If you don't believe me, look at fields like Mathematics, which offers barely any jobs at all.
In financial services, there are lot of mathematics and physics PhDs and most of them are well paid. They're in high demand anywhere that complex models are in use, from derivatives trading to reinsurance. Granted that's not pure mathematics, but still, if you have the qualification, it definitely does open up some very well paid possibilities that aren't available to those without.
I watched the BBC World News here in the US last night (on Maryland public access tv). At the end they listed the sponsors of the program, several of them large multinationals.
Umm, dude, I am British. I have been watching the BBC my entire life. I won't be lectured on it by someone who has seen one show!
You've done nothing but justify war the entire thread. Those who can find an infinite # of ways to justify war are the ones who are letting it happen...
Can't you tell the difference between advocacy and explanation?
Where is the love?
Love - for God, for country, for leader, whatever - is a primary cause of war.
When I "retire" from development (forced or otherwise) I'm going to become a math teacher, preferably at the middle school ages. I've worked in math my whole career, and have had a wonderful experience with my own children (I know, teaching 25 kids is completely different).
Good luck. What'll actually happen is that they'll make you do 2 years of teacher training, they'll send inspectors around to watch you teach, then if you don't use their methods, they'll fire you. The purpose of teaching in modern-day US and UK is to provide cushy jobs for teachers, not to teach children. This will persist until the unions are dismantled and a voucher system rewarding performance is introduced.
US economy is the largest homogenous market, so all suppliers will tailer their goods for that market.
Emphasis mine. The crucial thing about the US is that it is a market system. If you need investment, you can get it, from someone who has the authority to make a decision there and then. If you have an idea, you can sell it without waiting for a central planning bureacracy to factor it into their 5-year economic plan. The old Soviet Empire couldn't innovate because it centralized its decision making. The US works because of the feedback inherent in a market system: the better you are at satisfying the demands of the market, the greater the resources placed under your control. If you fail, your resources will be depleted and you'll get no more. And who is this market? Everyone to participates in any way in the economy gets to spend or invest their own money how they please.
I'm sure it's a very cool thingy - an ordinary ZSU-23-2 is damn fun to fire - but what's the real scenario where it is essential?
It is so you can move the weapons platform very quickly and still put out a high density of rounds over a large volume. It's a numbers game, fire enough ammo at a target, some of it's bound to hit. An army in a firefight will expend hundreds or even thousands of rounds for every enemy killed. With a more-or-less stationary platform, vibration and variation in the ammo itself will take care of spreading it out as you track the target. On a fast moving platform such as a fighter jet, without a high rate of fire you stand a good change of your aim being dead on but your enemy slipping through the gapes in your fire.
... because there are people like you in the world who serve only to justify inhumanity
People like me, eh? I haven't started any genocidal wars, not that I can remember.
The problem with liberals like you is that you assume that people are fundamentally cooperative and sane, if only the nasty Warmongers (or Americans or Jews or Capitalists or whoever you blame) would go away, the world would return to Eden-like bliss. My advice to you is to grow up a bit.
don't always believe what BBC has to say about things... they are as guilty as any other major corporation of corrupting reality to serve their own purposes.
While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations. To suggest that the BBC is in league with them is, frankly, ludicrous.
every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created. it doesn't 'just happen'. give people technology to avoid this creation, and they will nobody 'wants' death.
You are wrong - look at all the wannabe martyrs in the world. And, you also conveniently overlook the concept that some wars aren't rational.
Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over? Whether Mohammed's heirs should have been his sons or his disciples. They've been killing each other over this for 1300 years. You think a mud brick machine is going to help here???
It would be far better to spend all this money on giving people less reason to fight each other.
You are assuming that people have a rational reason to fight. In the West, that is often (but not always true). For example, Europeans historically have warred over access to natural resources - but have also warred over religion (most notably Catholic vs Protestant) since the Renaissance. However the animosity between England and Spain was about both.
