How does one get a shockwave when there is no medium for such a wave to pass through? The only noise I think you should hear, would be the remnants of the object raining down on your cabin.
I reckon that the USPTO should be fined for every patent granted that is later invalidated. That'd make 'em think about it. Maybe even fine the examiner who signed off on the patent.
There's nothing there that could induce an upward movement if it only "turned off gravity."
Erm, if you could create an anti-gravity machine and turned it on, assuming that all gravity suddenly gets deflected or whetever, you would appear to fly off in an arc upwards and to the west (if I'm getting this right). This is due to the fact that the earth is not flat (so they tell me), and the only thing that keeps you going round in circles is gravity. Turn off gravity - you go in a straight line at a tangent to your position on the earth at the point at which you turned it off.
Oh, the reason that these lifters stablise at two feet (or whatever) is that they are typically tied down.
Sorry.. you're wrong. Whilst quantum physics does deal in things that are small a quantum leap does not.
Ref: Oxford English Dictionary, entry for "quantum":
...quantum increase, a sudden large increase; cf. quantum jump; quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum; also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden large advance; cf. quantum jump;...
At least get your facts right before you go telling people how stupid they are. Otherwise you might start sounding like an OSNews reviewer.
Wouldn't osmosis work the other way? ie. High salt content water outside draws water out of the cell causing it to shrivel. Maybe the high salt concentration would cause salt to diffuse into the cell. Giving rise to a salty bacterium... maybe you could combine this with quorn to produce a salty snack. Or is that a fungus? Biltong for vegetarians...
Actually, you can program in any language you like - just compile it an hook it into Java via JNI. Maybe not quite as simple as the.NET CLR promisies to be, but there y'go. Java servers use this trick to increase their performance by using native file I/O etc.
WTF has Prolog got to do with this? You ever try running Prolog through the CLR? No, thought not. Besides Prolog can be hooked into Java if you want anyway.
Er, well yes it's probable that more people know C, but then again it has been around for what - 5 times as long as Java? Anyway, I don't see how it's easier... I mean Java is very much like C in style, and is just soo much easier to code in its frightening. Believe me: a garbage collected, managed environment is just so nice.
As for performance, well sure, a piece of C code that does precisely what it needs to do and no more is going to be faster than a bit of Java code that by its very nature has at least one other thread running. That's bound to take something away, but frankly it's pretty minimal and a well-written piece of Java can be just as fast as a bit of C.
I've been involved in a web-site that is mostly written in Java (the bit that isn't is called Apache), we can easily service 1000 simultaneous connections (this is considered fairly high), and have serviced around 30 million hits a day with 5 servers (and the servers were barely breaking a sweat). In fact, our ISP's firewall keeled over long before the web servers were worried. Oh, before you ask - they're just twin processor UltraSPARCs not E10000s or anything.
So how is C "better for these types of programs by nature"?
There is of course the other point that there is no way for the US govt to force the likes of Bin Laden et al to use their officially sanctioned encryption - thus the only people it would affect are law-abiding US citizens.
Let's face it - someone who's willing to commit a couple of thousand acts of murder is unlikely to have nightmares about using an illegal encryption program.
"My wife and I"...
That's what you think... Just wait until you hear a little ticking when you get into bed one night.;-p
Re:Linux community can't be held accountable...
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
Eh? When was the last time that Windoze lived up to the hype? When was the last time you read a Microsoft EULA? And I quote:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU.
If you read this they are basically saying: "we're not saying what this product will do. If you assume that it does something then it's at your own risk. We're just telling you that whatever it does do... it does it better in this version than in the last one. Sure, if you're not happy with it, the law states that you're entitled to your money back, so just send it all back to us, and convince us that you haven't still got anything installed, or have taken a copy of the CD and we'll write you a cheque. Oh, but wait... you can't convince us that you don't have it running can you?"
Hmm. In reality, most businesses just don't feel happy unless they've coughed up some cash for a product. I suppose that they believe that they are paying for the massive debugging and QA efforts of the software engineers, and not the salaries of the marketing and sales departments.
Anyway - the author can't be held accountable? Right... like you're going to sue MS the next time your PC crashes. OK go on then.
