight it, the more terrorists appear. Since we invaded Iraq, international acts of terror have increased, not decreased, and Iraq went from having no terrorist problem to a thriving terrorist export market. I think your point the congress is as much to blame makes sense in any event.
Actually international terrorist attacks have not increased globally. Attacks against military targets, yes. But the vast majority f those do not qualify as international terrorism any more than a flight between Iowa airports is an international flight.
Further, there is a specific goal for ending the war. Most have forgotten it, however.
"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." - George W. Bush 20 September 2001 in congressional address.
So there you have it: when you've stopped the global groups that have "global reach", you've accomplished the mission. How many groups still have this? Arguably al-Qaeda was the only one with it, and it is arguably no longer in possession of that capability. It just takes an honest and gutsy government to admit it.
But don't hold your breath. Even if Bush did so and called an end to it, the Congress will grip to it tightly, even more so. If Bush declares victory and proceeds to "power down" the war machine, the Democrats in particular will wail and gnash their teeth because it would de-fang their limited campaign platform. They'd claim he is merely saving face, and that there is a lot more to do. And so would Republican congress-critters.
Finally, Wii will also make it possible to browse the web on your television.
WebTV made that possible more than 7 years ago. As someone who has done it, unless you have a hi-res TV, you really don't want to browse on the TV. Even with a hi-res TV it isn't that great.
Ahem
Section 2(a) of the joint resolution 23 which passed 98-0 in Senate and 420-1 in the house IIRC, authorizes the President
It isn't so much as a grab as it an abdication by the congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. Congress essentially handed him a writ of war against any person, nation, or organization he wanted so long as he could claim they aided the attacks of September 11, 2001. Period. Bitch all you want, the primary fault lies in the Congress handing him a "blank check of force use". History proves time and time again that given such blank checks, those in power will use them however they choose to, and the rest of us won't generally like it.
This is very much like the story of the scorpion and the frog. Teh scorpion wants to cross a pond and asks a frog to carry him across. The frog says "But you are a scorpion, it is your nature that you will sting me and I'll die." The scorpion replies "That would be foolish of me for if I sting you, I too will die." So the frog agrees. As the frog is swimming across the pond with the scorpion he feels a sting. He tells the scorpion "What have you done? We will now both die! You tricked me.". To which the scorpion replies "You knew what I was when you allowed me on yor back.".
For those who missed it, Congress is the frog and the blank check is the scorpion. yes, Bush is responsible for his actions. But in this case so are the 518 Congress critters who gave him the authority to do it. People like you only want to blame Bush. That is a mistake of monumental proportions. The people who gave him the legal authority need to scolded and put out of office as well. After all, Bush going away does not remove the authority. The Congress gave the Office of the President, not George W. Bush the authority.
You see, Bush has to go away after the next election. But the congresscritters who made such a monumentally stupid choice have no such limits. They'll be around to do it again. And you can bet your ass that if a Dem makes it in, the Dems will stop whining about the President having the authority they voted to give him. I recall one of them saying in an interview they don't disagree with the president having the authority, they just don't like Bush having it. That doesn't cut it. This mentality is far more dangerous, particularly when coupled with the lack of term limits to get this mentality out.
.
First: HTML IS NOT CODE, IT IS MARKUP. Ok, with that out of the way ...
Spend time with your kids writing HTML, JavaScript, and Excel macros.
But not if you want them to know how to program. The latter two are 'ok' for scripting, but if the goal is to know how to program you will fall short. There is a huge difference between a scripter and a programmer, just as there is between a programmer and engineer (though many scripters and programmers believe themselves to be engineers).
Programming (I'm assuming we are all clear that we are talking about *good* programming) involves being able to determine the best algorith or pattern, knowing the differences between functional an OO, scoping, and so on. Even if you don't know/use the "accepted names" for various algorithms and patterns, you need to know how and when to use them.
What is more telling/troublesome is the fact that so many people think HTML is coding, that so many people who should but do not know the difference between scripting and programming.
Changing your oil, spark plugs, and wires does not make you an auto mechanic. Scripting JavaScript or office macros does not make you a programmer. It isn't a matter of difficulty (a transmission swap isn't difficult either), it is a matter of what is being done. Difficulty is relative, task orientation is not.
Your daughter was right. She wasn't programming, she was scripting. Kudos to her for knowing the difference. Bummer that her father apparently does not.
This game is still selling in the stores. Ten bucks, new. Patches still come out for it (it's still supported). Even if I didn't like the game I'd have to admit that it belongs in any "top X of ALL TIME" list of video games. The game has been selling for what, about ten years now? How many other video games in any genre are still selling in "ordinary" stores after that much time? You can still buy Starcraft at Walmart, Hastings, Best Buy, etc.. This fact alone makes it an objective cause for it to be listed. The fact that such considerations were not done tells me this is just a "i like these games and my opinion matters" production. Big deal.
The top 5 dams of all time: 1. Hoover Dam 2. Benmore Dam 3. Grande Dixence Dam 4. Keban Dam 5. Verzasca dam.
