I don't have any idea whether the current version of Bing is grossly inferior to Google. And I'm not likely to find out.
To put it bluntly, I wouldn't trust MS to deliver an honest answer. Even if they do at first to try to build a reputation, in my eyes they already HAVE a reputation. Since this web site is controlled by MS, I would expect it to use any access made to it in unethical ways. Probably not quite so blatant as downloading a keylogger, but of that ilk.
Note that this doesn't mean that I expect that they are acting that way now, though it wouldn't surprise me. But I certainly don't expect them to give warnings before they DO start.
Only a certain class of attorneys are allowed to speak about what patent law means. Thus to defend oneself against even frivolous charges can quickly get very expensive.
Did you even KNOW about this patent before today? If not, you may have been violating it. That carries heavy fines, though not as heavy as if you had heard, and refused to believe that something so silly could be patentable.
Narrowly drafted? This one may be narrowly drafted, but the bloody well aren't ALL that way. You only get a term like "narrowly drafted" by comparison to others that are much more broadly drafted.
The patenting of obvious ideas is a drastic indictment of the patent system, because it allows expensive threats to be made against people who are not actually infringing any patent that should be valid. The same is true for patents which are vague about just what is patented. It's true that a narrow patent is not nearly as much of an indictment, but a thousand narrow patents can catch as many fish as one overly broad patent. And each one needs to be proven invalid individually.
I could continue, but I believe I've made my position and reasoning clear.
This is merely yet more evidence that the patent laws should be revoked, the patent office disbanded, and all extant patents declared null and void.
I'm sure that there are legitimate patents. They seem, however, to be in such a distinct minority that the damage to their holders is significantly less than the damage that the majority of patents are doing to the country.
I'm also sure that there are patents which are "nearly reasonable". Same argument. Even if you add the two together it seems to be a tiny fraction of all patents.
It may well be possible to craft a decent and useful patent law. We don't have one now, and the one we have is so bad that we'd do better to start fresh with a clean slate. I'd suggest, for a start, that a monopoly is not a legitimate approach. Monopolies are too dangerous. A negotiable percentage of the profit is much more reasonable, but the percentage needs to have an absolute cap of, say, 25%. That's pretty outrageous, but it's better than a monopoly. (And, yes, I realize that this allows things like the MS exploitation of Spyglass. So it's not a good approach either. Better isn't good. I may consider it possible that a decent patent law could be crafted, but this doesn't mean I think I could do so.)
I've never met anyone who was willing to say that they thought that was a good idea. Most people weren't willing to go as far as to say that it was grounds for impeachment, but I was. (Of course, I considered lying to congress to be grounds for impeachment, also.)
Do you have any particular evidence that "It's quite likely however the people that have been disconnected were doing something wrong"?
I didn't think so. Does it matter if they could prove that they weren't doing something wrong? The article says otherwise.
You are, basically, judging people to be "guilty of SOMETHING" on the basis that somebody or other accused them and a corporation punished them. If this is an incorrect summary of your position, please tell me in what way.
Otherwise...doesn't that position look just a little *dubious* to you?
If that's true, I'm appalled. I find it unfortunately convincing.
This sends my opinion of US patent law to new lows, and it was already so low that I believed that all existing patent laws should be immediately repealed, and all existing patents invalidated.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not certain you do.
You're saying that the legal system is essentially unfair to a large group of the citizenry, and it's their fault that they don't accept it's rules. That they must learn to accept it's rules and customs, or suffer grave injury.
I don't think it was your intent to say that, but that's what you said.
As an ex-Apple advocate, I disagree. They want control for the sake of control. They're limited in what they can do because they also want to remain profitable.
I supported Apple over MS within the company I worked for for decades...but when it came time that people were willing to listen, I'd switched to supporting Linux. So the company went to Linux. And it's because Apple made things too difficult if you wanted to do something that wasn't what Apple had in mind.
