Choosing resistors for your home electronics projects, unless perhaps you are aiming for orbit, then you better get the spendy 1% or better kind.
Temerature for frying your pancakes on the stove. Actually, that's a pretty superior stove, as most vary wildly on what the subjective settings: LOW, MED, HIGH mean. At least ovens have degrees, but also seem to have their own opinions of 400 degrees.
Fan speed, processor temperature, etc. unless you're already at the limit and a 5% spike in voltage or temperature means you stop reading this text and start fishing out the backup hardware.
It's your annual cost of living increase. Beats 2% or none at all.
There's a big difference between being off by 5% and failing completely 5% of the time.
Except that when you do this you're only punishing the retailers. The RIAA counts a "sale" when a store buys the CD, not when an individual buys a CD. The RIAA's members will never see the blip.
--
8 years since I've bought a CD published by an RIAA member and counting. (And no, I don't download the music instead.)
Yes. Don't give anybody money as a "settlement" until you have a lawyer. A lawyer will make sure that the terms of the settlement actually protect you from being sued anyway.
If you were going to be blackmailed, wouldn't you want to see proof that the person blackmailing you could do what they say they might do before you start giving them money?
You would have to be a fool to give SCO money before they show proof that they own what you're using.
On the other hand, I hope SCO updates us regularly with press releases of who pays up. I want to know which corporate execs I can extort money out of by claiming to have pictures of them in compromising situations without actually needing to show them any pictures....
All you have to do is fill out the form and send it in with the fee. They don't do any verification to make sure you actually have rights over what you're claiming. The filing is just a technicality required to pursue a federal copyright suit.
You don't need to register to have rights under copyright law, and there's nothing stopping you from registering fraudulently.
...if only they had shaped them like the original controllers for the respective systems. Part of the challenge was the crappy controller design on the Intellivision, and you can't beat the 2600 joysticks for 2600 games.
Can you be close to the prior art but add something that goes the extra mile? If so, patentable. If not, you're in the dustbin.
I've read this a few times now, and it seems like you're saying the same thing I said.
Prior art by definition isn't secret stuff- that comment would imply
I don't understand how I could be implying that prior art is secret when I specifically say it's disclosed right in the application...
Prior art is used to prove that an 'invention' has not taken an inventive step, meaning someone skilled in the relevant art could reasonably be expected to think of the same invention upon reading the public 'prior art,' without any particular inspiration.
Sure, that's one use for prior art, but there's more to it than that. A novel extension of prior art, or even a novel implementation of prior art can be patentable. In those cases prior art is a building block for the new patent, which is exactly the opposite proving the invention unpatentable.
Also, there's more to obviousness that somebody skilled in the art being able to easily come up with the same solution. The problem being solved has to be obvious too. Somebody skilled in the associated art would never come up with the "obvious" solution without realising the solution needed o be found in the first place. It's easy to call something obvious in hindsight.
The way it works is exactly the opposite of that. Prior art does not invalidate a patent, it just make the patent dependent on having the rights to the prior art as well.
Unless your patent is exactly what the prior art is (hardly anything is exactly something else (!)) or some subset of it, finding prior art will not prevent the granting of a patent. Also, many patents that are flaged as outrageous by armchair lawyers on slashdot are not as broad of scope as they seem due to the prior art that is listed in the patent.
The process may be broken, but not as badly as you'd think from all the postings you see around here.
But, according to the article, you can use the cards to get premium and pay-per-view signals for free.
Why do you assume I don't pay for the premium channels too? They also have me hook a phone line up to my reciever. They should be able to tell if I'm messing around with the card if they want to. They have full control of the firmware and everything. (This is hypothetical anyway... I have one of the newer cards that you supposedly can't hack.)
Threatening your customers with legal action when you can easily find out that they aren't doing anything wrong isn't a good business strategy. They have two choices: they can (try to) extort $3500 from me now and loose my business and the business of people I would have referred to them (I've talked *lots* of people into signing up already), or they can collect regular payments from me indefinatly which won't take long to add up to more than $3500...
Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer?
That's hardly a reasonable analogy. White flour is cheap. Programable smartcard programmers are not. I've purchased an ISO programmer from a shady canadian sateleite pirate dealer simply because they were considerably cheaper there than through other sources. If I could have gotten a programable programmer for $15 elsewhere I would have. Now I just have to hope DirecTV doesn't come after me since I'm a paying customer... You can't pirate a signal you're paying for, right?
Well, for starters 'xv' is not free software and you have to purchase a license for non-commercial use, while ImageMagick is distributed under a BSD style license...
Under the Berne convention the copyright term of foreign works lasts for the same time they are protected in the country of origin.
Nobody's forcing any signatory of the Berne convertion to continue to abide by it. All you have to do to pull out is give one years notice.
Perhaps some smaller companies wouldn't be able to handle the potential sanctions larger countries would use as pressure to prevent such an action, but any larger European country, Japan, or the US could pull out without more than political flak, and you know why? It's because the copyright holders that benefit from the Berne convention in those countries would still profit enough the country that pulled out to justify selling there. So what's keeping us tied to a bad agreement? As soon as the people speak louder than the content cartel we should be able to restore sanity.
I'm all for profit, but one person's/company's profit shouldn't come at the expense of progress, and progress is built on the ideas of the past. If ideas can't be reused then why should we bother providing copyright as an incentive to create them in the first place?
"Without a raise I'll be looking" isn't though; at least not compared to "I have these other offers, so if you don't give me a raise I'll be taking one of them".
I wish I could find that survey, because they interviewed bosses and the majority of them basically said they'd just ignore requests or say "I'll look in to it" without something to get their attention, and the suggestion of leaving was the best attention getter.
If you don't have the stomach to do what it takes, you shouldn't be complaining.
SOURCES SAID that the architecture of the Sony Playstation3 is patently clear when you've found the US patent that it filed September 26th last year. A reliable source close to Sony's plans explained the way the Playstation3 works to the INQUIRER.
Many a patent has gone unimplemented, and many an Inquirer source has been wrong in the past.... But that's moot.
It will run at 4GHz, producing a not inconsiderable 256Gflops, with the cells connected to the central 64MB memory through a switched 1024 bit bus.
This alone proves that the cells have nothing to do with the internet.
Even the current PS2 shares compute power over the network in a generic fashion with some direct connecting internet games, so the rest of what you quoted is just marketing fluff.
To recap: don't threaten. If you are going to make any statements about leaving, have those offers IN HAND first. Otherwise you are risking a period of unemployment.
Asside from what I said about pursuing other options first earilier, I don't understand why you thing having offers in hand isn't a threat. Getting other offers first is way more explicit a threat than what I suggested.
Offers in hand == Threat. You can't bring offers and not threaten.
What's the deal with the PS3's supposed ability to have "massive computing power" by connecting up with other PS3s over the internet?
The deal is whoever said that started a rumor with their lack of understanding. The "Cell computing" that Sony is talking about will probably involve multiple processors inside the PS3, or even on a single die, and not multiple PS3 machines over the internet for exactly the reasons you describe. Sony hasn't said really, so anything you've read about it on the internet has been speculation (including this).
...that a $5 billion aircraft carrier that we really don't need during this time of budget crunches and economic weakness bears the name of the man who invented modern deficit spending in America.
Your feel good comment neglects the fact that this thing was contracted for over seven years ago when we weren't so bad off.
But has others have said, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you say anything like "or else I walk". NEVER.
If you're willing to take the risk, threating to walk is in fact the *most likely* way to get you what you want. I'm not talking about saying anything rude, just politely inform your boss that if you're not going to be paid what you're worth you'll have to consider leaving for a company. It gets the point across and doesn't burn any bridges at the same time. In fact there was a survey done recently that I heard about on BBC newshour where managers said that said this was most likely to result in succes of any method (but was also most likely to get you fired), but I can't seem to find it on their website.
