Funny, I've got 20 1U and 2U supermicro opteron servers. Are you sure you researched this statement?
Are you sure you read researched your statement? From TFA:
"Supermicro continues to hide its Opteron-based gear. You won't find any mention of the boxes on Supermicro's homepage or product page. It's an all Xeon affair.To dig deep on the Opteron front, you need to head here. A-plus, ya'll."
The Samsung device supports Ogg Vorbis. It also has an aluminum case that avoids scratching. Battery life is 24 hours, which does matter because not everyone recharges their electronics once a day.
Being a hardcore Microsoft Office user, I thought there was a Myst-simulator in OpenOffice a la the flight simulator in Excel. Thank you for bashing my dreams.
Your employer doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't go after the consumers for purchasing or using a device that infringes on patents. Maybe he's afraid of getting cut off of service with no quick way to get service back. That would be a realistic fear. But there is no way that NTP could sue the end users.
Wow! That's so not true. NTP can sue the end users. The question of whether RIM indemnifies the end user is another question. But technically, RIM is not infringing the patent but rather contributing to the consumer's infringement of the patent. NTP simply chose to sue RIM because it's easier to get their attention rather than track down and sue a million people that includes congressmen. For example, a patent was created for using a particular clip in a certain surgical operation. The doctors installing the clip were infringing the patent. But the manufacturer of the clip was contributorily infringing the patent and was sued. The surgeons could have been sued. Because end users can be sued most of the time, the patentee will sometimes walk up to the infringer's clients and say, "You know, you may be infringing on these patents. Call your vendor about this legal liability." Of course, this scares business away and the infringer has to settle.
So, in conclusion, you are wrong. End users can be sued for patent infringement, and sometimes are threatened with such suits to put leverage on their vendors to settle.
Well, the consequence is that outsourcing basically allows end-runs around American law and business ethics. (Oh, shush!) America has relatively strong laws against environmental pollution and worker safety. Outsourcers benefit from exploiting the lack of these laws in foreign, undeveloped countries. The savings are, to a significant degree, coming from the reduced costs of environmental and human rights compliance in these foreign countries. So child labor, lobster divers who die from the bends, and dumping toxic wastes into the water are all results of outsourcing. Until America legalizes these measures domestically, it cannot compete "fairly" with outsourcers.
Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. The base system (133 Mhz CPU, 128 MB RAM) would probably run Windows 2003, but not in any usable manner. It's just the minimum requirements for the program to run.
Good luck. How many labels are going to allow their music to be sold in a DRM-unencumbered format? I think Allofmp3.com is pretty cross-platform, and uh, so's mininova.
America could have beat the Russians to put a man in orbit but launched up a chimp instead. Administrators shut down requests from astronauts to take the chimp's place just so we could beat the Russians to the moon. So America had to content itself with the first to put a primate into orbit.
Pebble Bed reactors are the future: they are supposed to be safe, cheap and modular.
Theoretically PBRs are safe. No one ever designs a nuclear reactor without saying they are supposed to be safe. Heck, pretty much every nuclear reactor built was the state-of-the-art with regards to safety. What are the wastes involved with running the design, including irradiated equipment? How are the wastes going to be disposed? How is the plant itself going to be decommissioned at the end of its lifetime? We have to make sure all these practical questions are figured out before we take advantage of the theoretical potential.
One part of me was disappointed that a great scientific test failed, but the other says, "that is what you get for outsourcing to low-wage countries".
Excuse me, but Russian expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) are at least on par with that of the United States' in terms of performance and reliability. But accidents in spaceflight still happen, on both sides of the pond. Misplaced jingoism really has no place in scientific exploration.
I hate to say this, but the PTO really has no incentive to hunt down the "crazy" patents. Patents have value only to exclude others from using certain technologies. Patents also expire in 17 years after issuance. If the underlying technology does not exist, or is unlikely to come into existance in 17 years, there is really no one to sue. Sure, you can patent "warp drive", but who can you sue? It's a worthless patent. Of course, the PTO looks dumb but no one is being harmed. Patents are worth something only when they protect something valuable; a monopoly to make a useless instrument is itself useless.
I'm entertained by the knee-jerk reactionism that has allowed this "sociopathic corporation" meme to float around. Corporations are held responsible. They get sued for breaking the law and then bankrupted--a death sentence. Ask Kenneth Lay what he thinks about the dearth of individual responsibility in corporate law. Furthermore, we all have a god-given right to make profit. No where do we have to act for the benefit of my fellow man; I just cannot hurt him. So if I should vote to say, fight a war in Iraq because I own lots of stock in military suppliers, I just sent a whole bunch of people to die killing a whole bunch of other people. Am I held individually responsible for my individual profits? Uh, no. So why can't corporations do the same?
