I'm getting over a beaut of a head cold and feel awful but this article sure boosted my spirits.
I know some investors that take the Motley Fools' advice pretty darned seriously. I'll be forwarding the URL to their article to them and talk to them this weekend to see what they think of their premise. Ought to make for an interesting discussion. I gotta say I was a little surprised to see that MS's cash pile has been dwindling as fast as it has. What the heck are they spending it on?
...to run the POTS network for a good long time...
Uh... what was that recent story about the phone companies and their having to replace 17,000+ batteries. Maybe they won't have the batteries around when the lights go out.
"I have some top 63 lists from 1968, you would not recognize very many of the tunes on them."
Heh, heh... wanna bet? I spent an enjoyable trip down memory lane a while back perusing the old "Silver Dollar Survey" lists on the WLS history web site. I remembered all of those old songs. (Well from, say, '63 on, anyway.)
"Some artists live off of a hit single from 10-20 years back. Also, it gives them incentive to NOT make their best works at the beginning, but to hold out as long as they can to make sure they don't lose the protections for their art at the peek of their popularity."
And this promotes the creative arts, how? So an artist gets lucky by composing a catchy song and expects to milk it until they die? And their grandchildren as well? Seems to me that this is a disincentive for the artist to create anything at all once that first popular piece is produced.
Nowadays the copyright system is so far slanted toward the artist -- and away from the public good -- that it's bound to topple over. Some would argue that that toppling has actually begun.
Where I used to live, the phone company was over two years behind their projected date for having ADSL available in the local CO when we moved to a new home in a neighboring town. I heard that they only recently got the equipment in. (And we moved out of that town over six years ago.)
Based on the local telco monopoly's past performance, I expect this new technology to hit my town by about, oh, 2018. They have little to no incentive to install new equipment as they can still make a ton of money on the scarce (by their own inaction) bandwidth.
"Or not- and then students will just refuse to take their classes."
That's the student's loss. It's called adapting to the environment. It's something you'll need to learn to do to get by in the future.
"There's a prof here who doesn't allow laptops in class- and many many students avoid her classes becuase of that limitation."
Perhaps the professor would rather that the students, oh I don't know, pay attention during the lecture and discussions. Nothing says "what I'm doing is more important than what you're saying" than tapping on a keyboard during a lecture. I'd bet my next paycheck that the professor's policy has a lot more to do with eliminating distractions during her lectures and virtually nothing to do with technophobia. If you're staring at your laptop, the professor has no feedback available to determine whether your "getting it". Personally, I'm hoping that it's a required class and she's the only faculty member in the department that's teaching it.
"... but if you don't give your customers what they want, they will go somewhere else."
Great attitude. Right up there with parent suing K-12 teachers for giving little Johnny something other than an "A" even when he doesn't perform to "A" standards. When did a college/university education become a product like a latte? Sure you pay tuition but that doesn't guarantee that you will receive a education. (Though you might get a sheepskin at the end of your four years.) That tuition is only a part of what you pay for that education.
BTW, you'll find this out when you enter the Real World (tm) and find that the folks who insist on typing on their all-important laptops -- and other personal "productivity" gadgets -- during meetings offer little to nothing to the discourse. (Hopefully there is someone there taking notes on their laptop for the meeting minutes but they're not generally expected to be contributing the meeting lest the minutes have gaps.) Most attendees are not impressed that the fellow who never once made eye contact after the introductions and was busily tapping away on his laptop during a meeting was forwarding you some email that was being discussed at the meeting. (If he'd been paying attention, perhaps he would have noticed that someone had already printed copies for the attendees and which were quite useful to take notes on). And meetings centered around someone's laptop are almost universally Dilbertesque in their uselessness. It's a given that ten minutes will be wasted on setting up a projector, the fonts will be too squinty to be read by the attendees, the presenter will click on the wrong menu item and hose the program, they will not be able to find a file they wanted everyone to see, and the damned laptop will blue screen at least once during the meeting. (But isn't that wallpaper of the kids just too cute?)
... for a feature that's been part of most, if not all, email software packages since email existed? (Why am I not surprised?)
So, I guess the patent examiner wasn't aware of how ".vacation" files work. Or that autoresponders have been in use since the '80s. Magazines back then published articles on how to write your own.
