I think the reason people find insurance
companies' attitude wrong is because their
only value is in spreading the risk. So if
they reduce their risk by using actuary
tables, then they push risk management back
to the consumer. People simply don't like
lower level of service.
The non-discrimination argument is also quite
strong. One could make a statement that blacks
are not as educated as whites on average, so
they should not be hired in any intellectual
capacity. I dunno if this is still true but
there were times when it was definitely true.
Would you agree that this argument is not
acceptable? I don't see a difference between
the above argument and what the insurance
companies are doing. Do you?
It is stipulated that the invention should not
be obvious. Here we have two companies
independently coming up with same tech (or so
they claim), apparently at roughly the same time.
This to me defines an obvious "invention".
The court should invalidate both patent claims.
'Course pigs will hover over frozen hell before
our system serves the public interest.
This thing is about a millimeter large.
It's visible with naked eye. It's not
autonomous/programmable, and has no
built in power source. It is not useful
as is.
Real stuff is decades away, if feasible at
all. Take grand words like nanotech
with a bag of salt.
Uh, no. I don't mean you guys need more
time. I mean you can't possibly do what
is required of you because it requires more
knowledge than a person can fit in their
head. The system that pretends that this is
possible is just plain bad. And people who
get employed by said system, are cooperating
in deceiving the public, and so they get to share
the blame. Hence name calling (although I felt
like flaming someone at the time anyway).
In this whole IP food chain, patent lawyers and
VCs certainly deserve more flaming, but none
have posted at the time.
First off, my native language ain't English
so thanks for correcting my spelling.
So, if I paraphrase your post for real, it
sounds like: "I don't know my subject, nor
can you expect it from me, so give me a
break". Great logic, dimwit. If I go to a
surgeon, he'd better know everything about the
upcoming operation.
And this brings up anoter point.
If you are not (by your own admission) skilled
in the art, then how do you make a judgement on
what would be obvious to those who are so skilled.
My point was that the way the system is set up,
people cannot fulfill their duties, so it
renders every examiner a dolt by default.
You guys are supposed to be experts,
i.e. you should only need references
to back up rejection of claims formally.
You should know from first glance
what prior art for a given application
is. This is at the core of why people
think PTO people are imbecils - because
you are not aware of full scope of prior
art despite claiming to be experts.
As for doing a thorough search... don't
make me laugh. From what I know (I have a
patent on a hardware piece), you guys
only search other patents. Finding obscure
prior art is not expected from you. You
rarely cross-search foreign jurisdiction
patents, let alone tinkering magazines.
There are many subjects which feature one
or two qualified experts, and they are not
working for USPTO or any PTO. Quit
complaining that you aren't being paid
enough, rather be thankful they pay you
anything, since most likely you are not
worth it.
P.S. Yes, this is a flame, from the bottom
of my heart. You deserve it. More to the
point, every examiner deserves it as does
the system which assumes that examiner's
job is humanly feasible in the first place.
Generally, there are many ways to self
organize. If you have a community developing
something, it makes sense for the more
able people to take charge. This
technocracy is largely what is meant by
"no managers", read "no clueless PHBs".
In OSS projects people manage/lead
by example, and motivation is less important
because people are free to join and leave,
so if they are there, you can assume they are
motivated.
I don't like ESR's shallow writings, but there
definitely are differences between how management
is done in closed and open environment.
Lastly, to suggest that OSS projects are
always managed by one person is wrong.
Very often a junta is in charge, as in BSDs, KDE
and others. This is similar
to internet's DNS scheme among others.
It does offer variety of approaches typically
associated with pure bazaar and also allows
some coordination.
You can also have Debian style democracy. It
works slower but it works. Debian is a bit
of a junta system, but it disguises itself as a
democracy (inevitable so long as participants
have varying skills and degrees of competency).
Linux now has a few people with enough trust.
The benevolent dictator model will most likely
not outlast Linus.
I dunno. Just ran your search (girls soccer)
thru av.com. Top 50 are porn link free.
