I suspect it will be available to anyone past a certain kernel revision. However, the target market for this has got to be any version distributed by IBM.
I got lucky and called the launch from $3 to $8. Now I've set my short target at $12, which it's getting close to now, but it might be early since the PR is getting pushed so hard. I expect IBM to keep their trap shut until this thing goes into litigation. When it does, swing trade the peaks and valleys on intraday MACD signals. Short on the high peaks if you can, but I hear the stock is hard to borrow since the float is so low. Of course, always keep one eye on the Level II since the support is going to vanish and reappear as fast as it came. Keep in mind that their chart is beautiful for TA traders as it has already gone through its post rocket pullback. Be sure to Follow the LinuxTag case (250,000 Euro suit I believe) and find a friend that speaks German. Apparently, someone in Germany got to see the code outside the NDA and has some interesting details on it. Check continuously for the options to show up as they are the safest play here. As always, do your own due diligence. Best of luck.
Except that Fast-Talk doesn't do speech to text processing at all. It does waveform pattern matching for language patterns without ever passing through a text phase. It actually does a reasonable job of it too.
I played with The SDK a year ago. I suspect its gotten considerably better since then. In that respect, it is old news.
Time to play devils advocate at the cost of being offtopic:
Lets assume that someone patents an invention. In that process they have to reveal exactly how their invention works in the claims of the patent. The level of detail must be good enough that anyone can recreate it. Hence, the knowledge of the invention is released freely. A patent is the exact opposite of propietary knowledge. Its supposed to promote the science of progress and the useful arts. If you find a way to improve the invention that doesn't violate any of the claims in the patent, you've just added value to the world and created another 'branch of human inquiry' with not a single cut branch in sight.
In a monopoly, a single company is the sole provider of a product or service and has no competition. The basic idea of licensing a product is to provide other channels of distribution for that product. That channel could even compete with the original provider much in the same way that ISP's compete when they are sourced from the same provider. The secondary distribution channel is the opposite of a single provider. So to create a monopoly, the company has to explictly disallow the licensing of the product. That decision is made without the help of any government sponsors.
Now lets say that the inventor offers a free public license for anyone to use the patent. In this scenario, there is no cost associated with utilizing the invention and now the ability to use it is free as well. In this case, where is your contention?
It must be with trade secrets. Thats where information is never released and anyone is free to determine the secret and use it. They just have to be clever enough to use their freedoms to figure it out.
Unless, of course, the person who gets the check uses your routing number, account number, bank info, and address that is on the check to make electronic payments or print more checks. You were even nice enough to give them a signature to work from.
Any vendor thats is compromised at the source can abuse your payment information. I learned the hard way as I got hit with almost a grand in online credit card fraud recently. The companies that were involved were great about it though. It was cleared up in less than an hour. Its the first time in all the years I've been shopping online that I've had trouble... which would be all of the years online shopping has been available.
Technically, you need to store the output of a satisfactory mapping function, preferably a bijective one. That way you can store garbled crap and still make the comparison while defending yourself from a unix "strings" check. In this case, they chose an identity mapping. Which is pretty lazy if you are trying to pull one over on people... or perfectly reasonable if you weren't.
Agreed. I was actually on a research team in the same building when they had their first confirmed breakthrough on creating BEC.
They had a small presentation for anyone on campus that wanted to attend where they walked through the details of the experiment. Everyone from janitors to researchers showed up to watch. I remember they were asked if they were going to win the Nobel Prize for it, and they were quite modest.
The original experiment only had a budget of roughly $50,000, which is nothing compared to the previous attempts that cost an order of magnitude more. I guess being clever with a magnetic trap is a good thing to keep in mind somedays.
I also remember them saying that they weren't going to run to the press about it because they didn't believe in publishing to "JNYT". (The Journal Of The New York Times). I will always remember that display of scientific integrity.
