And even if Wikipedia's error rate someday beats Britannica's, under its current model Wikipedia can never have the key property that Britannica has, which is that you can cite it as an authoritative source without sounding silly.
Britannica doesn't have that property either.
You can't cite encyclopedias, full stop. It's as simple as that. An encyclopedia gives references though, you simply go and read them (to confirm they do in fact make the statements claimed) and then cite them.
Except there's a bunch of places on the bankofamerica.com web site that ask or your passcode without showing you the site key - just normal username/password boxes on a form. So I doubt their ass is covered.
Read the quite again, try and remember that basic logic you must have learnt at some point about A -> B.
Let A be "hasn't made a contribution before age 30"
Let B be "will never make a contrubution"
Then the quote is claiming that A -> B.
In Einsteins case B is false, Einstein clearly made a contribution to science. But A is also false, since he was 26 when he published the work that won him a novel prize - and really deserved two if not three. And A -> B is satisified by A=false and B=false so Einstein meets his claim.
There's also Kanazawa's study of 280 "great" scientists two thirds of which made their major contribution before their mid-thirties (so Einstein may have been 5 years off). Of course a closer look at the data shows that it's getting married that screws it up - once married scientific output drops like a stone.
Except of course technology changes too fast. Do you really want to to be using a 1987 form factor laptop (with 2007 components) now? Something like: the Spark near the bottom of: http://www.cgu.edu/pages/2608.asp
My laptop upgrades tend to get smaller and smaller, it'd be hard to swap out components and end up with something physically smaller without completely replacing the machine anyway.
That the search text field grabs focus and hence makes it much easier to type into it and gives the right result anyway wouldn't have anything to do with that would it?
But that's the bit I don't understand. There is no way the developers were given a vague idea of what to implement and just happened to implement the same dialogs as bluej and use almost the same name.
Either they knew about bluej, in which case they should not have signed their name to the patent. Or they were given a design spec to implement (written by someone who knew about bluej) in which case they shouldn't have signed their name to the patent since they didn't do the inventing - they were just the code monkeys.
Of course my idea of what constitutes and invention is a few orders of magnitude above what the patent office does.
Signing a document saying you invented something when you know you didn't (because someone else gave you the spec you implemented, or you copied an existing work) seems like intent and committing to me. Of course perjury charges never happen for such things, otherwise half the IP lawyers in the US would be in jail for sending DMCA notices that are complete lies.
The patent application is marked as filed October 20, 2005. Yet there's a comment to a post on one of the "inventors" blogs dated May 22, 2005 (http://blogs.msdn.com/parthopdas/archive/2005/02/ 09/369659.aspx). So I guess he doesn't read his own blog - though he posted a comment himself later on answering a question a couple of days after it was posted (after the question was posted, which was months after the pointer to bluej was posted) so I guess he does...
How it works in a large company should be irrelevant, what matters is did they follow the law.
Either they invented this from scratch and it just happens to be exactly the same as something that already exists, in which case whomever didn't do the prior art search properly was incompetent. This seems unlikely given the previous public statements.
Or they implemented a design/overview/whatever given to them by someone else, in which case they didn't "invent" it and the person who gave it to them should be the listed inventor. But in that case that person must have known where the design was copied from. So that would be perjury no matter which of the two signed the form.
And this isn't hard to find prior art, this is a work of academia - there's publications galore going back a long way (such as http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ing96objectoriented.ht ml and it's building on other things). This isn't a case of "Joe Smith did that in his ABC software (used by ten people) ages ago", this is published in academic journals. It seems a rather trivial prior art search, how does a patent lawyer manage to screw that up?
I tutored students using the object workbench in Blue a decade ago - well OK a in a couple of months it'll be a exactly a decade ago. Nice to see the "real world" catching up:)
As such, taxing imports is a good way to help local economy.
If by "help the local economy" you mean force the local people to have to buy more expensive products while local industry makes less investment in productivity.
Of course they do allow inefficient local industries to survive for decades longer than they otherwise would, so that all the consumers of those products get to finance the those who work in those industries and to a greater degree those who own those industries. So yes it's great for local industry owners, not so great for most other people though...
Two years ago is clearly post 9/11. I used my green card as ID.
What I'm saying is that they did require my SSN - it was "give it to us or we close the account" a few weeks later - which was fine with me, when I opened the account I'd applied for an SSN already, I just wanted to be able to wire some money sitting back in Australia to myself and wanted to eat before the wheels of bureaucracy finished turning.
I'm pretty sure my checking account isn't interest bearing.
I set it up before I had an SSN, and got a letter for the bank a while later about having a month to give them one or they will have to close the account. It was a couple of years ago now, so I don't have the letter to check what regulation they referenced or if it was a real requirement or just something they tacked on themselves to make their lives easier...
It's been done already. Light slows down whenever it passes through anything. It only manages to get up to 299 792 458 ms-1 in a perfect vacuum. Even air slows it a little bit.
They slowed it to 17m/s (which had been done years ago, the not losing information part might be new?). That's a little different than what air manages...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you use a special keyboard for the completely retarded?
You can't cite encyclopedias, full stop. It's as simple as that. An encyclopedia gives references though, you simply go and read them (to confirm they do in fact make the statements claimed) and then cite them.
Except there's a bunch of places on the bankofamerica.com web site that ask or your passcode without showing you the site key - just normal username/password boxes on a form. So I doubt their ass is covered.
I you go to http://www.bankofamerica.com/creditcards/ pages and click "View all cards", click one of the cards, click "Apply now", click "Sign in".