While it's expensive to fight a bogus patent, one's still gotta wonder about the competence of the legal advice received by those companies that settled. Patent trolls will never go away if most companies merely follow the knee-jerk approach of writing a check and settling.
The U.S. ought to get a copy of the hiring guidelines of some of the European patent offices. They used to hire smart guys who came up with revolutionary ideas in physics in their spare time. We tend to hire guys who have no idea what technology has already been in widespread use for, oh, the past twenty years.
... legal folks have recently decided that it's not legal for you to delete certain things from your computer and now it's not legal for you to even turn off your computer. Will the MPAA now be liable for paying for the electrical bills for us? Computer operation ain't free you know.
On the bright side:
People living in areas with flaky power will have an excuse for not having kept information in RAM.
Windows users will be seen as heroic civil disobedients due to their clearing of RAM every time a new patch come down the pipe.
On the dark side:
Your having failed to install a backup generator to allow your computer to remain powered up despite Mother Nature taking down the power grid... or...
Your use of Windows and frequent need to reboot your computer...
will be seen by the MPAA, and probably some judge somewhere, as deliberate spoliation of the evidence contained in RAM.
Of course if you upgrade from Windows to a more stable operating system, you'll have to install the darned generator as well.
Do the courts ever consider that their decisions have costs?
The above is/was intended to be tongue-in-cheek but part of me says that I'd bet my next paycheck that some prosecutor, somewhere, is thinking of adding a charge that that evidence was destroyed because the defendant turned off their computer.
You're to place the little postcard in an envelope and mail it back to the magazine if you want the refund. No banking information should be needed. I expect you'd get a check for the remainder of your subscription. Me? I'm opting for the CD. I've been a subscriber since the second year of publication and the CD will let me get my hands on the first year's issues. I expect there to be some useful stuff even in those issues. What's old is new again and all that.
Heh, heh... Remember when programs were published in magazines using the oddball Cauzin strip. Another short-lived gizmo that was going to make software distribution (not that the Cue::Cat ever made that claim) via magnetic media a thing of the past. Too bad it didn't last. Might have saved my eyesight from the strain of squinting at those tiny 8086 assembler listings while typing them in.
How the heck does this important revelation improve the chances of catching any of these guys? So what if they use photo editing software to add captions before they release their videos/photos. Will it make it easier to capture them knowing that they edit their messages before sending them off to Al Jazeera?
Seems to me that some tax money was completely wasted analyzing these videos/images. Doesn't surprise me, though.
The point of the Internet is to have a network where anything is possible.
Heh, heh. I can remember when the phone companies wouldn't allow modems because (it seemed to those of us who used them, anyway) it allowed you to do things that the phone company hadn't thought of. "Sending bits across voice lines? NO! You'll have an expensive leased line installed if you want to do that. And you'll lease equipment from us, too. Or we'll cut off your service!"
Tier it off and you'll make it about as useful as the television networks.
You've hit the nail on the head. That's the model the phone companies are trying to emulate. It explains their ridiculous subscriber plans that include "Content by whoever".
I'm not at all surprised at the difficulty that the phone companies are having with the Internet. They had to be dragged -- kicking and screaming -- into accepting packet switched networks in the first place. My guess is that an entire generation of managers (or two) at these companies need to retire before we'll see anything like a basic understanding of the Internet in these companies' actions.
... when corporations can convince the government to invent laws to make it illegal to take advantage of product flaws. If I think hard enough, I think I can still remember a day when a flawed product would merely be taken off the market or the public would stay away from it in droves until it could be fixed. Now it's, apparently, more cost effective to lobby for a law to make it illegal to use the product in such a way as to expose the flaw or use the flaw for a purpose that the manufacturer never intended, either through neglect ("Oops! We never thought of that!") or arrogance ("I don't care if it's got flaws! Make sure it ships by the announced date!"). It's not just CallerID. We can all think of others. (*cough* DVD encryption *cough*)
One question we might want to ask ourselves:
Why do we continue to put up with this?
(Well, not me personally. I don't pay for CallerID -- SBC gets enough of my money already -- and find that, after the initial aggravation, that a curt "Get Lost!" works quite well.) I have friends who've complained about phony CallerID use; mainly those who work out of their homes and need CallerID to distinguish friends/family from clients. They could do without it but continue to pay for use of a flawed technology. What did we ever do without it, I wonder? Plenty of people did and probably still do.