Having worked in manufacturing at a epitaxial silicon wafer plant, I remember the horror stories from the first time they tried to do GaAs wafers. The bottom line was that the yield just wasn't there. Too many defects showed up due to handling problems which made the process economically unfeasable. They were brittle as hell to the point where the end effectors were causing problems. I'm guessing thats what the 200+ patents are for. They must believe they have a process that can work, but it will be a while until a factory proves it.
The answer they should have given you was this: The definition of factorial that we gave you was for your ease of understanding. The real definition is that the factorial is the integer special case of the gamma function. The gamma function looks like this. As you can see, when you evaluate the integral, you'll get 0!=1. For the noncalculus savvy, check out the graph.
Its really ironic that they don't mention this in calculus classes because the students have the knowledge to actually work it out for themselves. Perhaps some do, but I didn't see the gamma function until college. Seeing it earlier might have really helped me with my plan to take over the world.
As a "Sprint certified data partner" I can tell you that the private network they are looking for already exists in Sprint's private ATM cloud. And the same probably goes for the other major providers.
Of course, that costs money. Ironically, they seem to want all the benefits the Internet already provides without the "limitations" that empowered their emergence. Moreover, they want it at the current low cost level. It appears that the good business sense they want to add begins after the world has already organized a way to cheaply communicate without boundaries. How quaint.
I can see it breaking down like this: Two seperate networks, one high bandwidth with packet delivery timing guarantees, one low bandwidth (i.e. the Internet as we know it today). The faster network will probably run on IPv6 and will have the cable companies as the backbone not the telephone companies. The logic is that the cable networks are essentially flattened already. Transmissions go from a place like AT&T Broadband's Digital Media Center (in the US), to a satellite, to the cable MSOs, and finally to their destination. If the MSOs lease private lines between them, they've got the topology for real time network applications and the authority to control it. Essentially, the cable companies have the best shot at "starting over" through consolidation. I'll bet that companies like Vivendi are thinking along these lines already.
The public internet at that point will lose its charm for businesses because there will be a better business alternative. At this point, I can see the public net becoming a government controlled entity in many countries since private businesses will be putting their cash into the other network.
What does this mean in terms of rights? The only thing I'm sure of is that now is not the time to stop fighting for them.
While I agree with the point you are trying to make, MS SQL 6.5 is still the only commercial db I've seen that lets you wipe out a whole table with a single mouse click and gives no warning or confirm dialog. I've seen a reasonably competent DBA do exactly that.
If you are trying to figure out how to do this, think bidirectional replication and a disaster recovery situation that involves installling a replacement server. (Which is something that does come up a bit in maintaining critical systems).
I believe your information here is out of date. PostgreSQL offers stored procedures using pgpl/sql and handles multiple databases per server just fine. I'm not sure about cross database queries as I haven't tried any.
If you haven't looked, PostgreSQL 7.0.2 is worth a look if the last version your worked with was 6.x.
Reading this whole thread makes it sound like MySQL simply loses data every now and then so you cant trust it (It doesn't). Moreover, it sounds like databases which support foreign keys and transactions don't lose data so you can trust them (Which aint the case either). If you don't trap application level errors in your code, neither database will give you much of what your looking for. I really believe this whole thing boils down to the quality of the programmers in front of the database.
I've seen a non transactional database move 2 million dollars of product a day. I also saw that same database seize up the factory due to bad programming. And it was the direct result of some new guy who decided that everything had to be rewritten with transactions. Bad programming is a much bigger culprit than ACIDity anyday. Same goes for bad DBA skills. Ever had a DBA outright LOSE a transaction log?? Or blow away a mission-critical database trying to setup replication? (Which MS SQL 6.5 made very easy to do, and its supposedly ACIDic).
On the other hand, I've seen a complete manufacturing execution system written in Excel VBA... and it worked for the most part. It was a maintenance nightmare, but it worked. I think those guys would have been taking a step up with MySQL.
Give me high quality programmers and functional tools anyday. Beats the hell out of excellent tools and lousy programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect it will be available to anyone past a certain kernel revision. However, the target market for this has got to be any version distributed by IBM.