(My personal switch to Linux was because I could run Linux on the same hardware I had been running MSWind on. I dual booted for 2-3 years. But at that time I'd have supported Apple for anyone who wasn't a real techie. During that time Apple changed their EULAs to the point that I considered them no better than MS. Apple has fewer viruses, but MS was cheaper [in every sense of the word].)
Now... now I can't think of a purpose for which I'd recommend either MS or Apple. It's largely due to legal agreements, and partially due to technical restrictions. And, of course, price is also a factor. Linux is lots cheaper when you start counting in the cost of ancillary applications.
Understanding the joke, but I think the number is between 5,000 and 50,000. Not much for a company, but this product is good PR, and it's a step towards an actual commercial product at a much cheaper price. But I'd guess that it won't be released until after USB3 is finalized. (When's that expected? I haven't been following it.)
Depends on your purpose. Since each one is being hand-built I'd rather assume that Kingston doesn't see a large market, and for some purposes this might be approaching ideal.
N.B.: It's both much smaller and much lighter than that hard drive you talked about. It also uses a lot less power. It's true you're paying a high premium for those factors, but not exorbitant.
Trusting Microsoft is a *very* bad idea. Even if you don't know why they're doing something, it's safest to assume that it's against your long term best interest. (In this case motives are pretty obvious. It's only useful if your underlying system is MS.)
It's a possibility. Has it been proven? (That'd be a reasonably easy experiment...just switch eggs in a few nests. Reasonably easy doesn't mean easy or cheap, though.)
Dogs are a really interesting case. E.g., if it weren't for the breeds of intermediate size, Chihuahuas and St. Bernards would be different species. As it is, they aren't. Dogs are but one example of a ring species (I *think* it's a ring species even if the separation isn't geographical), but it's the one that everyone can relate to. Not that many people know their butterflies or gulls.
OTOH, getting back to the flycatchers, there isn't just one gene involved. They've only TRACKED one gene, but there's got to be another that controls which breast color is preferred by the females. (Unless, somehow, the same gene controls both male breast color and female preference...but I'd need to see that proven.)
Yes. It's a better theory because it makes less complicated initial assumptions. (You can't get a much more complicated initial assumption than a god.)
Now this isn't to say there isn't a god...or even several. The whole universe could be a simulation that some entity or group thereof is running on their computer. That would make they gods, by most common definitions. It doesn't say whether they would care particularly about people...that requires a bunch of additional assumptions. And it sure doesn't say that they would care that much about their sex lives. (Though geneticists care about the sex lives of their purebred test animals, so it also doesn't say they wouldn't.)
Are you beginning to get a slight idea of how complex an assumption a god is?
Government employees, yes. Government spokesmen, no.
Actually, most government employees that I've known have also not been lazy. Overworked is closer...though also not totally accurate. Overworked in certain particular areas would be more accurate. As is common in bureaucracies, the goals of the supervisors don't always fall in line with the job requirements. Somebody that you find lazy may just have written a 50 page memo on the paperclip supply. (OK, I chose that example to be humorous. It's also true. I've known many government employees who have worked illegal overtime in an effort to get their job done. It's true, these people eventually stop caring whether they get their job done or not. It doesn't help them, and it's impossible anyway.)
Spokesmen, however, are chosen for their ability and willingness to say whatever they are told to say. And appear honest. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman. (Actually, LOTS sooner. I know a company that I've bought used cars from several times, and they've got a VERY good reputation. I can't say "Buy a used Toyota off the local dealer's lot", because I've got no reason to believe that all Toyota dealers follow the same practice. But that's where I'll start looking next time.)
N.B.: If Amazon has a certain capability WRT say, the Kindle, then you can be fairly certain that the govt. has the same capability. With or without cooperation from Amazon.
Unhhh...... I'm not convinced. I'm also not convinced that "racist" is a reasonable description of the basic problem. And I'm not sure how it should actually be addressed.
Here's how I analyze it: There's a group of people who are a cliche that work together. They support each other, and don't like to associate with those outside the cliche. But there aren't enough of them to do the job that needs to be done, so some extra people need to be added. But the cliche is full. (People can only relate in certain social ways to a limited number of people.) So these new people are an out-group. Occasionally someone from the cliche leaves, and there's social jockeying for position. When that's completed, someone can be added, if there's someone that fits. So if there's anyone of the correct social fit, they're allowed into the cliche.