... I'd rather he received a $65 fine and 250,000 years in prison. That way, if he got a reduced sentence for good behaviour, he might still be in the big house for 125,000 years.
Or it could be. I'm thinking of starting a pool on how long it'll be before some slimeball in Hollywood thinks it'd be a great idea to make this cash register activation only temporary rendering the DVD unusable after a time. Of course, consumers will be prevented from buying a home version of the activator and anyone considering even offering one will be hit with a DMCA-based suit within nanoseconds of announcing their product.
Same story: windows on the desktop, internal websites that only work with IE, crummy internally-written applications (mainly on Notes). Installing Linux on one of the desktops wouldn't work too well because their all leased and you never know when your desktop will wind up on the refresh list.
The only good thing is that we have a lot of design engineers that were running CAD software on Solaris-based workstations so we have a bunch of them around. I've got an Ultra 60 and a Blade 1000 that I used for testing. My main machine, though, is an older Compaq running SuSE. My cubicle neighbor's got a slew of various type Sun workstations squirreled away. He runs Solaris all day. We typically switch over to the Windows boxes only for email and to run those crummy internal apps. The windows addicts don't understand why we don't want to use Windows for everything.
If you've got Sun boxes around, I have to wonder just why you're not being allowed to use one in your role as a Solaris engineer. Are you supposed to installed software and test it on the production systems? (Oops! Sorry boss!)
This is another example of the Government deciding to defund something because either: a) it doesn't result in immediate tangible product (though the comment that mentioned "Tang" cracked me up), b) it doesn't benefit some Congresscritter's re-election drive, c) it doesn't provide a way for someone in Government to give a handout to a constituent who's looking for a Federal contract, or d) the think tank is located in a Democrat's district.
This administration wants to privatize everything that Government does anyway. But to do this is short-sighted. No private entity would be spending time coming up with new ideas for space exploration, propulsion, etc. All the people at the NASA think tank will wind up going to a plethora of separate companies and there will be no critical mass of brain power to come up with the new ideas. Individually the folks at the think tank will be at some corporation working on "special projects".
Prediction: The Chinese will put a permanent base on the Moon and this move to close down the think tank will look Real Dumb (tm). Fiery Congressional hearings will be held shortly afterward wondering how in the hell this could have happened.
Just because the language allowed you to omit spaces, doesn't mean you had to. I wrote a ton and a half of FORTRAN over more than a decade and never once encountered anyone who thought that was the correct way to code.
I can understand, though, why someone might want to omit the spaces: it conserved punch cards. Maybe that's why I never considered it important; I only used punch cards for one semester in college and, after that, only when forced by some instructor who wanted them. And, even then, I created them from programs that were originally created on disk. It used to confuse the operators who'd usually respond "Seriously?" to my request to punch the contents of my virtual punch to real cards. "Yeah, it's for a class."
``And it has been updated (F95) to include all the modern features you could want.''
Inline comments? Those used to be vendor-specific. I got used to them when I used VAX FORTRAN. I remember when MS FORTRAN said they'd have them but the compiler versions I used never allowed them. In fact, most of their compilers (which were total crap anyway) were unable, without significant modification, to use code that was accepted by other compilers even when they (MS) advertised that it could. Portable code? They'd heard of it but didn't believe in it. even back then. Guess that makes me something of an early adopter: I was sick and tired of Microsoft by the late-80s.
Ah, FORTRAN. Brings back some memories. Maybe someday I'll resurrect some of those old F77 programs I have on floppies.
``But non-stories like this make me wonder if the Chicago Sun-Times is one of those organizations.''
Add to that their publishing of Robert Novak's drivel and it pretty much proves that to be the case. Besides, the Sun-Times hasn't been relevant since they let Royko go way back when.
... was the ridiculous fee of $5K per page per copy of a hardcopy of anything posted on the web site.
Somehow during my 25+ years of immersion in computer technology, I've managed to miss the part where it became possible for her to detect whether I've printed anything from her web site. And can she tell what font size I'm printing at? Because if she can't, how does she know whether I would owe her 2 X $5K, 4 X $5K, or whatever?