You forgot the top dam of all time:
God Damn
With extensive labelling. And we also had to call things by the names he learned in school. It had to be 'FQDN' and not 'domain name' or he'd be lost. (He did eventually figure that one out and start correcting us when we just said 'domain name', though.)
So he learned that FQDN != "domain name" and started correcting you guys when you got it wrong? Good on him!
I would say that the individual sent a request for a copy of the recoding to the governors office. The office was foolish and send a copy of the speech to the requestor. Sounds to my like a staff training problem. Staff member will have to go for reeducation, and be reprogrammed. ... or erased.
Until AMD has fully purchased AND integrated ATi, your references to Intel's graphics division is irrelevant and disengenuous. When it comes to chips, AMD and Intel have very similar positions on open source AIUI.
Every stinking intel/amd article has this same goddam statement. Who the hell is this insigtful to?
A bunch of people who don't know what "Insightful" means. Slashdot needs a "I like this so I want to mod it up" option so people can leave Insightful to posts that truly demonstrate an insight. Not that it'd be used but it'd be nice in theory.
You need to check again. My wife is looking at picking up one. It is less than a grand including "digitizing software" (their term not mine) that turns any jpeg image to a pattern. It's got a farily good sized hoop and capability. The software is run via a PC connected over USB as opposed to being built in. I've seen them work and they are pretty cool.
I dont' recall the model but it is made by Singer. I can ask my wife if you want to know the details.
It uses ruthenium. Ruthenium runs about 175 USD/ounce. Ruthenium is a member the cateogry called "precious metals". It's a rather limited supply item. Given it's other uses I wouldn't expect to see these things be inexpensive. Also menas it will be unlikely to be viable for larger scale applications such as automotive, residential, or commercial power requirements. Still, it is kinda cool.
There is also the question of lifespan and cycling. While the liter of fluid requirement can be worked around, long term issues such as cleanliness of the proces with regards to catalyst maintenance. I'd be cautios about using the phrase "halfway there" just becuase they are using half the percentage of solution they are looking for. While they are at 15% vs 30%, they are also at 600Wh versus the 2200 claimed in the article. Granted, that's theortical maximum, but the effective use of 30% solution is also theoretical.
It is a classic "Four Horse Men" manuever:
If Tor users include Kiddie Porn, then Tor must be bad and eliminated. Especially if it interferes with policework. So start associating the two and eventually people will be happy to make other people give up their rights.
More specifically:
e filmfestival.com/infopack.html
http://web.archive.org/web/19961106001006/www.hom
I knew I had seen it done prior to Netflix.
Note this was in 1996.
If Netflix sat as the only one for too long, they would inevitably succumb to greed.
They already had. Prices for their accounts had risen until BB entered the field. Then they both got into a pricing war. End price was several bucks/month lower than Netflix had been charging just prior to BB's arrival.
Maybe it doesn't seem original now that everyone is getting in on the act, but original and novel is exactly what it was.
No, it wasn't. There is NOTHING novel or orignal about doing the same thing you've been doing over a new channel.
Prior to the Internet I was able to do the same thing with the library for books, VHS/LD, and audio (Cassettes and LPs then laters CDs). Yes, this applies becuase the patent is NOT about DVDs. It is about "items". So *any* item done this way prior to 1998 counts. The library had a maximum number of items you could have at one time, would only send you items that were available, sent them via mail, had no-charge return containers (or you could return to your local library. You could do it via phone, person, or *gasp* a telnet based system you dialed into.
There is nothing non-obvious about taking an existing business method and using the internet. Hell I bet you can find the concept in several Science Fiction books that predate even the Internet's existence. If you look at Star Trek you'll even find "one-click" ordering there. Ten bucks says the "Adult Movie" industry beat Netflix to it by at least two years. The Library of Congress has had this for a long time, no idea when it started. You'll probably find in in sci-fi based RPG games dating back a decade or more. At least.
It was thus neither original, nor novel.
And they had to overcome several hurdles and solve a lot of problems before it became workable and profitable -- such as finding a way to send dvds through the mail without incurring overly frequent breakage, or paying too much in shipping costs to offer the service at a reasonable price.
Yup, and it's called software an non-patentable "trade secrets". Their internal processes are essentially Trade Secrets unless they make them publically available. Their software is also protected.
For businesses the Internet is *only* a distribution/sales/communication channel and nothing more.
Simple rule #1: If it was not patentable when it did not involve the Internet, it is not patentable because it involves the Internet.
Simple Rule #2: If you "method" or "process" relies on others that are not patentable, yours is not patentable.
I agree with you generally. However:
Linux and other Unix-like OSes have supported IPv6 for years, and they haven't managed to kill DNS yet. Most Vista installations, like most Linux installations these days, are going to have IPv6 disabled anyway, so this is not going to have any real impact at all.
Is innacurate and incomplete thinking.
Let us say the traffic increase per machine was 20% regardless of OS. Which will cause more load assuming equal uptimes:
100,000,000 Vista machines or 10,000,000 Linux machines?