Don't do this if you absolutly can't live with loosing your job, but if asking nicely doesn't work and you can handle the risk, go for it.
NEVER say never.:)
Besides, looking for a job is one of the worst things you can do if are at all interested in keeping your current job. Once you start looking you'll find you mentally "check out" and leaving becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You shouldn't have to shop around if you are certain that entry level people are being hired into equivalent positions to yours at a higher salary then you have.
At a minimum, the NSA is two years ahead of the curve. They've also got their own chip fab, so they are able to produce more custom chips like the ones used in the DES challange or better for less money. As long as they're not tapping tens of thousands of phones at any given time, don't be so sure that they can't have you calls decrypted within a few hours or less.
The PEM is an architecture specification that describes features for the entire processor family. Any individual processor in the family need not support all the features described in that document. In the 970 they chose to honor only 42 of the address bits. I suggest you check out the other documents on IBM's PPC 970 product page. In particular this one.
Also, the 80 bit address is an intermediate value used in the hashed page table calculation and is not exposed to the user.
Now, in the current generation G5, memory is actually limited in hardware to four thousand gigabytes, and limited in practical terms to eight gigabytes. But applications can, nonetheless, allocate and address up to 18 billion gigs of virtual memory. The OS won't stop them from doing that.
The PPC 970 only implements 42 virtual address bits. Similarly, other current 64 bit microprocessors only implement a subset of the available 64 bits in their MMU. In short, an application running on a PPC 970 processor will only be able to address 2^42 bytes, or 4 terabytes of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
Choosing resistors for your home electronics projects, unless perhaps you are aiming for orbit, then you better get the spendy 1% or better kind.
Temerature for frying your pancakes on the stove. Actually, that's a pretty superior stove, as most vary wildly on what the subjective settings: LOW, MED, HIGH mean. At least ovens have degrees, but also seem to have their own opinions of 400 degrees.
Fan speed, processor temperature, etc. unless you're already at the limit and a 5% spike in voltage or temperature means you stop reading this text and start fishing out the backup hardware.
It's your annual cost of living increase. Beats 2% or none at all.
There's a big difference between being off by 5% and failing completely 5% of the time.
Except that when you do this you're only punishing the retailers. The RIAA counts a "sale" when a store buys the CD, not when an individual buys a CD. The RIAA's members will never see the blip.
--
8 years since I've bought a CD published by an RIAA member and counting. (And no, I don't download the music instead.)
"Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered
Yes. Don't give anybody money as a "settlement" until you have a lawyer. A lawyer will make sure that the terms of the settlement actually protect you from being sued anyway.
If you were going to be blackmailed, wouldn't you want to see proof that the person blackmailing you could do what they say they might do before you start giving them money?
You would have to be a fool to give SCO money before they show proof that they own what you're using.
On the other hand, I hope SCO updates us regularly with press releases of who pays up. I want to know which corporate execs I can extort money out of by claiming to have pictures of them in compromising situations without actually needing to show them any pictures....
All you have to do is fill out the form and send it in with the fee. They don't do any verification to make sure you actually have rights over what you're claiming. The filing is just a technicality required to pursue a federal copyright suit.
You don't need to register to have rights under copyright law, and there's nothing stopping you from registering fraudulently.
I don't think it helps privacy any when they take your photo, and start adding extra information to it, like what you have just bought.
Ever see the cameras above the checkout? They can do it already, and they don't need the help of RFID tags either.
...if only they had shaped them like the original controllers for the respective systems. Part of the challenge was the crappy controller design on the Intellivision, and you can't beat the 2600 joysticks for 2600 games.
So, you mean instead of training a camera on you continuously as you shop, now they can capture only a few key moments?
You'd think people would be declaring this a privacy *win* since you'll be video taped less now, and only at the points that matter.
Can you be close to the prior art but add something that goes the extra mile? If so, patentable. If not, you're in the dustbin.
