Especially when you figure in the possibility of triangulating with cell towers.
The proper functioning of adjacent CDMA cell towers (i.e. Sprint, Verizon in the 1.8 GHz bands, and by US West in the 800 MHz bands) must be synchronized within 10 microseconds to support what is called "soft handoff".
CDMA base stations use the GPS constellation to maintain synchronization. The satellites themselves need precise clock synchronization, and this is exported to GPS receivers.
And then theres the ecological damage from a sunken ship (petrol fuel, nuclear reactors possibly) that would also harm the environment long term, plus the explosion itself will be pretty darn loud.
Reading TFA, the concern is not over the effects of sonic blast vs. sinking ship.
The concern is the effect of open-water testing of the sonic blast against simulated or dummy threats in the ocean.
Thanks for taking the time to look at these. I remember reviewing the patent attorney's submission of my invention, and was thoroughly confused by the repeated claims with slight variations. It was only after a long discussion did I understand that the whole purpose of the many claims was to broaden the patent, and make it more difficult to refute.
Oh yeah, I loved working for employers who would file patents "on my behalf". That means you get $1 for all rights to whatever you invented (I hope that at least it's not a way to use a particular prime number in encryption), and your employer gets anything that accrues from it, including business advantage or piles of cash.
If the patent is granted, I'll get a lot more than $1.
Since I was paid by my employer for the time I spent developing the invention, as well as for the time I have spent supporting its implementation, I have no problems with it.
Had I spent my own time developing an invention (especially one that is unrelated to my employer's business), it would have been different. But, that's not the case this time.
I think it's bad form to follow up to my own posting, but I did a bit more research. The patents in question were already granted, and are now being challenged in response to Microsoft's demand for licenses:
All of these patents appear to be related to VFAT, i.e. mapping long filenames and the original 8+3 short filenames into a common name-space. Although the filing dates are different and the title for one is slightly different, the abstract for each appears to be exactly the same.
I haven't examined the claims in each patent, so I don't know how these patents differ. It might be interesting to determine what is new in the 2nd and 3rd patents, since they were filed as long as 21 months after the 1st one. I wonder what wasn't in the original VFAT implementation? Bug fixes or features?
But, these patents don't appear to cover the "old" FAT filesystem: they address the later addition of long filenames. Again, IANAL, but I think that someone that confines themselves to the original FAT format (without long filenames) would have no need to license it from Microsoft.
I'm not a patent lawyer, but my employer's patent lawyer recently submitted a patent application on my behalf.
According to the attorney, a patent application must be submitted within 1 year after the first public disclosure of the invention, which can include:
Shipment/release of a product containing the invention.
Publication of an article describing the invention.
Oral disclosure of the invention (in my case, outside my employer)
I spent a good portion of my vacation dealing with some of the last minute paperwork, because it happened to coincide with the 1-year deadline.
So, I don't understand how Microsoft can be attempting to patent FAT now. Unless they started much earlier, or are trying to patent recent modifications to FAT, I don't think there is really anything to fear.
The Las Vegas monorail is far behind its revenue goals. They need something like 40,000 passangers/day to break even. They're getting about 30,000 or so.
I was in Las Vegas a few months ago and used the monorail to travel up and down the strip.
The monorail is about a half-block away from the strip. To get to a station, you have to navigate through the casinos and shops, which are designed to impede your progress (so you'll gamble or spend money). We stayed at the Venetian, which doesn't have it's own monorail station. It took about 20-25 minutes to walk from our room, out to the strip, and back through Harrah's to the monorail.
If you are on the side of the strip opposite the monorail, you have to cross the street first, which is not always a simple task. There are a couple of privately operated trains on the side opposite the monorail that may be a better choice.
North of Harrah's, the monorail actually diverts AWAY from the strip to the Las Vegas Hilton and the convention center, then goes back to the north end of the strip at the Sahara. The casinos in that "dead zone" are older ones -- it's interesting to see that property is already being acquired for redevelopment around the Sahara and Stratosphere.
The one time that we depended on getting to the MGM Grand to see a show, the monorail has just stopped running. Fortunately, we were able to get into the line for a cab before everyone else discovered the same problem, but we just barely made it in time. If it's not dependable, people will quickly switch to alternatives after making the walk all the way to the monorail station, only to find it isn't running.
I think the plan was to extend the monorail to the airport and to downtown. Given the difficulty of getting from the monorail station to hotels not directly on the line, I think an airport link will not be used much. It would probably help the downtown casinos, though.