In Rwanda, the civil war was conducted along racial lines - two tribes determined to wipe one another out, pure genocide. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over religion and both sides are fighting the Kurds simply because they are of another race. In Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe sabotages the farming industry in order to starve their opponents into submission.
What about building a machine that, instead of pumping out millions of rounds of lead per second, are able to make mud bricks and houses at a rate of 10 a day?
Such a machine would not resolve a single conflict in Africa. The Hutus and Tutsis (IIRC) aren't fighting over who has the most bricks, but over which "tribe" you're from. The BBC news reported on a Rwandan who killed his own grandchildren because they were mixed race.
Socialists like giving aid to third world countries because a) it justifies higher taxation at home and b) they don't need to trouble themselves about the root causes.
. If you studied a little French in school because French was the cool language to study instead of studying Spanish (which is the only language that Americans should seriously consider studying as it's not even a 'foreign' language here anymore), well then, yes, check out Quebec
French as spoken in France and French as spoken in Quebec are somewhat different - imagine the difference between modern English and Shakespeare's English. For example, everyone in France says "le weekend". In Quebec, it's "le fin de semaine", which no-one in France says anymore. So, learning French French in school wouldn't have helped much anyway - you have to learn Quebecois French.
Out of curiosity, am I the only one that's started on P2P to find legit software?
Not at all. BitTorrent's main use for a long time was to pull down Linux distro ISO images.
But, dude, seriously. Limewire is all about w@r3z, f1l3z and pr0n. No-one who's ever seen it can deny that with a straight face. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing; I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
Prosecutor John Warren, QC, told the jury at Nottingham Crown Court that in the days leading up to the attack, rumours had been circulating that Mr Murray had sexually assaulted a girl.
The court heard Mr Murray had been beaten at his home, where he was left staggering, frightened and bloodied.
Almost three hours later, Mr Murray was standing at a bus stop on the A61 at Stretton, Derbyshire, when he was subjected to the fatal attack.
You can say what you like about MS, but don't say competition scares them
You are exactly right. Bill Gates and Microsoft's senior management are beyond money. All they care about is the game. Products are the pieces, the software industry is the board, and money is only interesting as a way to keep score. If Microsoft has a weakness it is that it cannot resist starting a new game while it's still playing another.
Microsoft is a Monopoly, Sony isn't. Sony isn't the only big company out there that makes good Stereos, or TVs or Laptops and PDA even.
And Microsoft isn't the only big company out there that makes OSs, office suites, or compilers.
But, just as Microsoft products work best with other Microsoft products, so do Sony products work best with other Sony products. If you buy a Sony device, you have to use Sony's MemoryStick, not the Compact Flash that is most common. If you buy a Vaio laptop, you're buying support for a Clie and a Cybershot too - even if you use a Psion and a Coolpix. Sure they aren't a monopoly - but you cannot deny that Sony does everything it can to lock its customers into its "platform".
Only if you destroy it after you get the subpoena. Most companies have a document retention policy that states anything older than 90 days that you don't explicitly need to do your job is automatically a candidate for deleting/shredding as appropriate. If someone subpoenas it on day 91, you're in the clear.
Re:These tips will work for all digital cameras
on
Camera Phone Tips
·
· Score: 1
You can crop the final photo a thousand times better with a desktop application after the fact.
Only if you saved in TIFF or RAW or NEF or a similar lossless format. Otherwise the camera has the advantage that it can crop on an image that hasn't already been degraded by JPEG compression.
Re:Select the camera with most pixels
on
Camera Phone Tips
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The best camera/phone is the one with most pixels.
And I suppose the best processor is the one with the most megahertz?
Serious photographers have known for years that fewer cleaner pixels beat more, noisier pixels every time. That's why Nikon sells a 4MP D2H to pros and Sony sells an 8MP F828 to consumers. Megapixels, like megahertz, only tell a fraction of the story.
And it *is* the most advanced fighter flying today, with a flight and fire control system that simply kicks the bottoms of every other comparable aircraft.
Who cares about comparable aircraft? What about enemy aircraft?