Even search for girls soccor has clean top 10
links.
Similarly, google gives clean top 10 for both
searches.
I would not mind seeing one commercial about
stuff I might need. The problem is I don't want
those ads repeated.
Another problem is that if I watch, say, a Bud
frog commercial, which I find funny, doesn't
mean I want to watch a Bud wazzup commercial
whcih I find disgusting. Nor would I care for
Miller, Coors or any other crappy beer makers'
commercials. And btw, Bud would lose money
sending me the frog commercials, as I hate their
beer. So from my angle, targeted ads are a lose
lose venture.
It is OT, but I'd like to get you started on
/. design. I personally don't see a big
problem. They choose horrendous colors for
everything, starting with atrocious green,
but the layout is clean.
For offline, a database will do. It doesn't
have to be fancy, even a filesystem will be
god enough. Create directories with descriptive
names then populate them with links (or
shortcuts) to songs in a master directory.
Or maybe you mean standardizing MIME types
for music content? That would be a good idea.
There are radio stations on the web.
They do the "format" thing. That's not
what downloading is about. Downloading
is inherently offline oriented, i.e.
I download now and play back later when
I am offline.
P2P is only big now because it offers
lack of commercial involvment. I upload
you download and no commercials or
banners are involved. You don't know me,
I don't know you, nobody gets spammed.
In reality, this will degrade quickly but
formats would be worse from the start.
Also, many if not most go to Napster and
the like to find obscure songs from obscure
(often unique) artists. What format would
the great Russian band Aquarium fit in?
The nail in the coffin though is that
people have experimented with formats,
channels, boxes etc. Most have failed
because in this day and age, we need
EXACTLY what we want, not just close enough
topicwise.
The world at large (though maybe not Sun or MS)
likes those pissing matches. They are a sign
that noone has total control. Why do you think
big corporations like IBM are trying to
contribute to Linux? That's right, because it
will not be controlled by someone else.
The fact that people argue about licensing
shows that the community has checks and balances
and that fanatical RMS/ESR/your favorite loony
followers will all balance each other out.
Checks and balances is a powerful attraction
for a business.
Side note: debate is not same as flame war.
The RMS vs. KDE smells like a flame war in
disguise, but both sides were quite constructive
despite the tone - RMS forgave past license
violations and KDE provided a method for license
issues resolution via e-mail.
Uh, the uncertainty principle will
let you measure time with infinite
precision if you got infinite energy.
Time is also a complicated variable
because it is part of Minkowski metric
for our Universe, so it is essential
to relativity. The article is right in
pointing out that their numbers would
be worth discussing once GUT is around
and people fully understand the nature of
singularities (e.g. black holes).
Different states can be degenerate in energy
both in classical and quantum physics. You can
measure some quantities without affecting them
(to within current reliability specs, e.g. for
ECC ram). There was an article in Scientific
American not so long ago about some guys measuring
the number of electrons in a cavity without
(to a good approximation) affecting the number of
electrons in it.
So if you don't ask for absolute precision, but
only for good enough precision, then things are
very doable.
A lot of people seem to think it is just the
cpu. Could this heat sink also cool memory.
From what I understand Rambus requires a lot
of power for maximum performance and runs
VERY hot. So if Intel decided to make a highly
efficient system, they could opt for a mother
of all heatsinks to cool everything.
People have been using ftp to share/distribute
files for a long time now. Napster's only
innovation was to introduce itself as a central
service, a one stop shop so to say.
To make Napster illegal would probably result in
a blanket ban on ftp software. Novell will
probably go out of business and other OS makers
will have to get all file sharing code out of
their products. We might even see sockets and
pipes banned, such that only truly local methods
of info sharing (shared memory) would be allowed.
I wholeheartedly agree. The reason Linux is
stuck with all those/bin directories, instead
of plainly named ones is POSIX. There are two
things that must die: X and POSIX. Then Unix
world will be sane.
Note: don't tell me about creating links, it's
an ugly hack, since it doesn't eliminate the
confusing/bin.