I don't know what her story is and why it led her to her little crusade and, frankly, I don't need to or even want to know. She comes off as little more than another form of those kooks who'd sue neighborhood parents for allowing their children to play in front of her house, or making noise, or allowing a ball to fall on her lawn. IMHO, those posters who've labeled her "stupid bitch" need to include "psycho" in their decription. This is another of those things you run across on the Internet that make you wish it were mandatory that ISPs require some sort of psychological testing before they let you set up a web site. If we're lucky, she'll wear out her welcome in Colorado's court system and be barred from filing any more suits.
BTW, by reading this post you have agreed to enter into a contract whereby you agree to never seek any legal redress for portions of said post that you find objectionable. So there!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting over a beaut of a head cold and feel awful but this article sure boosted my spirits.
I know some investors that take the Motley Fools' advice pretty darned seriously. I'll be forwarding the URL to their article to them and talk to them this weekend to see what they think of their premise. Ought to make for an interesting discussion. I gotta say I was a little surprised to see that MS's cash pile has been dwindling as fast as it has. What the heck are they spending it on?
Uh... what was that recent story about the phone companies and their having to replace 17,000+ batteries. Maybe they won't have the batteries around when the lights go out.
And this promotes the creative arts, how? So an artist gets lucky by composing a catchy song and expects to milk it until they die? And their grandchildren as well? Seems to me that this is a disincentive for the artist to create anything at all once that first popular piece is produced.
Nowadays the copyright system is so far slanted toward the artist -- and away from the public good -- that it's bound to topple over. Some would argue that that toppling has actually begun.
I think you meant to type "Sonny Bono" but, then again, maybe you really weren't that far from being right.
Where I used to live, the phone company was over two years behind their projected date for having ADSL available in the local CO when we moved to a new home in a neighboring town. I heard that they only recently got the equipment in. (And we moved out of that town over six years ago.)
Based on the local telco monopoly's past performance, I expect this new technology to hit my town by about, oh, 2018. They have little to no incentive to install new equipment as they can still make a ton of money on the scarce (by their own inaction) bandwidth.
"No-o-ow... who wants to fix our bugs for free?"
[chirp chirp chirp]
"Anyone?"
[chirp chirp chirp]
These guys crack me up. Really.
That's the student's loss. It's called adapting to the environment. It's something you'll need to learn to do to get by in the future.
Perhaps the professor would rather that the students, oh I don't know, pay attention during the lecture and discussions. Nothing says "what I'm doing is more important than what you're saying" than tapping on a keyboard during a lecture. I'd bet my next paycheck that the professor's policy has a lot more to do with eliminating distractions during her lectures and virtually nothing to do with technophobia. If you're staring at your laptop, the professor has no feedback available to determine whether your "getting it". Personally, I'm hoping that it's a required class and she's the only faculty member in the department that's teaching it.
Great attitude. Right up there with parent suing K-12 teachers for giving little Johnny something other than an "A" even when he doesn't perform to "A" standards. When did a college/university education become a product like a latte? Sure you pay tuition but that doesn't guarantee that you will receive a education. (Though you might get a sheepskin at the end of your four years.) That tuition is only a part of what you pay for that education.
BTW, you'll find this out when you enter the Real World (tm) and find that the folks who insist on typing on their all-important laptops -- and other personal "productivity" gadgets -- during meetings offer little to nothing to the discourse. (Hopefully there is someone there taking notes on their laptop for the meeting minutes but they're not generally expected to be contributing the meeting lest the minutes have gaps.) Most attendees are not impressed that the fellow who never once made eye contact after the introductions and was busily tapping away on his laptop during a meeting was forwarding you some email that was being discussed at the meeting. (If he'd been paying attention, perhaps he would have noticed that someone had already printed copies for the attendees and which were quite useful to take notes on). And meetings centered around someone's laptop are almost universally Dilbertesque in their uselessness. It's a given that ten minutes will be wasted on setting up a projector, the fonts will be too squinty to be read by the attendees, the presenter will click on the wrong menu item and hose the program, they will not be able to find a file they wanted everyone to see, and the damned laptop will blue screen at least once during the meeting. (But isn't that wallpaper of the kids just too cute?)
... for a feature that's been part of most, if not all, email software packages since email existed? (Why am I not surprised?)
So, I guess the patent examiner wasn't aware of how ".vacation" files work. Or that autoresponders have been in use since the '80s. Magazines back then published articles on how to write your own.
While it's expensive to fight a bogus patent, one's still gotta wonder about the competence of the legal advice received by those companies that settled. Patent trolls will never go away if most companies merely follow the knee-jerk approach of writing a check and settling.