When googling for this, I came across a reference to the concept originating in company towns of the early half of the century.
Company towns are a strange place. Are they public property (like a municipality), or are they private property (owned by the company)? I suppose there are examples of both.
I'm a staunch advocate of private property rights. I don't think that suppression of a dissenting view is an good use of private property rights, but it's the owner's choice, not mine.
My problem is that at least the past two administrations have done so on public property. A peaceful, non-disruptive protester (or group or protesters) should be able to express their opinion on public property, regardless of the content.
Care to post a link to prove your claim? I googled for "clinton free speech zone" and all I came up with were a few anecdotes from people like yourself making unsubstantiated claims.
I don't know if I should follow up to your original posting, or if I should follow up to my reply, but...
As I noted in my previous reply, the "free speech zone" euphemism wasn't being used in this context. So, I tried a couple of different search terms, finally getting a hit with "cordoned clinton protester".
It's from the Denver Post, although the original page is no longer available. This link is from Google's cache:
I don't remember this particular instance, so I don't know if the cordoned-off area (i.e. the "free speech zone") was near the site of Clinton's appearance. But there were others where the zone was positioned at least a block away and around the corner, away from the site.
I googled for "clinton free speech zone" and all I came up with were a few anecdotes from people like yourself making unsubstantiated claims.
That euphemism wasn't used at that time, at least not in that context. And the mere presence of the protesters was mostly ignored by the mainstream media, so they weren't likely to report how the protesters were treated.
If you like, you can believe my claim is unsubstantiated. But, I saw the pictures and read the first-hand reports (which are either long gone or inundated by higher-ranked pages on Google). Bush has certainly escalated the use of this policy, but he didn't invent it.
Also plenty of information on the history of free speech zones, which go way back before Clinton, so your point about the precedent being set stands. It just wasn't set by Clinton.
Academia created free-speech zones on campus as early as the 60's. The first time I ever heard of them used in public spaces (i.e. off-campus) was by Clinton's Secret Service, although I've since found claims that it was used as early as the Reagan administration.
I remember the security cordons after the assassination attempt. I even got stuck in traffic one time because (Presidential candidate) Mondale was enroute from the airport to his home, and they literally closed the freeway entrances as he passed by. But, those applied to everyone, rather than just people expressing a opinion. I don't remember this kind of selective enforcement before the latter part of the Clinton administration, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If the ACLU had taken a earlier stand against free-speech zones on public property, or the media had vented their outrage when Clinton was the target of the protests, maybe Bush wouldn't be able to use them with impunity.
Care to cite your sources? I'm not calling you a liar, but certainly the first time I ever heard about "free speech zones" was during Bush's first term, and I'm just a bit surprised that the normally-vocal critics of Clinton didn't make a stink about having their rights trampled on like that.
They did, but it wasn't until the "free-speech zone" tactic was used against Democrat activists that it got the attention that it deserved. Actually, the media barely acknowledged the presence of protestors against Clinton, much less report how they were treated.
I didn't expect to be able to find any authorative stories on the subject, as I remember at the time that it wasn't reported by the mainstream media. But, I read the on-the-scene reports from multiple sources, and saw the barricades in pictures that were posted. If you don't believe me, that's your choice. But it happened, even if it doesn't fit the prevailing viewpoint around here.
And like many have observed for Bush: Clinton supporters were sometimes exempt from the zone, although there was at least one instance where separate zones were set up for Clinton supporters and Clinton detractors, ostensibly to keep prevent escalation of the conflict.
I've found several posted comments from other people that remember it, but one noted that it started as early as the Reagan administration (after the assassination attempt). I think it grew during the Clinton adminstration as his detractors started using the 'Net to organize during the second term.
But, it's now become a standard operating procedure for both parties (it was used at both the DNC and RNC conventions in 2004), and I think that's disturbing. Public property is just that, and the government shouldn't be corralling peaceful protestors under the guise of "security".
Ricoh's RDC-i700 (announced on September 10th, 2000 and shipping shortly thereafter) offered support for wireless LAN cards, and indeed was being demonstrated and sold by Ricoh with the ability to stream live video from the camera over the wireless LAN connection at Comdex the following year.
Mod parent up. Here's an article about the Ricoh RDC-i700, dated 3/18/2002:
Oh, I don't know...call me cynical but wasn't the gas we're putting in our cars today bought, paid for and process a long time ago? Why aren't we paying those prices instead of prices today?