I've read this a few times now, and it seems like you're saying the same thing I said.
Prior art by definition isn't secret stuff- that comment would imply
I don't understand how I could be implying that prior art is secret when I specifically say it's disclosed right in the application...
Prior art is used to prove that an 'invention' has not taken an inventive step, meaning someone skilled in the relevant art could reasonably be expected to think of the same invention upon reading the public 'prior art,' without any particular inspiration.
Sure, that's one use for prior art, but there's more to it than that. A novel extension of prior art, or even a novel implementation of prior art can be patentable. In those cases prior art is a building block for the new patent, which is exactly the opposite proving the invention unpatentable.
Also, there's more to obviousness that somebody skilled in the art being able to easily come up with the same solution. The problem being solved has to be obvious too. Somebody skilled in the associated art would never come up with the "obvious" solution without realising the solution needed o be found in the first place. It's easy to call something obvious in hindsight.
One should have to prove "no prior art"!
The way it works is exactly the opposite of that. Prior art does not invalidate a patent, it just make the patent dependent on having the rights to the prior art as well.
Unless your patent is exactly what the prior art is (hardly anything is exactly something else (!)) or some subset of it, finding prior art will not prevent the granting of a patent. Also, many patents that are flaged as outrageous by armchair lawyers on slashdot are not as broad of scope as they seem due to the prior art that is listed in the patent.
The process may be broken, but not as badly as you'd think from all the postings you see around here.
But, according to the article, you can use the cards to get premium and pay-per-view signals for free.
Why do you assume I don't pay for the premium channels too? They also have me hook a phone line up to my reciever. They should be able to tell if I'm messing around with the card if they want to. They have full control of the firmware and everything. (This is hypothetical anyway... I have one of the newer cards that you supposedly can't hack.)
Threatening your customers with legal action when you can easily find out that they aren't doing anything wrong isn't a good business strategy. They have two choices: they can (try to) extort $3500 from me now and loose my business and the business of people I would have referred to them (I've talked *lots* of people into signing up already), or they can collect regular payments from me indefinatly which won't take long to add up to more than $3500...
Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer?
That's hardly a reasonable analogy. White flour is cheap. Programable smartcard programmers are not. I've purchased an ISO programmer from a shady canadian sateleite pirate dealer simply because they were considerably cheaper there than through other sources. If I could have gotten a programable programmer for $15 elsewhere I would have. Now I just have to hope DirecTV doesn't come after me since I'm a paying customer... You can't pirate a signal you're paying for, right?
Well, for starters 'xv' is not free software and you have to purchase a license for non-commercial use,
Duh. I meant you have to purchase a licencs fo commercial use. It's 'free as in beer' for non-commercial use.
Well, for starters 'xv' is not free software and you have to purchase a license for non-commercial use, while ImageMagick is distributed under a BSD style license...
Do you have some code to change now?
"How can we get boys intrested in playing with dolls?"
They're not dolls, they're *action figures*, and... Oh, wait you were being rhetorical.
Under the Berne convention the copyright term of foreign works lasts for the same time they are protected in the country of origin.
Nobody's forcing any signatory of the Berne convertion to continue to abide by it. All you have to do to pull out is give one years notice.
Perhaps some smaller companies wouldn't be able to handle the potential sanctions larger countries would use as pressure to prevent such an action, but any larger European country, Japan, or the US could pull out without more than political flak, and you know why? It's because the copyright holders that benefit from the Berne convention in those countries would still profit enough the country that pulled out to justify selling there. So what's keeping us tied to a bad agreement? As soon as the people speak louder than the content cartel we should be able to restore sanity.
I'm all for profit, but one person's/company's profit shouldn't come at the expense of progress, and progress is built on the ideas of the past. If ideas can't be reused then why should we bother providing copyright as an incentive to create them in the first place?
"Give me the money or I will quit" is a threat.
"Without a raise I'll be looking" isn't though; at least not compared to "I have these other offers, so if you don't give me a raise I'll be taking one of them".