It then gives you a page asking for your passcode without bothering with the site key junk.
So not only do the customers not pay any attention to it, the bank itself doesn't bother with it either.
courts don't pass legislation.
chief scientist at the National Computer Security Center != head of the NSA.
They're about as equivalent as toilet cleaner of the whitehouse and President of the United States.
Yes, it was clearly more of a probability statement, but those are less quotable.
:)
See your sig and my user number
Read the quite again, try and remember that basic logic you must have learnt at some point about A -> B.
Let A be "hasn't made a contribution before age 30"
Let B be "will never make a contrubution"
Then the quote is claiming that A -> B.
In Einsteins case B is false, Einstein clearly made a contribution to science. But A is also false, since he was 26 when he published the work that won him a novel prize - and really deserved two if not three. And A -> B is satisified by A=false and B=false so Einstein meets his claim.
There's also Kanazawa's study of 280 "great" scientists two thirds of which made their major contribution before their mid-thirties (so Einstein may have been 5 years off). Of course a closer look at the data shows that it's getting married that screws it up - once married scientific output drops like a stone.
"A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so."
- Albert Einstein
Except of course technology changes too fast. Do you really want to to be using a 1987 form factor laptop (with 2007 components) now? Something like: the Spark near the bottom of: http://www.cgu.edu/pages/2608.asp
My laptop upgrades tend to get smaller and smaller, it'd be hard to swap out components and end up with something physically smaller without completely replacing the machine anyway.
That the search text field grabs focus and hence makes it much easier to type into it and gives the right result anyway wouldn't have anything to do with that would it?
But I'd be wrong according to the comment just ahead of mine :)
My guess would be .tl for East Timor in 2005.
But that's the bit I don't understand. There is no way the developers were given a vague idea of what to implement and just happened to implement the same dialogs as bluej and use almost the same name.
/ 09/369659.aspx). So I guess he doesn't read his own blog - though he posted a comment himself later on answering a question a couple of days after it was posted (after the question was posted, which was months after the pointer to bluej was posted) so I guess he does...
Either they knew about bluej, in which case they should not have signed their name to the patent. Or they were given a design spec to implement (written by someone who knew about bluej) in which case they shouldn't have signed their name to the patent since they didn't do the inventing - they were just the code monkeys.
Of course my idea of what constitutes and invention is a few orders of magnitude above what the patent office does.
Signing a document saying you invented something when you know you didn't (because someone else gave you the spec you implemented, or you copied an existing work) seems like intent and committing to me. Of course perjury charges never happen for such things, otherwise half the IP lawyers in the US would be in jail for sending DMCA notices that are complete lies.
The patent application is marked as filed October 20, 2005. Yet there's a comment to a post on one of the "inventors" blogs dated May 22, 2005 (http://blogs.msdn.com/parthopdas/archive/2005/02
How it works in a large company should be irrelevant, what matters is did they follow the law.
t ml and it's building on other things). This isn't a case of "Joe Smith did that in his ABC software (used by ten people) ages ago", this is published in academic journals. It seems a rather trivial prior art search, how does a patent lawyer manage to screw that up?
:)
Either they invented this from scratch and it just happens to be exactly the same as something that already exists, in which case whomever didn't do the prior art search properly was incompetent. This seems unlikely given the previous public statements.
Or they implemented a design/overview/whatever given to them by someone else, in which case they didn't "invent" it and the person who gave it to them should be the listed inventor. But in that case that person must have known where the design was copied from. So that would be perjury no matter which of the two signed the form.
And this isn't hard to find prior art, this is a work of academia - there's publications galore going back a long way (such as http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ing96objectoriented.h
I tutored students using the object workbench in Blue a decade ago - well OK a in a couple of months it'll be a exactly a decade ago. Nice to see the "real world" catching up
Except that three people are listed as the inventors on the patent application.
So those three must have thought they'd invented something - otherwise they lied on that application.
Or is it legal to put people's names on a patent application without asking them if what they did is actually an "invention"?
The people at both 3 and 4 have to know they didn't "invent" anything and surely the people at 5 have to ask them at some point?
http://www.music-map.com/king+diamond.html has suicidal tendencies nearer than it has mercyful fate, which to me implies the data is crap.
To keep the transmission power in each low enough that they don't have retest and recertify every other piece of electronics on the plane.
If by "help the local economy" you mean force the local people to have to buy more expensive products while local industry makes less investment in productivity.
Of course they do allow inefficient local industries to survive for decades longer than they otherwise would, so that all the consumers of those products get to finance the those who work in those industries and to a greater degree those who own those industries. So yes it's great for local industry owners, not so great for most other people though...
Why not read the second paragraph of the article?
Yes, I must be new here...
Two years ago is clearly post 9/11. I used my green card as ID.
What I'm saying is that they did require my SSN - it was "give it to us or we close the account" a few weeks later - which was fine with me, when I opened the account I'd applied for an SSN already, I just wanted to be able to wire some money sitting back in Australia to myself and wanted to eat before the wheels of bureaucracy finished turning.
I'm pretty sure my checking account isn't interest bearing.
I set it up before I had an SSN, and got a letter for the bank a while later about having a month to give them one or they will have to close the account. It was a couple of years ago now, so I don't have the letter to check what regulation they referenced or if it was a real requirement or just something they tacked on themselves to make their lives easier...
The trojan can just perform the transactions itself... from your normal IP... probably using the auth cookie you just created...
They slowed it to 17m/s (which had been done years ago, the not losing information part might be new?). That's a little different than what air manages...