I got lucky and called the launch from $3 to $8. Now I've set my short target at $12, which it's getting close to now, but it might be early since the PR is getting pushed so hard. I expect IBM to keep their trap shut until this thing goes into litigation. When it does, swing trade the peaks and valleys on intraday MACD signals. Short on the high peaks if you can, but I hear the stock is hard to borrow since the float is so low. Of course, always keep one eye on the Level II since the support is going to vanish and reappear as fast as it came. Keep in mind that their chart is beautiful for TA traders as it has already gone through its post rocket pullback. Be sure to Follow the LinuxTag case (250,000 Euro suit I believe) and find a friend that speaks German. Apparently, someone in Germany got to see the code outside the NDA and has some interesting details on it. Check continuously for the options to show up as they are the safest play here. As always, do your own due diligence. Best of luck.
Except that Fast-Talk doesn't do speech to text processing at all. It does waveform pattern matching for language patterns without ever passing through a text phase. It actually does a reasonable job of it too.
I played with The SDK a year ago. I suspect its gotten considerably better since then. In that respect, it is old news.
Time to play devils advocate at the cost of being offtopic:
Lets assume that someone patents an invention. In that process they have to reveal exactly how their invention works in the claims of the patent. The level of detail must be good enough that anyone can recreate it. Hence, the knowledge of the invention is released freely. A patent is the exact opposite of propietary knowledge. Its supposed to promote the science of progress and the useful arts. If you find a way to improve the invention that doesn't violate any of the claims in the patent, you've just added value to the world and created another 'branch of human inquiry' with not a single cut branch in sight.
In a monopoly, a single company is the sole provider of a product or service and has no competition. The basic idea of licensing a product is to provide other channels of distribution for that product. That channel could even compete with the original provider much in the same way that ISP's compete when they are sourced from the same provider. The secondary distribution channel is the opposite of a single provider. So to create a monopoly, the company has to explictly disallow the licensing of the product. That decision is made without the help of any government sponsors.
Now lets say that the inventor offers a free public license for anyone to use the patent. In this scenario, there is no cost associated with utilizing the invention and now the ability to use it is free as well. In this case, where is your contention?
It must be with trade secrets. Thats where information is never released and anyone is free to determine the secret and use it. They just have to be clever enough to use their freedoms to figure it out.
Unless, of course, the person who gets the check uses your routing number, account number, bank info, and address that is on the check to make electronic payments or print more checks. You were even nice enough to give them a signature to work from.
Any vendor thats is compromised at the source can abuse your payment information. I learned the hard way as I got hit with almost a grand in online credit card fraud recently. The companies that were involved were great about it though. It was cleared up in less than an hour. Its the first time in all the years I've been shopping online that I've had trouble... which would be all of the years online shopping has been available.
Technically, you need to store the output of a satisfactory mapping function, preferably a bijective one. That way you can store garbled crap and still make the comparison while defending yourself from a unix "strings" check. In this case, they chose an identity mapping. Which is pretty lazy if you are trying to pull one over on people... or perfectly reasonable if you weren't.
Agreed. I was actually on a research team in the same building when they had their first confirmed breakthrough on creating BEC.
They had a small presentation for anyone on campus that wanted to attend where they walked through the details of the experiment. Everyone from janitors to researchers showed up to watch. I remember they were asked if they were going to win the Nobel Prize for it, and they were quite modest.
The original experiment only had a budget of roughly $50,000, which is nothing compared to the previous attempts that cost an order of magnitude more. I guess being clever with a magnetic trap is a good thing to keep in mind somedays.
I also remember them saying that they weren't going to run to the press about it because they didn't believe in publishing to "JNYT". (The Journal Of The New York Times). I will always remember that display of scientific integrity.
Having worked in manufacturing at a epitaxial silicon wafer plant, I remember the horror stories from the first time they tried to do GaAs wafers. The bottom line was that the yield just wasn't there. Too many defects showed up due to handling problems which made the process economically unfeasable. They were brittle as hell to the point where the end effectors were causing problems. I'm guessing thats what the 200+ patents are for. They must believe they have a process that can work, but it will be a while until a factory proves it.