Because tomorrow, the gas station operator will have to buy more gas to replenish his inventory -- unless he planned to shutdown his business instead.
Wholesale gasoline prices have gone up rapidly in the past week. If he were to sell the gas for just enough to pay for his previous gasoline shipment, plus his operating costs and a small profit, he would have to borrow money to be able to pay for delivery of more gasoline to replenish his inventory.
This same scenario plays out all the way up the supply chain to the wellhead.
I can't wait for someone 6'9" to get in their car with their 5'2" wife's key fob and get squished Christine style.
Or, they could not read the instructions. If both remotes are detected in the car, #1 is supposed to take priority. If he gives her #1 and he keeps #2, it will adjust to her seat position, even if she is sitting in the right seat.
This is going to be a plot element in a thriller at some point in the future.
I realized what you meant, and I should clarify:
The car will lock if I'm in the car. I'm not sure about how it determines it -- it's probably if either of the front seats are occupied. I don't know what happens if only the rear seats are occupied, as I've never tried that.
However, if I get out of the car and leave the remote on the seat, floor, console, etc., it won't let me lock the car by touching the dimple on the handle.
My Acura RL has this feature, although it's not uber-expensive.
The dongle is about the size of a standard remote, and has the same buttons on it (lock, unlock, open trunk, panic). The difference is that while carrying it in my pocket, putting my hand on the inside of the door handle unlocks the car. Touching a raised dimple on the outside of the door handle locks the car.
Other features:
The trunk can be opened in the same fashion: just lift up on the release above the license plate while the remote is in your pocket or purse.
The car will not lock when the remote is inside the car. The trunk will not close and lock if the remote was dropped into the trunk.
The remotes are coded #1 and #2. Depending on which one enters the car, it chooses one of two sets of driver seat position, side-view mirror positions, steering wheel position, radio station presets, cell-phone hands-free directory (it uses Bluetooth to communicate with my phone, but doesn't have access to the phone's directory), and navigation system settings.
In fact, just last night as I was walking around my neighborhood in Denver, I came across a freakin' laundromat advertising free wi-fi!
I think that a laundromat is a perfect place for public WiFi. It give you something to do while waiting for your laundry. I've had my own washer and dryer for a while, but before then I would have chosen that laundromat over a closer one without WiFi.
I took my car to the dealer for scheduled maintenance yesterday, and waited for about an hour. They have had public computers for 'Net access for a while, but the service manager reminded me to bring my laptop next time -- they now have a public wireless access point.
Of course, cellphones are designed for the benefit of the consumer - in this case the telcos, not the end user - you. If our phones called each other direct, telcos don't get to clip the ticket and make their bucks. So we get a service that only works when they do.
I have unlimited Mobile-to-Mobile minutes. Cingular offers it for all nationwide plans, starting at $40/month.
Seriously, though, the stuff does nothing for me. Dunno why people are so "woohoo!" about it...
I was in the hospital for minor surgery a while back and found that it makes me very sick (nausea). Since then, I've explicitly instructed doctors/dentists to prescribe something else.
Slashdot Mirror
The proper functioning of adjacent CDMA cell towers (i.e. Sprint, Verizon in the 1.8 GHz bands, and by US West in the 800 MHz bands) must be synchronized within 10 microseconds to support what is called "soft handoff".
CDMA base stations use the GPS constellation to maintain synchronization. The satellites themselves need precise clock synchronization, and this is exported to GPS receivers.
Reading TFA, the concern is not over the effects of sonic blast vs. sinking ship.
The concern is the effect of open-water testing of the sonic blast against simulated or dummy threats in the ocean.
That's gospel according to Slashdot.
Thanks for taking the time to look at these. I remember reviewing the patent attorney's submission of my invention, and was thoroughly confused by the repeated claims with slight variations. It was only after a long discussion did I understand that the whole purpose of the many claims was to broaden the patent, and make it more difficult to refute.
If the patent is granted, I'll get a lot more than $1.
Since I was paid by my employer for the time I spent developing the invention, as well as for the time I have spent supporting its implementation, I have no problems with it.
Had I spent my own time developing an invention (especially one that is unrelated to my employer's business), it would have been different. But, that's not the case this time.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
The patents listed in the above web page:
5,579,517, filed 1995-4-24, granted 1996-11-26.
5,758,352, filed 1996-9-5, granted 1998-5-26.
6,286,013, filed 1997-1-28, granted 2001-9-4.