Why is the EU squandering hundreds of billions of EUR of its taxpayer's money on fighter jets when the Taliban/al Queda/etc doesn't even have an airforce??
In short, it doesn't matter how theoretically good the Typhoon is. It's still a colossal waste of money.
I read it totally wrong, this could have even CORBA/COM as prior art.
CORBA and COM are standards, not products.
The CORBA standard says WHAT you must do to be CORBA. One CORBA product might implement it one way, another CORBA product might implement it the other way. CORBA doesn't care HOW you do it internally, or even what language you do it in, only that you present a CORBA-compliant interface to the rest of the system.
What Kodak is saying is that they have developed a novel means to do the HOW. That there are other means to do what WHAT is irrelevant here.
So you cannot say that CORBA is prior art. You might be able to say that a specific implementation of CORBA is. But then again, without going deep into the details of the HOW, you might not.
I dunno... it might actually be cheaper to simply contact the patent holder and license it than it would be to develop it yourself from scratch. That's one of the points of the patent system, after all, to encourage investment in research by providing a framework for getting paid for it by people who find your research relevant to them. Xerox has operated this way for years, as has ARM.
Not that the patent system isn't broken, at the moment. The Patent Office's attitude seems to be "grant the patent anyway, let the courts sort it out" rather than doing the checking they're supposed to. But that's a fault in the implementation of the system, the design is sound.
It seems to me that core concepts fundamental to any language shouldn't be a valid basis for IP...
I say this every time a patent discussion comes up on/., only it never seems to sink in.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. The title and summary of the patent describe what it does. The body of the patent describes how it is done. The HOW is what matters in a patent.
What Kodak is saying is that it (or rather its subsidiary Wang) invested time and money in devising a novel solution to a problem, then Sun - by whatever means - used that novel solution in its own product without compensating the original developers.
Perhaps Sun independently came to the same conclusions in their own labs. Perhaps they simply read the patent database and copied Kodak's solution. That's for the judge to decide. Either way, Sun's lawyers should have checked first.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't believe me, look at fields like Mathematics, which offers barely any jobs at all.
In financial services, there are lot of mathematics and physics PhDs and most of them are well paid. They're in high demand anywhere that complex models are in use, from derivatives trading to reinsurance. Granted that's not pure mathematics, but still, if you have the qualification, it definitely does open up some very well paid possibilities that aren't available to those without.
I watched the BBC World News here in the US last night (on Maryland public access tv). At the end they listed the sponsors of the program, several of them large multinationals.
Umm, dude, I am British. I have been watching the BBC my entire life. I won't be lectured on it by someone who has seen one show!
You've done nothing but justify war the entire thread. Those who can find an infinite # of ways to justify war are the ones who are letting it happen ...
Can't you tell the difference between advocacy and explanation?
Where is the love?
Love - for God, for country, for leader, whatever - is a primary cause of war.
How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three years.
These have been introduced in cluster bombs dropped by RAF Tornados.
When I "retire" from development (forced or otherwise) I'm going to become a math teacher, preferably at the middle school ages. I've worked in math my whole career, and have had a wonderful experience with my own children (I know, teaching 25 kids is completely different).
Good luck. What'll actually happen is that they'll make you do 2 years of teacher training, they'll send inspectors around to watch you teach, then if you don't use their methods, they'll fire you. The purpose of teaching in modern-day US and UK is to provide cushy jobs for teachers, not to teach children. This will persist until the unions are dismantled and a voucher system rewarding performance is introduced.
US economy is the largest homogenous market, so all suppliers will tailer their goods for that market.
Emphasis mine. The crucial thing about the US is that it is a market system. If you need investment, you can get it, from someone who has the authority to make a decision there and then. If you have an idea, you can sell it without waiting for a central planning bureacracy to factor it into their 5-year economic plan. The old Soviet Empire couldn't innovate because it centralized its decision making. The US works because of the feedback inherent in a market system: the better you are at satisfying the demands of the market, the greater the resources placed under your control. If you fail, your resources will be depleted and you'll get no more. And who is this market? Everyone to participates in any way in the economy gets to spend or invest their own money how they please.