Comment: (paraphrase)" X doesn't work because Y happens"
Rating: +5 "insightful"
Reply to above comment: "X works because Y happens"
Rating: +5 "insightful"
And neither post showed any actual insight; just observation.
If you run a server that needs to handle a lot of email, and do so in a timely manner, this will hose you. if you run an enterprise environment where there are applicaitons (usually JavaMail based ones) that bork and die on this but are sending legitimate mail, this will hose you.
There are many legitimate applications that will die if you do this. To recommend this as a general solution is a mistake. Sure, we would all love it if the legitimate apps worked properly, but that isn't the real world. The real world is painful.
If you want a personal or small-medium user amount email address that your friends/family/etc. can send you email to but get no spam, you can set up an encryption based mail system. Only encrypted and/or signed mail is allowed in. Period. You can run this type of system in two ways:
1) Look for signed/encrypted message, extract key and verify signature. Check key against your key database. If it is not a valid signed/encrypted AND is not in your trusted/accepted keys list: reject it.
OR
2) Look for signed/encypted email, verify signature and if the signature is not correct reject it.
I use it on one of my addresses and am transitioninng all other than mailing lists to it. 100% spam free. I use option 1. If someone with a valid key does send a signeed and/or encrypted spam I can remove that key from the allowed list and that problem goes away. The likelihood of getting spam from this account is slim to none.
Not useful of unsolicited emails, but I have an application mechanism for people who want in. The time I spend validating new senders is a tiny fraction of the time spent cleaning spam, running spam filters, and trying to keep up with the latest spam fighting techniques on the server.
Given this, it only makes sense for them, or any company for that matter, to patent any ideas for present or future functionality that they might have.
No, it makes sense for them to apply their massive weight and funding to working to stop software patents and the system that manufactures from nothing the whole submarine/stupid/etc patents used as weapons to take the work of other people.
If successful, in the end they score massive brownie points with ohh say open source types, they defang all those little vultures, and we all benefit greatly from it. That makes sense. Stooping to the level of the scumbags is not the sensible action.
And its also $100 cheaper. Any more questions?
Sure.Some of these I truly don't know the answer to.
Does the 360 play HD DVDs?
Does it render the full scene in realtime at gameplay framerates?
Does it play games from the prior XBox?
Was it able to play thousands of titles at launch?
Why are the graphics no better than is found on PCs?
Does it support running two HDTV screens at full-res(1080p)?
At the same time?
When running in widescreen modes does it take advantage of this and split the screen vertically for multi-player racing games instead of the squashed-to-hell-and-back horizontal split?
How about that processor redundancy?
Bluetooth?
Is it true that the XBox360 only supports up to 4 controllers compared to the PS3's 7? (great for sportsgame players)
Metal Gear Solid 4?
Does MS encourage and support an the developer community?
Can it work with external systems (such as the PS3 working with the PSP) to add new features to games?
Does the XBox360 have an upgradable hard drive? If so, is upgrading it supported? If so, how big is the drive?
On the other hand, last I knew the PS3 didn't burn DVDs or pretend to be a TIVO.
1) HD is one of the big things that the PS3 is being billed for. Sony has been pimping that heavily. If it's such a fundamental part of the console, maybe you include the hookups out of box?
I'm in the alleged '5%'. I don't want the cable included. Why? Because it will be the wrong length. It doesnt matter what length it is, it will be just a bit too short or way to friggin long. Just as a cat is always on the wrong side of the door, the legth of OEM cables are always wrong. I'd end up buying a new cable to fit my needs and wind up paying for a cable I couldn't use (the OEM cable).
And the OEM cable would suck. Same principle. OEM cables are always cheap -- even on "premium" set-ups. I buy rather high end stereo and video equipment. Then I buy cabling for it because any OEM cables have always a) sucked and B) been the wrong size.
So, speaking as a "member of the 5%" I say: "Good move Sony".
If you buy a premium, expensive product, you tend to expect to not get gypped on the extras.
That's just it though. "Extras" are by definition not "standard includes" So if you admit that the cable is an extra it must not be included. Then it would not be an extra would it?
My HD projection TV didn't come with cables and it cost more than the PS3 and it is the display portion. Arguably, if any piece is to include the cables, the display should. Most likely the alleged 5% won't give a damn about the cable not included since they'll already know they need one and will either have it or be ready to buy it to fit their desires/physical requirements; and they'll know where to get it.
Or, the 95% of people who don't have the display for it won't need one.
Expensive and/or premium does not necessarily mean "everything". In this case, the PS3 is "premium" because of the alleged performance, "advanced" features such as Blu-Ray and full HD output, it's backward compatibility, and that it is a "Playstation". Like it or not, that last bit matters. Just as many people used to refer to home video consoles as Nintendos even if they eg. Sega.
Dude, something might be wrong with your fron.
Apparently this is NYT's way of saying that if you're smart enough to be using Linux, and diligent enough to go beyond the front page, then New York Times isn't meant for you! It could be their strategy to cater to only the dumber sections of the poulace, perhaps?
...
No, not their first