All of these patents appear to be related to VFAT, i.e. mapping long filenames and the original 8+3 short filenames into a common name-space. Although the filing dates are different and the title for one is slightly different, the abstract for each appears to be exactly the same.
I haven't examined the claims in each patent, so I don't know how these patents differ. It might be interesting to determine what is new in the 2nd and 3rd patents, since they were filed as long as 21 months after the 1st one. I wonder what wasn't in the original VFAT implementation? Bug fixes or features?
But, these patents don't appear to cover the "old" FAT filesystem: they address the later addition of long filenames. Again, IANAL, but I think that someone that confines themselves to the original FAT format (without long filenames) would have no need to license it from Microsoft.
According to the attorney, a patent application must be submitted within 1 year after the first public disclosure of the invention, which can include:
I spent a good portion of my vacation dealing with some of the last minute paperwork, because it happened to coincide with the 1-year deadline.
So, I don't understand how Microsoft can be attempting to patent FAT now. Unless they started much earlier, or are trying to patent recent modifications to FAT, I don't think there is really anything to fear.
I was in Las Vegas a few months ago and used the monorail to travel up and down the strip.
The monorail is about a half-block away from the strip. To get to a station, you have to navigate through the casinos and shops, which are designed to impede your progress (so you'll gamble or spend money). We stayed at the Venetian, which doesn't have it's own monorail station. It took about 20-25 minutes to walk from our room, out to the strip, and back through Harrah's to the monorail.
If you are on the side of the strip opposite the monorail, you have to cross the street first, which is not always a simple task. There are a couple of privately operated trains on the side opposite the monorail that may be a better choice.
North of Harrah's, the monorail actually diverts AWAY from the strip to the Las Vegas Hilton and the convention center, then goes back to the north end of the strip at the Sahara. The casinos in that "dead zone" are older ones -- it's interesting to see that property is already being acquired for redevelopment around the Sahara and Stratosphere.
The one time that we depended on getting to the MGM Grand to see a show, the monorail has just stopped running. Fortunately, we were able to get into the line for a cab before everyone else discovered the same problem, but we just barely made it in time. If it's not dependable, people will quickly switch to alternatives after making the walk all the way to the monorail station, only to find it isn't running.
I think the plan was to extend the monorail to the airport and to downtown. Given the difficulty of getting from the monorail station to hotels not directly on the line, I think an airport link will not be used much. It would probably help the downtown casinos, though.
It's not an error by NewEgg. Follow the link to the manufacturer's site, and you'll see the same specification:
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveI D=114
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveI D=92
I bought one to replace what I thought was a bad drive in a RAID configuration about a year ago.
Company towns are a strange place. Are they public property (like a municipality), or are they private property (owned by the company)? I suppose there are examples of both.
I'm a staunch advocate of private property rights. I don't think that suppression of a dissenting view is an good use of private property rights, but it's the owner's choice, not mine.
My problem is that at least the past two administrations have done so on public property. A peaceful, non-disruptive protester (or group or protesters) should be able to express their opinion on public property, regardless of the content.
I don't know if I should follow up to your original posting, or if I should follow up to my reply, but...
As I noted in my previous reply, the "free speech zone" euphemism wasn't being used in this context. So, I tried a couple of different search terms, finally getting a hit with "cordoned clinton protester". It's from the Denver Post, although the original page is no longer available. This link is from Google's cache:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:X-nfVVK7tu4J: 63.147.65.175/news/shot041200c.htm+cordoned+clinto n+protester&hl=en
I don't remember this particular instance, so I don't know if the cordoned-off area (i.e. the "free speech zone") was near the site of Clinton's appearance. But there were others where the zone was positioned at least a block away and around the corner, away from the site.
That euphemism wasn't used at that time, at least not in that context. And the mere presence of the protesters was mostly ignored by the mainstream media, so they weren't likely to report how the protesters were treated.
If you like, you can believe my claim is unsubstantiated. But, I saw the pictures and read the first-hand reports (which are either long gone or inundated by higher-ranked pages on Google). Bush has certainly escalated the use of this policy, but he didn't invent it.
Also plenty of information on the history of free speech zones, which go way back before Clinton, so your point about the precedent being set stands. It just wasn't set by Clinton.
Academia created free-speech zones on campus as early as the 60's. The first time I ever heard of them used in public spaces (i.e. off-campus) was by Clinton's Secret Service, although I've since found claims that it was used as early as the Reagan administration.