Now when a cliche is first formed, certain social norms are established. These aren't written, but are understood. And they aren't very subject to change, because nobody's responsible for them, though all members must adhere to them or be stigmatized. If the original cliche established having some characteristic as essential, and denigrated those that didn't have it, then there's no easy way to change it. One easily observed characteristic is race, so race is likely to be one of the features.
This isn't exactly racism, which to me is a generalized denigration (of whatever strength) of individuals because of their race. I'll admit, however, that it can manifest as something which appears quite close to that. Also many things that are called racism are actually discrimination based on economic status.
Don't mistake any of the alternatives for actual racism, or you will be confused about what's happening. I'm not certain that actual racism has decreased in the city where I live. It's interesting that much racism against blacks is manifested by the blacks themselves. One might contemplate just what that implies. OTOH, clicheism, or whatever one might call it, when manifested by blacks is almost always in favor of blacks...some blacks...some particular blacks. And discrimination based on economic status seems to be most commonly exercised by organizations.
If you've read this far, may apologies for excessive length. I hope you at least found this interesting.
Unfortunately, I've learned assembler 5 times. And they were all completely different. After the 3rd time my learning got to be a bit skimpy, and by the time the 386 came out, I'd given up. Well, that one's lasted a lot longer than any of the others, but I'm not sanguine on it's not being replaced the day I decide I've achieved a minimal proficiency. Or more probably a month before.
I can understand the advantages of knowing assembler, but I'm no longer willing to spend my time that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any idea whether the current version of Bing is grossly inferior to Google. And I'm not likely to find out.
To put it bluntly, I wouldn't trust MS to deliver an honest answer. Even if they do at first to try to build a reputation, in my eyes they already HAVE a reputation. Since this web site is controlled by MS, I would expect it to use any access made to it in unethical ways. Probably not quite so blatant as downloading a keylogger, but of that ilk.
Note that this doesn't mean that I expect that they are acting that way now, though it wouldn't surprise me. But I certainly don't expect them to give warnings before they DO start.
Only a certain class of attorneys are allowed to speak about what patent law means. Thus to defend oneself against even frivolous charges can quickly get very expensive.
Did you even KNOW about this patent before today? If not, you may have been violating it. That carries heavy fines, though not as heavy as if you had heard, and refused to believe that something so silly could be patentable.
Narrowly drafted? This one may be narrowly drafted, but the bloody well aren't ALL that way. You only get a term like "narrowly drafted" by comparison to others that are much more broadly drafted.
The patenting of obvious ideas is a drastic indictment of the patent system, because it allows expensive threats to be made against people who are not actually infringing any patent that should be valid. The same is true for patents which are vague about just what is patented. It's true that a narrow patent is not nearly as much of an indictment, but a thousand narrow patents can catch as many fish as one overly broad patent. And each one needs to be proven invalid individually.
I could continue, but I believe I've made my position and reasoning clear.
This is merely yet more evidence that the patent laws should be revoked, the patent office disbanded, and all extant patents declared null and void.
I'm sure that there are legitimate patents. They seem, however, to be in such a distinct minority that the damage to their holders is significantly less than the damage that the majority of patents are doing to the country.
I'm also sure that there are patents which are "nearly reasonable". Same argument. Even if you add the two together it seems to be a tiny fraction of all patents.
It may well be possible to craft a decent and useful patent law. We don't have one now, and the one we have is so bad that we'd do better to start fresh with a clean slate. I'd suggest, for a start, that a monopoly is not a legitimate approach. Monopolies are too dangerous. A negotiable percentage of the profit is much more reasonable, but the percentage needs to have an absolute cap of, say, 25%. That's pretty outrageous, but it's better than a monopoly. (And, yes, I realize that this allows things like the MS exploitation of Spyglass. So it's not a good approach either. Better isn't good. I may consider it possible that a decent patent law could be crafted, but this doesn't mean I think I could do so.)