I'm sure it's a very cool thingy - an ordinary ZSU-23-2 is damn fun to fire - but what's the real scenario where it is essential?
It is so you can move the weapons platform very quickly and still put out a high density of rounds over a large volume. It's a numbers game, fire enough ammo at a target, some of it's bound to hit. An army in a firefight will expend hundreds or even thousands of rounds for every enemy killed. With a more-or-less stationary platform, vibration and variation in the ammo itself will take care of spreading it out as you track the target. On a fast moving platform such as a fighter jet, without a high rate of fire you stand a good change of your aim being dead on but your enemy slipping through the gapes in your fire.
... because there are people like you in the world who serve only to justify inhumanity
People like me, eh? I haven't started any genocidal wars, not that I can remember.
The problem with liberals like you is that you assume that people are fundamentally cooperative and sane, if only the nasty Warmongers (or Americans or Jews or Capitalists or whoever you blame) would go away, the world would return to Eden-like bliss. My advice to you is to grow up a bit.
don't always believe what BBC has to say about things ... they are as guilty as any other major corporation of corrupting reality to serve their own purposes.
While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations. To suggest that the BBC is in league with them is, frankly, ludicrous.
every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created. it doesn't 'just happen'. give people technology to avoid this creation, and they will nobody 'wants' death.
You are wrong - look at all the wannabe martyrs in the world. And, you also conveniently overlook the concept that some wars aren't rational.
Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over? Whether Mohammed's heirs should have been his sons or his disciples. They've been killing each other over this for 1300 years. You think a mud brick machine is going to help here???
It would be far better to spend all this money on giving people less reason to fight each other.
You are assuming that people have a rational reason to fight. In the West, that is often (but not always true). For example, Europeans historically have warred over access to natural resources - but have also warred over religion (most notably Catholic vs Protestant) since the Renaissance. However the animosity between England and Spain was about both.
In Rwanda, the civil war was conducted along racial lines - two tribes determined to wipe one another out, pure genocide. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over religion and both sides are fighting the Kurds simply because they are of another race. In Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe sabotages the farming industry in order to starve their opponents into submission.
What about building a machine that, instead of pumping out millions of rounds of lead per second, are able to make mud bricks and houses at a rate of 10 a day?
Such a machine would not resolve a single conflict in Africa. The Hutus and Tutsis (IIRC) aren't fighting over who has the most bricks, but over which "tribe" you're from. The BBC news reported on a Rwandan who killed his own grandchildren because they were mixed race.
Socialists like giving aid to third world countries because a) it justifies higher taxation at home and b) they don't need to trouble themselves about the root causes.
. If you studied a little French in school because French was the cool language to study instead of studying Spanish (which is the only language that Americans should seriously consider studying as it's not even a 'foreign' language here anymore), well then, yes, check out Quebec
French as spoken in France and French as spoken in Quebec are somewhat different - imagine the difference between modern English and Shakespeare's English. For example, everyone in France says "le weekend". In Quebec, it's "le fin de semaine", which no-one in France says anymore. So, learning French French in school wouldn't have helped much anyway - you have to learn Quebecois French.
Out of curiosity, am I the only one that's started on P2P to find legit software?
Not at all. BitTorrent's main use for a long time was to pull down Linux distro ISO images.
But, dude, seriously. Limewire is all about w@r3z, f1l3z and pr0n. No-one who's ever seen it can deny that with a straight face. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing; I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
Microsoft releases betas. You can download the 64bit version of Windows XP, and it's good for a year.
On Limewire?
The BBC would disagree with you.
You can say what you like about MS, but don't say competition scares them
You are exactly right. Bill Gates and Microsoft's senior management are beyond money. All they care about is the game. Products are the pieces, the software industry is the board, and money is only interesting as a way to keep score. If Microsoft has a weakness it is that it cannot resist starting a new game while it's still playing another.