I remember the security cordons after the assassination attempt. I even got stuck in traffic one time because (Presidential candidate) Mondale was enroute from the airport to his home, and they literally closed the freeway entrances as he passed by. But, those applied to everyone, rather than just people expressing a opinion. I don't remember this kind of selective enforcement before the latter part of the Clinton administration, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If the ACLU had taken a earlier stand against free-speech zones on public property, or the media had vented their outrage when Clinton was the target of the protests, maybe Bush wouldn't be able to use them with impunity.
They did, but it wasn't until the "free-speech zone" tactic was used against Democrat activists that it got the attention that it deserved. Actually, the media barely acknowledged the presence of protestors against Clinton, much less report how they were treated.
I didn't expect to be able to find any authorative stories on the subject, as I remember at the time that it wasn't reported by the mainstream media. But, I read the on-the-scene reports from multiple sources, and saw the barricades in pictures that were posted. If you don't believe me, that's your choice. But it happened, even if it doesn't fit the prevailing viewpoint around here.
And like many have observed for Bush: Clinton supporters were sometimes exempt from the zone, although there was at least one instance where separate zones were set up for Clinton supporters and Clinton detractors, ostensibly to keep prevent escalation of the conflict.
I've found several posted comments from other people that remember it, but one noted that it started as early as the Reagan administration (after the assassination attempt). I think it grew during the Clinton adminstration as his detractors started using the 'Net to organize during the second term.
But, it's now become a standard operating procedure for both parties (it was used at both the DNC and RNC conventions in 2004), and I think that's disturbing. Public property is just that, and the government shouldn't be corralling peaceful protestors under the guise of "security".
This practice was apparently pioneered by the Clinton administration, after he was embarrassed on a number of occassions by protestors.
I'm not saying that it's a defensible practice. I'm just pointing out that the precedent was set before (the junior) Bush was elected.
Mod parent up. Here's an article about the Ricoh RDC-i700, dated 3/18/2002:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/18/ricoh/inde x.php
And a review from CNet, dated 6/28/2001:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Ricoh_RDC_i700/4505-6501_7 -6346147-2.html?tag=glance
Because tomorrow, the gas station operator will have to buy more gas to replenish his inventory -- unless he planned to shutdown his business instead.
Wholesale gasoline prices have gone up rapidly in the past week. If he were to sell the gas for just enough to pay for his previous gasoline shipment, plus his operating costs and a small profit, he would have to borrow money to be able to pay for delivery of more gasoline to replenish his inventory.
This same scenario plays out all the way up the supply chain to the wellhead.
Or, they could not read the instructions. If both remotes are detected in the car, #1 is supposed to take priority. If he gives her #1 and he keeps #2, it will adjust to her seat position, even if she is sitting in the right seat.
I realized what you meant, and I should clarify:
The car will lock if I'm in the car. I'm not sure about how it determines it -- it's probably if either of the front seats are occupied. I don't know what happens if only the rear seats are occupied, as I've never tried that.
However, if I get out of the car and leave the remote on the seat, floor, console, etc., it won't let me lock the car by touching the dimple on the handle.
The dongle is about the size of a standard remote, and has the same buttons on it (lock, unlock, open trunk, panic). The difference is that while carrying it in my pocket, putting my hand on the inside of the door handle unlocks the car. Touching a raised dimple on the outside of the door handle locks the car.
Other features:
Building a barrier in standing water is a lot easier than building one in rushing water.
It may not be rushing, but it will be moving. Water will now flow in and out, in sync with the tidal flow.
New Orleans is now an extension of the Gulf of Mexico.
I think that a laundromat is a perfect place for public WiFi. It give you something to do while waiting for your laundry. I've had my own washer and dryer for a while, but before then I would have chosen that laundromat over a closer one without WiFi.
I took my car to the dealer for scheduled maintenance yesterday, and waited for about an hour. They have had public computers for 'Net access for a while, but the service manager reminded me to bring my laptop next time -- they now have a public wireless access point.
Yes, but your reasoning was that the cell phone company does this so they can get the revenue.
There is no additional revenue from mobile-to-mobile, even for mobile-to-mobile across the US.
I have unlimited Mobile-to-Mobile minutes. Cingular offers it for all nationwide plans, starting at $40/month.
I was in the hospital for minor surgery a while back and found that it makes me very sick (nausea). Since then, I've explicitly instructed doctors/dentists to prescribe something else.