That having said, Windows is no better. You can't
really rename key directories and expect it to
be happy.
Is there an OS with full abstraction of all user-
accessible content?
You could argue for Solaris. How do you argue
for scalability of Linux? You could argue for
it to be proven in mission critical environment
(which hosting is a prime example of), or you
could argue its flexibility, or market acceptance,
but how do you figure scalability?
Typical dewars are built to handle
80+ psi of pressure. They are usually
all-metal, except for an occasional
o-ring seal. Anything that can crack
is a time bomb.
So long as we are on safety issues,
you can get liquid nitrogen to evaporate
quickly in which case suffocation may
occur. This would have to be a freak
accident but it could happen during an
explosion.
Swallowing is dangerous. DO NOT try this
in your lab. It can really hurt you.
Otherwise it is pretty safe. LN_2 evaporates
on contact with skin so it takes quite a bit
of it to cause a frostbite.
The biggest danger I see with it is if its
container were punctured AND compressed in
a collision. You could get a good blast from
this sort of thing.
Use of liquid nitrogen would be difficult also
because refuel would have to be done by
professionals. Otherwise, a layman would let
water in, which over time could lead to corrosion
and even puncture of dewars. Also, nitrogen
boils more when shaken (duh), so use of it in
a car would be wasteful.
With all that said, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxigen
and inert gases are the environmentally safe
components, so future cars will likely use one
or more of those.
If Mozilla people didn't want forks/spreading of
coding efforts among different projects of same
kind, then why didn't you guys dual license it
from start. I suspect, Konqueror would evolve
differently, to mention the most obvious case.
Dual licensing in the past would also have
attracted (more) developers in the beginning,
instead of creating an aura of suspicion that
Netscape was creating yet another license
possibly to use community work for its own
corporate goals at the expense of contributor
interests.
You have now proven the latter point moot, so
if corporate greed wasn't in the equation then
why didn't you dual license it before?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the reason people find insurance
companies' attitude wrong is because their
only value is in spreading the risk. So if
they reduce their risk by using actuary
tables, then they push risk management back
to the consumer. People simply don't like
lower level of service.
The non-discrimination argument is also quite
strong. One could make a statement that blacks
are not as educated as whites on average, so
they should not be hired in any intellectual
capacity. I dunno if this is still true but
there were times when it was definitely true.
Would you agree that this argument is not
acceptable? I don't see a difference between
the above argument and what the insurance
companies are doing. Do you?
It is stipulated that the invention should not
be obvious. Here we have two companies
independently coming up with same tech (or so
they claim), apparently at roughly the same time.
This to me defines an obvious "invention".
The court should invalidate both patent claims.
'Course pigs will hover over frozen hell before
our system serves the public interest.
This thing is about a millimeter large.
It's visible with naked eye. It's not
autonomous/programmable, and has no
built in power source. It is not useful
as is.
Real stuff is decades away, if feasible at
all. Take grand words like nanotech
with a bag of salt.
Uh, no. I don't mean you guys need more
time. I mean you can't possibly do what
is required of you because it requires more
knowledge than a person can fit in their
head. The system that pretends that this is
possible is just plain bad. And people who
get employed by said system, are cooperating
in deceiving the public, and so they get to share
the blame. Hence name calling (although I felt
like flaming someone at the time anyway).
In this whole IP food chain, patent lawyers and
VCs certainly deserve more flaming, but none
have posted at the time.
First off, my native language ain't English
so thanks for correcting my spelling.
So, if I paraphrase your post for real, it
sounds like: "I don't know my subject, nor
can you expect it from me, so give me a
break". Great logic, dimwit. If I go to a
surgeon, he'd better know everything about the
upcoming operation.
And this brings up anoter point.
If you are not (by your own admission) skilled
in the art, then how do you make a judgement on
what would be obvious to those who are so skilled.
My point was that the way the system is set up,
people cannot fulfill their duties, so it
renders every examiner a dolt by default.
You guys are supposed to be experts,
i.e. you should only need references
to back up rejection of claims formally.