If you're really that serious about needing someone to be accountable for the software you use, then you're probably talking about a system that shouldn't be running on something as cheap as an MS product anyway. Clearly the cost of Windoze NT isn't nearly enough to allow it be running a nuclear power station. Although I'm sure that dear old Stevie B will tell you different.
Presumably, you'd be able to stretch the window though? Or if not, you could run a utility that scaled a selected window by a given percentage. Anyone remember the magnifying glass? And you thought it was useless.:p
Actually, I believe that Orange (a UK mobile phone company) is planning to bring in video-phone mobiles sometime soon (early next year they claim). They've been going on about it for ages. The demo models I saw a while ago looked pretty nifty, but I think that the quality will be naff, and the batteries will probably last about five minutes.
Well, I looked at the patents in question, and it appears that DS/S have misinterpreted things a little.
They claim to have two patents, when the second patent is clearly a duplication of the first with certain enhancements (primarily: the second patent is 11 pages long as opposed to 6 pages for the first). I'm not a lawyer (or an American for that matter <G>), but surely a second patent application which includes all of the text of the first (which seems to be the case) is not strictly a seperate patent?
Secondly, the patents both reference a device with specific properties, which could possibly cover the configuration of a website which distributed music/video. Possibly. In my opinion any judge would have to be coerced to make this ruling.
In my (admittedly unskilled) opinion DS/S have no legal standing for their claim that the patent(s) in question apply to all pay-to-download music/video on the internet.
In a similar vein, I wonder how the law views software/hardware emulation of patented devices. From what little I've seen of game/computer emulation software on the internet the emulation of the machine is not against the law, but transmission of the copyrighted sections of the machine (operating system, ROMs, etc) is. In this case is a webserver/system which closely emulates the device described by this patent covered by the patent?
When all is said and done however, this appears to be nothing more than an attempt by someone whose pet project got pre-empted by the internet trying to make some free cash. They need to get over it. Fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Blah, blah, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt
Maybe they should call Jony Ive
They could, at least, spell "authorised" correctly.
How does one get a shockwave when there is no medium for such a wave to pass through? The only noise I think you should hear, would be the remnants of the object raining down on your cabin.
Fair play - never said it was the suxorz. It just ain't free man. Oh - and boy those WebXXX products certainly ain't even close. :)
I'd hardly call Resin free. Have you seen this or this?
Unless of course you're talking about some sort of bizarre tree/java server combo that I'm not aware of...
for SCO to start sueing the Courts for copyright infringement.
SCO: "You owe us money!"
AOUSC: "Prove it."
SCO: "Pay up or we'll sue!"
AOUSC: "Go on then."
SCO: "Oh b...."
I reckon that the USPTO should be fined for every patent granted that is later invalidated. That'd make 'em think about it. Maybe even fine the examiner who signed off on the patent.
Taking a stab in the dark...
Could it be an oversight in your CD/DVD drive's firmware that causes it to baulk at booting the 700MB ISOs that MDK uses?
MDK did provide 650MB versions in the end, since it caused a few problems for people.
There's nothing there that could induce an upward movement if it only "turned off gravity."
Erm, if you could create an anti-gravity machine and turned it on, assuming that all gravity suddenly gets deflected or whetever, you would appear to fly off in an arc upwards and to the west (if I'm getting this right). This is due to the fact that the earth is not flat (so they tell me), and the only thing that keeps you going round in circles is gravity. Turn off gravity - you go in a straight line at a tangent to your position on the earth at the point at which you turned it off.
Oh, the reason that these lifters stablise at two feet (or whatever) is that they are typically tied down.
...would you want to link stupid Germans together?
Sorry.. you're wrong. Whilst quantum physics does deal in things that are small a quantum leap does not.
Ref: Oxford English Dictionary, entry for "quantum":
...quantum increase, a sudden large increase; cf. quantum jump; quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum; also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden large advance; cf. quantum jump; ...
At least get your facts right before you go telling people how stupid they are. Otherwise you might start sounding like an OSNews reviewer.
Wouldn't osmosis work the other way? ie. High salt content water outside draws water out of the cell causing it to shrivel. Maybe the high salt concentration would cause salt to diffuse into the cell. Giving rise to a salty bacterium... maybe you could combine this with quorn to produce a salty snack. Or is that a fungus? Biltong for vegetarians...