No offense to the rest of slashdot, but its people (like me) that spend a substantial amount of their income on home "tech" that drive the industry, and most people I know are NOT going to replace their setups unless they see substantially improved features.
Uh, no. You first-adopters are beta-testers for the rest of us. Companies are targeting us, the unwashed masses, because: (a) there are more of us; (b) we're too dumb to know better; and (c) fools, money, part, soon. Companies will just switch everyone to HDCP and the unwashed masses will bend over backwards to get it because "it's new" or "they want to watch LOST from iTunes".
Seriously, Lantos has some nerve. He's a memner of the same congress that both approved Guantanamo Bay and moved to supress images from Abu Ghraib. Censoring information to people in other countries is one thing. Censoring information from your own counrtymen is another.
"Type C: Apple isn't a monopoly but is practicing illegal monopolistic practices
By definition, you can't be practicing "illegal monopolistic practices" unless you're a monopoly."
That's not exactly true. You can have a company that is not yet a monopoly attempting to become a monopoly by using "monopolistic" practices (as in those tending to form a monopoly). Pretend I have a 50% market share in portable music media players that I earned by innovation and superior design. No one else has more than 5% of this market. I tell the music labels that if you want DRM files that run on my players, you must give me an exclusive deal or the best price by a 15% margin. Your player/online music combo is either the only source for music or offers the lowest price to consumers. You marketshare in online music and media players go up. You don't have a monopoly in any market, but it is clear you are attempting to monopolize the portable music media market by using underhanded means. And that's illegal.
Not to be flippant, but if Netflix has to pay for not letting customers borrow a literally unlimited amount of DVDs, we can take ATI and NVIDIA to task for this.
Obligatory "fire in the theatre post. If I put an ad out which said, "Apartment for Rent: Blacks Need Not Apply", that's a problem. It's my house, sure, and I may really hate blackes (which is not illegal since it would be a thought crime). But I cannot exclude blacks. Nor can I post an ad saying that.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I've got 20 1U and 2U supermicro opteron servers. Are you sure you researched this statement?
Are you sure you read researched your statement? From TFA:
"Supermicro continues to hide its Opteron-based gear. You won't find any mention of the boxes on Supermicro's homepage or product page. It's an all Xeon affair.To dig deep on the Opteron front, you need to head here. A-plus, ya'll."
The Samsung device supports Ogg Vorbis. It also has an aluminum case that avoids scratching. Battery life is 24 hours, which does matter because not everyone recharges their electronics once a day.
How to Make PETN, "one of the strongest known high explosives", brought to you by Wikipedia Look at all the chemicals you need. Not that hard to get ahold of. Hrm.
Evolution isn't as neat and simple as "better mammal wins" or "better gene gets selected".
Obviously not. Blondes are going to be extinct by 2202. So hoard up on blondes now!
Being a hardcore Microsoft Office user, I thought there was a Myst-simulator in OpenOffice a la the flight simulator in Excel. Thank you for bashing my dreams.
water is not ice.
water is not steam.
ice is solid water.
steam is gaseous water.
Exactly. The lab I worked in was genetically modifying mice back in 1998.
Your employer doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't go after the consumers for purchasing or using a device that infringes on patents. Maybe he's afraid of getting cut off of service with no quick way to get service back. That would be a realistic fear. But there is no way that NTP could sue the end users.
Wow! That's so not true. NTP can sue the end users. The question of whether RIM indemnifies the end user is another question. But technically, RIM is not infringing the patent but rather contributing to the consumer's infringement of the patent. NTP simply chose to sue RIM because it's easier to get their attention rather than track down and sue a million people that includes congressmen. For example, a patent was created for using a particular clip in a certain surgical operation. The doctors installing the clip were infringing the patent. But the manufacturer of the clip was contributorily infringing the patent and was sued. The surgeons could have been sued. Because end users can be sued most of the time, the patentee will sometimes walk up to the infringer's clients and say, "You know, you may be infringing on these patents. Call your vendor about this legal liability." Of course, this scares business away and the infringer has to settle.
So, in conclusion, you are wrong. End users can be sued for patent infringement, and sometimes are threatened with such suits to put leverage on their vendors to settle.
Well, the consequence is that outsourcing basically allows end-runs around American law and business ethics. (Oh, shush!) America has relatively strong laws against environmental pollution and worker safety. Outsourcers benefit from exploiting the lack of these laws in foreign, undeveloped countries. The savings are, to a significant degree, coming from the reduced costs of environmental and human rights compliance in these foreign countries. So child labor, lobster divers who die from the bends, and dumping toxic wastes into the water are all results of outsourcing. Until America legalizes these measures domestically, it cannot compete "fairly" with outsourcers.
Most Indians understand English, and as such are overqualified for Mr. Bush's position.
Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. The base system (133 Mhz CPU, 128 MB RAM) would probably run Windows 2003, but not in any usable manner. It's just the minimum requirements for the program to run.
Good luck. How many labels are going to allow their music to be sold in a DRM-unencumbered format? I think Allofmp3.com is pretty cross-platform, and uh, so's mininova.
America could have beat the Russians to put a man in orbit but launched up a chimp instead. Administrators shut down requests from astronauts to take the chimp's place just so we could beat the Russians to the moon. So America had to content itself with the first to put a primate into orbit.
Pebble Bed reactors are the future: they are supposed to be safe, cheap and modular.
Theoretically PBRs are safe. No one ever designs a nuclear reactor without saying they are supposed to be safe. Heck, pretty much every nuclear reactor built was the state-of-the-art with regards to safety. What are the wastes involved with running the design, including irradiated equipment? How are the wastes going to be disposed? How is the plant itself going to be decommissioned at the end of its lifetime? We have to make sure all these practical questions are figured out before we take advantage of the theoretical potential.
How many people called "Jesus" or "Chris" do you know?
One part of me was disappointed that a great scientific test failed, but the other says, "that is what you get for outsourcing to low-wage countries".
Excuse me, but Russian expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) are at least on par with that of the United States' in terms of performance and reliability. But accidents in spaceflight still happen, on both sides of the pond. Misplaced jingoism really has no place in scientific exploration.
AMD and IBM already cross-license their IP. Silicon on Insulator was an IBM technology, remember, that AMD now uses.
I hate to say this, but the PTO really has no incentive to hunt down the "crazy" patents. Patents have value only to exclude others from using certain technologies. Patents also expire in 17 years after issuance. If the underlying technology does not exist, or is unlikely to come into existance in 17 years, there is really no one to sue. Sure, you can patent "warp drive", but who can you sue? It's a worthless patent. Of course, the PTO looks dumb but no one is being harmed. Patents are worth something only when they protect something valuable; a monopoly to make a useless instrument is itself useless.
I'm entertained by the knee-jerk reactionism that has allowed this "sociopathic corporation" meme to float around. Corporations are held responsible. They get sued for breaking the law and then bankrupted--a death sentence. Ask Kenneth Lay what he thinks about the dearth of individual responsibility in corporate law. Furthermore, we all have a god-given right to make profit. No where do we have to act for the benefit of my fellow man; I just cannot hurt him. So if I should vote to say, fight a war in Iraq because I own lots of stock in military suppliers, I just sent a whole bunch of people to die killing a whole bunch of other people. Am I held individually responsible for my individual profits? Uh, no. So why can't corporations do the same?
I use my myspace site to try to improve my co-worker's perception of me.
No offense to the rest of slashdot, but its people (like me) that spend a substantial amount of their income on home "tech" that drive the industry, and most people I know are NOT going to replace their setups unless they see substantially improved features.
Uh, no. You first-adopters are beta-testers for the rest of us. Companies are targeting us, the unwashed masses, because: (a) there are more of us; (b) we're too dumb to know better; and (c) fools, money, part, soon. Companies will just switch everyone to HDCP and the unwashed masses will bend over backwards to get it because "it's new" or "they want to watch LOST from iTunes".
Seriously, Lantos has some nerve. He's a memner of the same congress that both approved Guantanamo Bay and moved to supress images from Abu Ghraib. Censoring information to people in other countries is one thing. Censoring information from your own counrtymen is another.
He's a Holocaust survivor. Pay attention. We're not being censored, yet people are still shooting off their mouths uninformed.
"Type C: Apple isn't a monopoly but is practicing illegal monopolistic practices
By definition, you can't be practicing "illegal monopolistic practices" unless you're a monopoly."
That's not exactly true. You can have a company that is not yet a monopoly attempting to become a monopoly by using "monopolistic" practices (as in those tending to form a monopoly). Pretend I have a 50% market share in portable music media players that I earned by innovation and superior design. No one else has more than 5% of this market. I tell the music labels that if you want DRM files that run on my players, you must give me an exclusive deal or the best price by a 15% margin. Your player/online music combo is either the only source for music or offers the lowest price to consumers. You marketshare in online music and media players go up. You don't have a monopoly in any market, but it is clear you are attempting to monopolize the portable music media market by using underhanded means. And that's illegal.
Not to be flippant, but if Netflix has to pay for not letting customers borrow a literally unlimited amount of DVDs, we can take ATI and NVIDIA to task for this.
Obligatory "fire in the theatre post. If I put an ad out which said, "Apartment for Rent: Blacks Need Not Apply", that's a problem. It's my house, sure, and I may really hate blackes (which is not illegal since it would be a thought crime). But I cannot exclude blacks. Nor can I post an ad saying that.