The U.S. ought to get a copy of the hiring guidelines of some of the European patent offices. They used to hire smart guys who came up with revolutionary ideas in physics in their spare time. We tend to hire guys who have no idea what technology has already been in widespread use for, oh, the past twenty years.
... legal folks have recently decided that it's not legal for you to delete certain things from your computer and now it's not legal for you to even turn off your computer. Will the MPAA now be liable for paying for the electrical bills for us? Computer operation ain't free you know.
On the bright side:
On the dark side:
will be seen by the MPAA, and probably some judge somewhere, as deliberate spoliation of the evidence contained in RAM.
Of course if you upgrade from Windows to a more stable operating system, you'll have to install the darned generator as well.
Do the courts ever consider that their decisions have costs?
The above is/was intended to be tongue-in-cheek but part of me says that I'd bet my next paycheck that some prosecutor, somewhere, is thinking of adding a charge that that evidence was destroyed because the defendant turned off their computer.
You're to place the little postcard in an envelope and mail it back to the magazine if you want the refund. No banking information should be needed. I expect you'd get a check for the remainder of your subscription. Me? I'm opting for the CD. I've been a subscriber since the second year of publication and the CD will let me get my hands on the first year's issues. I expect there to be some useful stuff even in those issues. What's old is new again and all that.
Heh, heh... Remember when programs were published in magazines using the oddball Cauzin strip. Another short-lived gizmo that was going to make software distribution (not that the Cue::Cat ever made that claim) via magnetic media a thing of the past. Too bad it didn't last. Might have saved my eyesight from the strain of squinting at those tiny 8086 assembler listings while typing them in.
How the heck does this important revelation improve the chances of catching any of these guys? So what if they use photo editing software to add captions before they release their videos/photos. Will it make it easier to capture them knowing that they edit their messages before sending them off to Al Jazeera?
Seems to me that some tax money was completely wasted analyzing these videos/images. Doesn't surprise me, though.
the "Einstein's Bridge" John Cramer who's proposing this test?
Just wondering...
... the bribe worked. Er, um, I mean... Hey! That's a pretty good PR return on an investment that couldn't have been more than about $200K.
Heh, heh. I can remember when the phone companies wouldn't allow modems because (it seemed to those of us who used them, anyway) it allowed you to do things that the phone company hadn't thought of. "Sending bits across voice lines? NO! You'll have an expensive leased line installed if you want to do that. And you'll lease equipment from us, too. Or we'll cut off your service!"
You've hit the nail on the head. That's the model the phone companies are trying to emulate. It explains their ridiculous subscriber plans that include "Content by whoever".
I'm not at all surprised at the difficulty that the phone companies are having with the Internet. They had to be dragged -- kicking and screaming -- into accepting packet switched networks in the first place. My guess is that an entire generation of managers (or two) at these companies need to retire before we'll see anything like a basic understanding of the Internet in these companies' actions.
... when corporations can convince the government to invent laws to make it illegal to take advantage of product flaws. If I think hard enough, I think I can still remember a day when a flawed product would merely be taken off the market or the public would stay away from it in droves until it could be fixed. Now it's, apparently, more cost effective to lobby for a law to make it illegal to use the product in such a way as to expose the flaw or use the flaw for a purpose that the manufacturer never intended, either through neglect ("Oops! We never thought of that!") or arrogance ("I don't care if it's got flaws! Make sure it ships by the announced date!"). It's not just CallerID. We can all think of others. (*cough* DVD encryption *cough*)
One question we might want to ask ourselves:
(Well, not me personally. I don't pay for CallerID -- SBC gets enough of my money already -- and find that, after the initial aggravation, that a curt "Get Lost!" works quite well.) I have friends who've complained about phony CallerID use; mainly those who work out of their homes and need CallerID to distinguish friends/family from clients. They could do without it but continue to pay for use of a flawed technology. What did we ever do without it, I wonder? Plenty of people did and probably still do.
... I'd rather he received a $65 fine and 250,000 years in prison. That way, if he got a reduced sentence for good behaviour, he might still be in the big house for 125,000 years.
Or it could be. I'm thinking of starting a pool on how long it'll be before some slimeball in Hollywood thinks it'd be a great idea to make this cash register activation only temporary rendering the DVD unusable after a time. Of course, consumers will be prevented from buying a home version of the activator and anyone considering even offering one will be hit with a DMCA-based suit within nanoseconds of announcing their product.