You should know from first glance
what prior art for a given application
is. This is at the core of why people
think PTO people are imbecils - because
you are not aware of full scope of prior
art despite claiming to be experts.
As for doing a thorough search... don't
make me laugh. From what I know (I have a
patent on a hardware piece), you guys
only search other patents. Finding obscure
prior art is not expected from you. You
rarely cross-search foreign jurisdiction
patents, let alone tinkering magazines.
There are many subjects which feature one
or two qualified experts, and they are not
working for USPTO or any PTO. Quit
complaining that you aren't being paid
enough, rather be thankful they pay you
anything, since most likely you are not
worth it.
P.S. Yes, this is a flame, from the bottom
of my heart. You deserve it. More to the
point, every examiner deserves it as does
the system which assumes that examiner's
job is humanly feasible in the first place.
Generally, there are many ways to self
organize. If you have a community developing
something, it makes sense for the more
able people to take charge. This
technocracy is largely what is meant by
"no managers", read "no clueless PHBs".
In OSS projects people manage/lead
by example, and motivation is less important
because people are free to join and leave,
so if they are there, you can assume they are
motivated.
I don't like ESR's shallow writings, but there
definitely are differences between how management
is done in closed and open environment.
Lastly, to suggest that OSS projects are
always managed by one person is wrong.
Very often a junta is in charge, as in BSDs, KDE
and others. This is similar
to internet's DNS scheme among others.
It does offer variety of approaches typically
associated with pure bazaar and also allows
some coordination.
You can also have Debian style democracy. It
works slower but it works. Debian is a bit
of a junta system, but it disguises itself as a
democracy (inevitable so long as participants
have varying skills and degrees of competency).
Linux now has a few people with enough trust.
The benevolent dictator model will most likely
not outlast Linus.
I dunno. Just ran your search (girls soccer)
thru av.com. Top 50 are porn link free.
Even search for girls soccor has clean top 10
links.
Similarly, google gives clean top 10 for both
searches.
I would not mind seeing one commercial about
stuff I might need. The problem is I don't want
those ads repeated.
Another problem is that if I watch, say, a Bud
frog commercial, which I find funny, doesn't
mean I want to watch a Bud wazzup commercial
whcih I find disgusting. Nor would I care for
Miller, Coors or any other crappy beer makers'
commercials. And btw, Bud would lose money
sending me the frog commercials, as I hate their
beer. So from my angle, targeted ads are a lose
lose venture.
It is OT, but I'd like to get you started on
/. design. I personally don't see a big
problem. They choose horrendous colors for
everything, starting with atrocious green,
but the layout is clean.
For offline, a database will do. It doesn't
have to be fancy, even a filesystem will be
god enough. Create directories with descriptive
names then populate them with links (or
shortcuts) to songs in a master directory.
Or maybe you mean standardizing MIME types
for music content? That would be a good idea.
There are radio stations on the web.
They do the "format" thing. That's not
what downloading is about. Downloading
is inherently offline oriented, i.e.
I download now and play back later when
I am offline.
P2P is only big now because it offers
lack of commercial involvment. I upload
you download and no commercials or
banners are involved. You don't know me,
I don't know you, nobody gets spammed.
In reality, this will degrade quickly but
formats would be worse from the start.
Also, many if not most go to Napster and
the like to find obscure songs from obscure
(often unique) artists. What format would
the great Russian band Aquarium fit in?
The nail in the coffin though is that
people have experimented with formats,
channels, boxes etc. Most have failed
because in this day and age, we need
EXACTLY what we want, not just close enough
topicwise.
The world at large (though maybe not Sun or MS)
likes those pissing matches. They are a sign
that noone has total control. Why do you think
big corporations like IBM are trying to
contribute to Linux? That's right, because it
will not be controlled by someone else.
The fact that people argue about licensing
shows that the community has checks and balances
and that fanatical RMS/ESR/your favorite loony
followers will all balance each other out.
Checks and balances is a powerful attraction
for a business.