I've never met anyone who was willing to say that they thought that was a good idea. Most people weren't willing to go as far as to say that it was grounds for impeachment, but I was. (Of course, I considered lying to congress to be grounds for impeachment, also.)
Do you have any particular evidence that "It's quite likely however the people that have been disconnected were doing something wrong"?
I didn't think so. Does it matter if they could prove that they weren't doing something wrong? The article says otherwise.
You are, basically, judging people to be "guilty of SOMETHING" on the basis that somebody or other accused them and a corporation punished them. If this is an incorrect summary of your position, please tell me in what way.
Otherwise...doesn't that position look just a little *dubious* to you?
That's not the apparent history of East Texas courts WRT patents. Note that these are federal courts, not state.
I suspect that you are thinking about state courts. WRT them I don't have any information.
Very few GPL violations involve patents.
If that's true, I'm appalled. I find it unfortunately convincing.
This sends my opinion of US patent law to new lows, and it was already so low that I believed that all existing patent laws should be immediately repealed, and all existing patents invalidated.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not certain you do.
You're saying that the legal system is essentially unfair to a large group of the citizenry, and it's their fault that they don't accept it's rules. That they must learn to accept it's rules and customs, or suffer grave injury.
I don't think it was your intent to say that, but that's what you said.
As an ex-Apple advocate, I disagree. They want control for the sake of control. They're limited in what they can do because they also want to remain profitable.
I supported Apple over MS within the company I worked for for decades...but when it came time that people were willing to listen, I'd switched to supporting Linux. So the company went to Linux. And it's because Apple made things too difficult if you wanted to do something that wasn't what Apple had in mind.
(My personal switch to Linux was because I could run Linux on the same hardware I had been running MSWind on. I dual booted for 2-3 years. But at that time I'd have supported Apple for anyone who wasn't a real techie. During that time Apple changed their EULAs to the point that I considered them no better than MS. Apple has fewer viruses, but MS was cheaper [in every sense of the word].)
Now... now I can't think of a purpose for which I'd recommend either MS or Apple. It's largely due to legal agreements, and partially due to technical restrictions. And, of course, price is also a factor. Linux is lots cheaper when you start counting in the cost of ancillary applications.
Understanding the joke, but
I think the number is between 5,000 and 50,000. Not much for a company, but this product is good PR, and it's a step towards an actual commercial product at a much cheaper price. But I'd guess that it won't be released until after USB3 is finalized. (When's that expected? I haven't been following it.)
I think they're planning on USB3. It's supposed to be quite speedy...though I've no idea what that means.
Depends on your purpose. Since each one is being hand-built I'd rather assume that Kingston doesn't see a large market, and for some purposes this might be approaching ideal.
N.B.: It's both much smaller and much lighter than that hard drive you talked about. It also uses a lot less power. It's true you're paying a high premium for those factors, but not exorbitant.
That answer is not only better, it's been field tested. (Well, the bayonet part. Not sure about the particular model.)
But if you swallow it, can you sneak it through customs?
Some people pay attention to recent history.
Trusting Microsoft is a *very* bad idea. Even if you don't know why they're doing something, it's safest to assume that it's against your long term best interest. (In this case motives are pretty obvious. It's only useful if your underlying system is MS.)
It's a possibility. Has it been proven? (That'd be a reasonably easy experiment...just switch eggs in a few nests. Reasonably easy doesn't mean easy or cheap, though.)
He's invisible silly. You can't photograph his noodly appendage.
Dogs are a really interesting case. E.g., if it weren't for the breeds of intermediate size, Chihuahuas and St. Bernards would be different species. As it is, they aren't.
Dogs are but one example of a ring species (I *think* it's a ring species even if the separation isn't geographical), but it's the one that everyone can relate to. Not that many people know their butterflies or gulls.
OTOH, getting back to the flycatchers, there isn't just one gene involved. They've only TRACKED one gene, but there's got to be another that controls which breast color is preferred by the females. (Unless, somehow, the same gene controls both male breast color and female preference...but I'd need to see that proven.)