I wish I could find that survey, because they interviewed bosses and the majority of them basically said they'd just ignore requests or say "I'll look in to it" without something to get their attention, and the suggestion of leaving was the best attention getter.
If you don't have the stomach to do what it takes, you shouldn't be complaining.
SOURCES SAID that the architecture of the Sony Playstation3 is patently clear when you've found the US patent that it filed September 26th last year.
A reliable source close to Sony's plans explained the way the Playstation3 works to the INQUIRER.
Many a patent has gone unimplemented, and many an Inquirer source has been wrong in the past.... But that's moot.
It will run at 4GHz, producing a not inconsiderable 256Gflops, with the cells connected to the central 64MB memory through a switched 1024 bit bus.
This alone proves that the cells have nothing to do with the internet.
Even the current PS2 shares compute power over the network in a generic fashion with some direct connecting internet games, so the rest of what you quoted is just marketing fluff.
To recap: don't threaten. If you are going to make any statements about leaving, have those offers IN HAND first. Otherwise you are risking a period of unemployment.
Asside from what I said about pursuing other options first earilier, I don't understand why you thing having offers in hand isn't a threat. Getting other offers first is way more explicit a threat than what I suggested.
Offers in hand == Threat. You can't bring offers and not threaten.
What's the deal with the PS3's supposed ability to have "massive computing power" by connecting up with other PS3s over the internet?
The deal is whoever said that started a rumor with their lack of understanding. The "Cell computing" that Sony is talking about will probably involve multiple processors inside the PS3, or even on a single die, and not multiple PS3 machines over the internet for exactly the reasons you describe. Sony hasn't said really, so anything you've read about it on the internet has been speculation (including this).
...that a $5 billion aircraft carrier that we really don't need during this time of budget crunches and economic weakness bears the name of the man who invented modern deficit spending in America.
Your feel good comment neglects the fact that this thing was contracted for over seven years ago when we weren't so bad off.
But has others have said, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you say anything like "or else I walk". NEVER.
:)
If you're willing to take the risk, threating to walk is in fact the *most likely* way to get you what you want. I'm not talking about saying anything rude, just politely inform your boss that if you're not going to be paid what you're worth you'll have to consider leaving for a company. It gets the point across and doesn't burn any bridges at the same time. In fact there was a survey done recently that I heard about on BBC newshour where managers said that said this was most likely to result in succes of any method (but was also most likely to get you fired), but I can't seem to find it on their website.
Don't do this if you absolutly can't live with loosing your job, but if asking nicely doesn't work and you can handle the risk, go for it.
NEVER say never.
Besides, looking for a job is one of the worst things you can do if are at all interested in keeping your current job. Once you start looking you'll find you mentally "check out" and leaving becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You shouldn't have to shop around if you are certain that entry level people are being hired into equivalent positions to yours at a higher salary then you have.
At a minimum, the NSA is two years ahead of the curve. They've also got their own chip fab, so they are able to produce more custom chips like the ones used in the DES challange or better for less money. As long as they're not tapping tens of thousands of phones at any given time, don't be so sure that they can't have you calls decrypted within a few hours or less.
The PEM is an architecture specification that describes features for the entire processor family. Any individual processor in the family need not support all the features described in that document. In the 970 they chose to honor only 42 of the address bits. I suggest you check out the other documents on IBM's PPC 970 product page. In particular this one.
Also, the 80 bit address is an intermediate value used in the hashed page table calculation and is not exposed to the user.
Now, in the current generation G5, memory is actually limited in hardware to four thousand gigabytes, and limited in practical terms to eight gigabytes. But applications can, nonetheless, allocate and address up to 18 billion gigs of virtual memory. The OS won't stop them from doing that.
The PPC 970 only implements 42 virtual address bits. Similarly, other current 64 bit microprocessors only implement a subset of the available 64 bits in their MMU. In short, an application running on a PPC 970 processor will only be able to address 2^42 bytes, or 4 terabytes of memory.