Microsoft is a Monopoly, Sony isn't. Sony isn't the only big company out there that makes good Stereos, or TVs or Laptops and PDA even.
And Microsoft isn't the only big company out there that makes OSs, office suites, or compilers.
But, just as Microsoft products work best with other Microsoft products, so do Sony products work best with other Sony products. If you buy a Sony device, you have to use Sony's MemoryStick, not the Compact Flash that is most common. If you buy a Vaio laptop, you're buying support for a Clie and a Cybershot too - even if you use a Psion and a Coolpix. Sure they aren't a monopoly - but you cannot deny that Sony does everything it can to lock its customers into its "platform".
Isn't destruction of subpoenad evidence a crime?
Only if you destroy it after you get the subpoena. Most companies have a document retention policy that states anything older than 90 days that you don't explicitly need to do your job is automatically a candidate for deleting/shredding as appropriate. If someone subpoenas it on day 91, you're in the clear.
You can crop the final photo a thousand times better with a desktop application after the fact.
Only if you saved in TIFF or RAW or NEF or a similar lossless format. Otherwise the camera has the advantage that it can crop on an image that hasn't already been degraded by JPEG compression.
The best camera/phone is the one with most pixels.
And I suppose the best processor is the one with the most megahertz?
Serious photographers have known for years that fewer cleaner pixels beat more, noisier pixels every time. That's why Nikon sells a 4MP D2H to pros and Sony sells an 8MP F828 to consumers. Megapixels, like megahertz, only tell a fraction of the story.
And it *is* the most advanced fighter flying today, with a flight and fire control system that simply kicks the bottoms of every other comparable aircraft.
Who cares about comparable aircraft? What about enemy aircraft?
Why is the EU squandering hundreds of billions of EUR of its taxpayer's money on fighter jets when the Taliban/al Queda/etc doesn't even have an airforce??
In short, it doesn't matter how theoretically good the Typhoon is. It's still a colossal waste of money.
I read it totally wrong, this could have even CORBA/COM as prior art.
CORBA and COM are standards, not products.
The CORBA standard says WHAT you must do to be CORBA. One CORBA product might implement it one way, another CORBA product might implement it the other way. CORBA doesn't care HOW you do it internally, or even what language you do it in, only that you present a CORBA-compliant interface to the rest of the system.
What Kodak is saying is that they have developed a novel means to do the HOW. That there are other means to do what WHAT is irrelevant here.
So you cannot say that CORBA is prior art. You might be able to say that a specific implementation of CORBA is. But then again, without going deep into the details of the HOW, you might not.
lawyers cost much more per hour than developers
I dunno... it might actually be cheaper to simply contact the patent holder and license it than it would be to develop it yourself from scratch. That's one of the points of the patent system, after all, to encourage investment in research by providing a framework for getting paid for it by people who find your research relevant to them. Xerox has operated this way for years, as has ARM.
Not that the patent system isn't broken, at the moment. The Patent Office's attitude seems to be "grant the patent anyway, let the courts sort it out" rather than doing the checking they're supposed to. But that's a fault in the implementation of the system, the design is sound.
They're not going to sue the C++ standards committee because it won't earn them anything except hostility.
Not to mention that the C++ standard committee doesn't actually produce anything other than standards. Individual vendors produce compilers.
Patents would apply to the latter, not the former.
It seems to me that core concepts fundamental to any language shouldn't be a valid basis for IP...
/., only it never seems to sink in.
I say this every time a patent discussion comes up on
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. The title and summary of the patent describe what it does. The body of the patent describes how it is done. The HOW is what matters in a patent.
What Kodak is saying is that it (or rather its subsidiary Wang) invested time and money in devising a novel solution to a problem, then Sun - by whatever means - used that novel solution in its own product without compensating the original developers.
Perhaps Sun independently came to the same conclusions in their own labs. Perhaps they simply read the patent database and copied Kodak's solution. That's for the judge to decide. Either way, Sun's lawyers should have checked first.
Hefnerium molecules come in pairs and they're larger than golf balls. More like the size of grapefruits.