No natural selection, otherwise one species would not be here in this particular case.
That's probably obvious, but this being the kind of area of research it is, I think you ought to say it explicitly.
Yes. It's a better theory because it makes less complicated initial assumptions. (You can't get a much more complicated initial assumption than a god.)
Now this isn't to say there isn't a god...or even several. The whole universe could be a simulation that some entity or group thereof is running on their computer. That would make they gods, by most common definitions. It doesn't say whether they would care particularly about people...that requires a bunch of additional assumptions. And it sure doesn't say that they would care that much about their sex lives. (Though geneticists care about the sex lives of their purebred test animals, so it also doesn't say they wouldn't.)
Are you beginning to get a slight idea of how complex an assumption a god is?
Government employees, yes. Government spokesmen, no.
Actually, most government employees that I've known have also not been lazy. Overworked is closer...though also not totally accurate. Overworked in certain particular areas would be more accurate. As is common in bureaucracies, the goals of the supervisors don't always fall in line with the job requirements. Somebody that you find lazy may just have written a 50 page memo on the paperclip supply. (OK, I chose that example to be humorous. It's also true. I've known many government employees who have worked illegal overtime in an effort to get their job done. It's true, these people eventually stop caring whether they get their job done or not. It doesn't help them, and it's impossible anyway.)
Spokesmen, however, are chosen for their ability and willingness to say whatever they are told to say. And appear honest. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman. (Actually, LOTS sooner. I know a company that I've bought used cars from several times, and they've got a VERY good reputation. I can't say "Buy a used Toyota off the local dealer's lot", because I've got no reason to believe that all Toyota dealers follow the same practice. But that's where I'll start looking next time.)
Have I *EVER* said that? I don't think so.
N.B.: If Amazon has a certain capability WRT say, the Kindle, then you can be fairly certain that the govt. has the same capability. With or without cooperation from Amazon.
Unhhh......
I'm not convinced. I'm also not convinced that "racist" is a reasonable description of the basic problem. And I'm not sure how it should actually be addressed.
Here's how I analyze it:
There's a group of people who are a cliche that work together. They support each other, and don't like to associate with those outside the cliche. But there aren't enough of them to do the job that needs to be done, so some extra people need to be added. But the cliche is full. (People can only relate in certain social ways to a limited number of people.) So these new people are an out-group. Occasionally someone from the cliche leaves, and there's social jockeying for position. When that's completed, someone can be added, if there's someone that fits. So if there's anyone of the correct social fit, they're allowed into the cliche.
Now when a cliche is first formed, certain social norms are established. These aren't written, but are understood. And they aren't very subject to change, because nobody's responsible for them, though all members must adhere to them or be stigmatized. If the original cliche established having some characteristic as essential, and denigrated those that didn't have it, then there's no easy way to change it. One easily observed characteristic is race, so race is likely to be one of the features.
This isn't exactly racism, which to me is a generalized denigration (of whatever strength) of individuals because of their race. I'll admit, however, that it can manifest as something which appears quite close to that. Also many things that are called racism are actually discrimination based on economic status.
Don't mistake any of the alternatives for actual racism, or you will be confused about what's happening. I'm not certain that actual racism has decreased in the city where I live. It's interesting that much racism against blacks is manifested by the blacks themselves. One might contemplate just what that implies. OTOH, clicheism, or whatever one might call it, when manifested by blacks is almost always in favor of blacks...some blacks...some particular blacks. And discrimination based on economic status seems to be most commonly exercised by organizations.
If you've read this far, may apologies for excessive length. I hope you at least found this interesting.
Unfortunately, I've learned assembler 5 times. And they were all completely different. After the 3rd time my learning got to be a bit skimpy, and by the time the 386 came out, I'd given up. Well, that one's lasted a lot longer than any of the others, but I'm not sanguine on it's not being replaced the day I decide I've achieved a minimal proficiency. Or more probably a month before.
I can understand the advantages of knowing assembler, but I'm no longer willing to spend my time that way.