Side note: debate is not same as flame war.
The RMS vs. KDE smells like a flame war in
disguise, but both sides were quite constructive
despite the tone - RMS forgave past license
violations and KDE provided a method for license
issues resolution via e-mail.
This is a privacy intruding scheme. You can
then identify each reader. I wouldn't use it
even if I needed it then.
Uh, the uncertainty principle will
let you measure time with infinite
precision if you got infinite energy.
Time is also a complicated variable
because it is part of Minkowski metric
for our Universe, so it is essential
to relativity. The article is right in
pointing out that their numbers would
be worth discussing once GUT is around
and people fully understand the nature of
singularities (e.g. black holes).
Different states can be degenerate in energy
both in classical and quantum physics. You can
measure some quantities without affecting them
(to within current reliability specs, e.g. for
ECC ram). There was an article in Scientific
American not so long ago about some guys measuring
the number of electrons in a cavity without
(to a good approximation) affecting the number of
electrons in it.
So if you don't ask for absolute precision, but
only for good enough precision, then things are
very doable.
A lot of people seem to think it is just the
cpu. Could this heat sink also cool memory.
From what I understand Rambus requires a lot
of power for maximum performance and runs
VERY hot. So if Intel decided to make a highly
efficient system, they could opt for a mother
of all heatsinks to cool everything.
People have been using ftp to share/distribute files for a long time now. Napster's only innovation was to introduce itself as a central service, a one stop shop so to say. To make Napster illegal would probably result in a blanket ban on ftp software. Novell will probably go out of business and other OS makers will have to get all file sharing code out of their products. We might even see sockets and pipes banned, such that only truly local methods of info sharing (shared memory) would be allowed.
Yeah, I realized that soon after
posting the above. Still, when free/open
software defense/advocacy is concerned,
your first thought is FSF.
Can FSF sue them for defamation?
I wholeheartedly agree. The reason Linux is /bin directories, instead
/bin.
stuck with all those
of plainly named ones is POSIX. There are two
things that must die: X and POSIX. Then Unix
world will be sane.
Note: don't tell me about creating links, it's
an ugly hack, since it doesn't eliminate the
confusing
That having said, Windows is no better. You can't
really rename key directories and expect it to
be happy.
Is there an OS with full abstraction of all user-
accessible content?
You could argue for Solaris. How do you argue
for scalability of Linux? You could argue for
it to be proven in mission critical environment
(which hosting is a prime example of), or you
could argue its flexibility, or market acceptance,
but how do you figure scalability?
Typical dewars are built to handle
80+ psi of pressure. They are usually
all-metal, except for an occasional
o-ring seal. Anything that can crack
is a time bomb.
So long as we are on safety issues,
you can get liquid nitrogen to evaporate
quickly in which case suffocation may
occur. This would have to be a freak
accident but it could happen during an
explosion.
Swallowing is dangerous. DO NOT try this
in your lab. It can really hurt you.
Otherwise it is pretty safe. LN_2 evaporates
on contact with skin so it takes quite a bit
of it to cause a frostbite.
The biggest danger I see with it is if its
container were punctured AND compressed in
a collision. You could get a good blast from
this sort of thing.
Use of liquid nitrogen would be difficult also
because refuel would have to be done by
professionals. Otherwise, a layman would let
water in, which over time could lead to corrosion
and even puncture of dewars. Also, nitrogen
boils more when shaken (duh), so use of it in
a car would be wasteful.
With all that said, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxigen
and inert gases are the environmentally safe
components, so future cars will likely use one
or more of those.
If Mozilla people didn't want forks/spreading of coding efforts among different projects of same kind, then why didn't you guys dual license it from start. I suspect, Konqueror would evolve differently, to mention the most obvious case. Dual licensing in the past would also have attracted (more) developers in the beginning, instead of creating an aura of suspicion that Netscape was creating yet another license possibly to use community work for its own corporate goals at the expense of contributor interests. You have now proven the latter point moot, so if corporate greed wasn't in the equation then why didn't you dual license it before?