The answer they should have given you was this: The definition of factorial that we gave you was for your ease of understanding. The real definition is that the factorial is the integer special case of the gamma function. The gamma function looks like this. As you can see, when you evaluate the integral, you'll get 0!=1. For the noncalculus savvy, check out the graph.
Its really ironic that they don't mention this in calculus classes because the students have the knowledge to actually work it out for themselves. Perhaps some do, but I didn't see the gamma function until college. Seeing it earlier might have really helped me with my plan to take over the world.
As a "Sprint certified data partner" I can tell you that the private network they are looking for already exists in Sprint's private ATM cloud. And the same probably goes for the other major providers.
Of course, that costs money. Ironically, they seem to want all the benefits the Internet already provides without the "limitations" that empowered their emergence. Moreover, they want it at the current low cost level. It appears that the good business sense they want to add begins after the world has already organized a way to cheaply communicate without boundaries. How quaint.
I can see it breaking down like this: Two seperate networks, one high bandwidth with packet delivery timing guarantees, one low bandwidth (i.e. the Internet as we know it today). The faster network will probably run on IPv6 and will have the cable companies as the backbone not the telephone companies. The logic is that the cable networks are essentially flattened already. Transmissions go from a place like AT&T Broadband's Digital Media Center (in the US), to a satellite, to the cable MSOs, and finally to their destination. If the MSOs lease private lines between them, they've got the topology for real time network applications and the authority to control it. Essentially, the cable companies have the best shot at "starting over" through consolidation. I'll bet that companies like Vivendi are thinking along these lines already.
The public internet at that point will lose its charm for businesses because there will be a better business alternative. At this point, I can see the public net becoming a government controlled entity in many countries since private businesses will be putting their cash into the other network.
What does this mean in terms of rights? The only thing I'm sure of is that now is not the time to stop fighting for them.
While I agree with the point you are trying to make, MS SQL 6.5 is still the only commercial db I've seen that lets you wipe out a whole table with a single mouse click and gives no warning or confirm dialog. I've seen a reasonably competent DBA do exactly that.
If you are trying to figure out how to do this, think bidirectional replication and a disaster recovery situation that involves installling a replacement server. (Which is something that does come up a bit in maintaining critical systems).
I believe your information here is out of date. PostgreSQL offers stored procedures using pgpl/sql and handles multiple databases per server just fine. I'm not sure about cross database queries as I haven't tried any.
If you haven't looked, PostgreSQL 7.0.2 is worth a look if the last version your worked with was 6.x.
Summary: The human genome project is going to ruin the world as we know it and its the fault of the U.S. for bringing out the worst of it all.
Sheesh, this sounds like a twisted modern day Mein Kampf: "Genetic engineering is going to ruin the world. Damn Jews!"
Newsflash! Nationalistic Crap Parades As Science Article.
News At 11.
Reading this whole thread makes it sound like MySQL simply loses data every now and then so you cant trust it (It doesn't). Moreover, it sounds like databases which support foreign keys and transactions don't lose data so you can trust them (Which aint the case either). If you don't trap application level errors in your code, neither database will give you much of what your looking for. I really believe this whole thing boils down to the quality of the programmers in front of the database.
I've seen a non transactional database move 2 million dollars of product a day. I also saw that same database seize up the factory due to bad programming. And it was the direct result of some new guy who decided that everything had to be rewritten with transactions. Bad programming is a much bigger culprit than ACIDity anyday. Same goes for bad DBA skills. Ever had a DBA outright LOSE a transaction log?? Or blow away a mission-critical database trying to setup replication? (Which MS SQL 6.5 made very easy to do, and its supposedly ACIDic).
On the other hand, I've seen a complete manufacturing execution system written in Excel VBA... and it worked for the most part. It was a maintenance nightmare, but it worked. I think those guys would have been taking a step up with MySQL.
Give me high quality programmers and functional tools anyday. Beats the hell out of excellent tools and lousy programmers.