Actually, you can program in any language you like - just compile it an hook it into Java via JNI. Maybe not quite as simple as the .NET CLR promisies to be, but there y'go. Java servers use this trick to increase their performance by using native file I/O etc.
WTF has Prolog got to do with this? You ever try running Prolog through the CLR? No, thought not.
Besides Prolog can be hooked into Java if you want anyway.
Er, well yes it's probable that more people know C, but then again it has been around for what - 5 times as long as Java? Anyway, I don't see how it's easier... I mean Java is very much like C in style, and is just soo much easier to code in its frightening. Believe me: a garbage collected, managed environment is just so nice.
As for performance, well sure, a piece of C code that does precisely what it needs to do and no more is going to be faster than a bit of Java code that by its very nature has at least one other thread running. That's bound to take something away, but frankly it's pretty minimal and a well-written piece of Java can be just as fast as a bit of C.
I've been involved in a web-site that is mostly written in Java (the bit that isn't is called Apache), we can easily service 1000 simultaneous connections (this is considered fairly high), and have serviced around 30 million hits a day with 5 servers (and the servers were barely breaking a sweat). In fact, our ISP's firewall keeled over long before the web servers were worried. Oh, before you ask - they're just twin processor UltraSPARCs not E10000s or anything.
So how is C "better for these types of programs by nature"?
There is of course the other point that there is no way for the US govt to force the likes of Bin Laden et al to use their officially sanctioned encryption - thus the only people it would affect are law-abiding US citizens.
Let's face it - someone who's willing to commit a couple of thousand acts of murder is unlikely to have nightmares about using an illegal encryption program.
"My wife and I"... ;-p
That's what you think... Just wait until you hear a little ticking when you get into bed one night.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU.
If you read this they are basically saying: "we're not saying what this product will do. If you assume that it does something then it's at your own risk. We're just telling you that whatever it does do... it does it better in this version than in the last one. Sure, if you're not happy with it, the law states that you're entitled to your money back, so just send it all back to us, and convince us that you haven't still got anything installed, or have taken a copy of the CD and we'll write you a cheque. Oh, but wait... you can't convince us that you don't have it running can you?"
Hmm. In reality, most businesses just don't feel happy unless they've coughed up some cash for a product. I suppose that they believe that they are paying for the massive debugging and QA efforts of the software engineers, and not the salaries of the marketing and sales departments.
Anyway - the author can't be held accountable? Right... like you're going to sue MS the next time your PC crashes.
OK go on then.
If you're really that serious about needing someone to be accountable for the software you use, then you're probably talking about a system that shouldn't be running on something as cheap as an MS product anyway. Clearly the cost of Windoze NT isn't nearly enough to allow it be running a nuclear power station. Although I'm sure that dear old Stevie B will tell you different.
Presumably, you'd be able to stretch the window though? Or if not, you could run a utility that scaled a selected window by a given percentage. Anyone remember the magnifying glass? And you thought it was useless. :p
Actually, I believe that Orange (a UK mobile phone company) is planning to bring in video-phone mobiles sometime soon (early next year they claim). They've been going on about it for ages. The demo models I saw a while ago looked pretty nifty, but I think that the quality will be naff, and the batteries will probably last about five minutes.
They claim to have two patents, when the second patent is clearly a duplication of the first with certain enhancements (primarily: the second patent is 11 pages long as opposed to 6 pages for the first). I'm not a lawyer (or an American for that matter <G>), but surely a second patent application which includes all of the text of the first (which seems to be the case) is not strictly a seperate patent?
Secondly, the patents both reference a device with specific properties, which could possibly cover the configuration of a website which distributed music/video. Possibly. In my opinion any judge would have to be coerced to make this ruling.
In my (admittedly unskilled) opinion DS/S have no legal standing for their claim that the patent(s) in question apply to all pay-to-download music/video on the internet.
In a similar vein, I wonder how the law views software/hardware emulation of patented devices. From what little I've seen of game/computer emulation software on the internet the emulation of the machine is not against the law, but transmission of the copyrighted sections of the machine (operating system, ROMs, etc) is. In this case is a webserver/system which closely emulates the device described by this patent covered by the patent?
When all is said and done however, this appears to be nothing more than an attempt by someone whose pet project got pre-empted by the internet trying to make some free cash. They need to get over it. Fast.