Same story: windows on the desktop, internal websites that only work with IE, crummy internally-written applications (mainly on Notes). Installing Linux on one of the desktops wouldn't work too well because their all leased and you never know when your desktop will wind up on the refresh list.
The only good thing is that we have a lot of design engineers that were running CAD software on Solaris-based workstations so we have a bunch of them around. I've got an Ultra 60 and a Blade 1000 that I used for testing. My main machine, though, is an older Compaq running SuSE. My cubicle neighbor's got a slew of various type Sun workstations squirreled away. He runs Solaris all day. We typically switch over to the Windows boxes only for email and to run those crummy internal apps. The windows addicts don't understand why we don't want to use Windows for everything.
If you've got Sun boxes around, I have to wonder just why you're not being allowed to use one in your role as a Solaris engineer. Are you supposed to installed software and test it on the production systems? (Oops! Sorry boss!)
Michigan must expect that everyone knows about those special NASA diapers.
This is another example of the Government deciding to defund something because either: a) it doesn't result in immediate tangible product (though the comment that mentioned "Tang" cracked me up), b) it doesn't benefit some Congresscritter's re-election drive, c) it doesn't provide a way for someone in Government to give a handout to a constituent who's looking for a Federal contract, or d) the think tank is located in a Democrat's district.
This administration wants to privatize everything that Government does anyway. But to do this is short-sighted. No private entity would be spending time coming up with new ideas for space exploration, propulsion, etc. All the people at the NASA think tank will wind up going to a plethora of separate companies and there will be no critical mass of brain power to come up with the new ideas. Individually the folks at the think tank will be at some corporation working on "special projects".
Prediction: The Chinese will put a permanent base on the Moon and this move to close down the think tank will look Real Dumb (tm). Fiery Congressional hearings will be held shortly afterward wondering how in the hell this could have happened.
Just because the language allowed you to omit spaces, doesn't mean you had to. I wrote a ton and a half of FORTRAN over more than a decade and never once encountered anyone who thought that was the correct way to code.
I can understand, though, why someone might want to omit the spaces: it conserved punch cards. Maybe that's why I never considered it important; I only used punch cards for one semester in college and, after that, only when forced by some instructor who wanted them. And, even then, I created them from programs that were originally created on disk. It used to confuse the operators who'd usually respond "Seriously?" to my request to punch the contents of my virtual punch to real cards. "Yeah, it's for a class."
Inline comments? Those used to be vendor-specific. I got used to them when I used VAX FORTRAN. I remember when MS FORTRAN said they'd have them but the compiler versions I used never allowed them. In fact, most of their compilers (which were total crap anyway) were unable, without significant modification, to use code that was accepted by other compilers even when they (MS) advertised that it could. Portable code? They'd heard of it but didn't believe in it. even back then. Guess that makes me something of an early adopter: I was sick and tired of Microsoft by the late-80s.
Ah, FORTRAN. Brings back some memories. Maybe someday I'll resurrect some of those old F77 programs I have on floppies.
Add to that their publishing of Robert Novak's drivel and it pretty much proves that to be the case. Besides, the Sun-Times hasn't been relevant since they let Royko go way back when.
... was the ridiculous fee of $5K per page per copy of a hardcopy of anything posted on the web site.
Somehow during my 25+ years of immersion in computer technology, I've managed to miss the part where it became possible for her to detect whether I've printed anything from her web site. And can she tell what font size I'm printing at? Because if she can't, how does she know whether I would owe her 2 X $5K, 4 X $5K, or whatever?
I don't know what her story is and why it led her to her little crusade and, frankly, I don't need to or even want to know. She comes off as little more than another form of those kooks who'd sue neighborhood parents for allowing their children to play in front of her house, or making noise, or allowing a ball to fall on her lawn. IMHO, those posters who've labeled her "stupid bitch" need to include "psycho" in their decription. This is another of those things you run across on the Internet that make you wish it were mandatory that ISPs require some sort of psychological testing before they let you set up a web site. If we're lucky, she'll wear out her welcome in Colorado's court system and be barred from filing any more suits.
BTW, by reading this post you have agreed to enter into a contract whereby you agree to never seek any legal redress for portions of said post that you find objectionable. So there!