I think if you had something that combined gold and chlorine into gold chloride you might reasonably describe it as 'creating' gold chloride.
Thus I don't think it's entirely objectionable to describe something doing the opposite process as 'creating' gold (implying metallic gold rather than gold atoms).
Both "create" and "gold" have multiple meanings.
Which isn't to say that "extract" or something wouldn't have been a better choice.
Yes, he has invented a machine that allows him to travel alternate timelines in parallel universes. He uses this machine solely for arguing on the internet.
Either that or the damage done to the helmets indicates a level of force best not applied to a naked head.
Your description sounds really weird. I've never had a CFL that doesn't turn on more or less instantly. The slowest would have been a very low wattage one (bedside lamp) and that would be on and bright in the time it would take to move your hand from the switch to a book.Surely you must know other people with CFLs, do they behave the same way?
Anecdotally there seems to be more complaints from Americans, is it feasible that the bulbs are less suited to a 120V supply?
It's not just about preparing them for future employment but also about preparing them for the rest of the college.
I dunno about the content of this particular course but there is a difference between having vague knowledge of (for example) Word and knowing how to use it properly.
I did a Chemical Engineering degree and just muddled through with Word (aside from teaching myself how to drive equation editor from the keyboard). Only afterwards when changing career paths and doing a "bullshit" computer course did I learn how to use styles properly and so forth, knowledge that would have saved me no end of time during my degree.
In fact that information is probably more useful during your course when you are working largely on your own. In the real world almost no-one uses Word properly so any document that involves collaboration will inevitably be a clusterfuck.
It is disingenuous to call it a "software problem". The underlying problem is a hardware one, ie that seeks on spinning media are fundamentally expensive. You could write software better to mitigate exposure to that problem but that would only be attempting a 'software solution to a hardware problem". You add software complexity and can't solve the problem, only (attempt to) minimise it.
SSDs are a hardware solution to a hardware problem.
When Apple made the first iPhone they probably had very little real world usage info.
By now they have a good idea how people use their iPhones and what they should target.
Why are the 3GS (a 3 year old design), iPad1 (2.5 years old) and iPad mini (rumored device at this moment) on the list?
For the first two the answer seems obvious, an awful lot of people have them. If you are writing software you want people to use then that is kind of important.
Apple's challenge is to manage the competing problems of fragmentation and stagnation. To my mind stagnation is possibly a bigger issue for Apple. Personally I have a 3GS and even the 5 still seems like an extremely iterative release.
A very clever move. I am pretty sure Ecuador will cave.
I'm not sure it's that clever. The UK probably has more at stake than Ecuador does, ie all the UK embassies and diplomats around the world that depend on the conventions surrounding diplomatic status. If the UK is seen to weaken that convention it will be politically harder for them to demand others respect it making UK embassies more vulnerable.
I thought this would be "worked out" and Assange will be coughed up. Probably because money would change hands behind the scenes (either to individuals or "aid" to Ecuador).
Now I am not so sure, it may be politically impossible (internally) for the Ecuador politicians to back down.
Many critics of Assange claim Wikileaks damaged diplomacy by exposing it's inner workings. Even if that is true it is nothing compared to the damage that would be done by revoking the status of an embassy over an asylum seeker.
I don't see how it indicates "bias". It does indicate an inability to produce a relatvely meaningful benchmark (as in one that allows comparison).
Similarly the "Windows logo to desktop" seems like a strange benchmark as the benchmark result would be improved by simply showing the Windows logo later. Why wouldn't you just compare the time from power on to desktop (which is presumably what people actually care about)?
Australia was specifically mentioned because the comms coming back during the landing came via Australia.
Other countries are involved with the various science instruments on the rover. My impression is that they they weren't mentioned specifically because they didn't want to risk omitting someone. There's a few non Americans listed on the MSL Project Science Group.
Wikipedia lists Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, United States, United Kingdom as having a role on the instrument team.
"The Curiosity Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) captured the rover's descent to the surface of the Red Planet. The instrument shot 4 fps video from heatshield separation to the ground."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcGMDXy-Y1I
Apple seemed to do a fairly good job of doing it more or less on their own. Why buy one of these old dinosaurs who have (unfortunately from them) all their really critical IP available under FRAND terms?
A design patent protects the nonfunctional aspects of an ornamental design as shown in the patent
Does this mean that:
a) Parts of the design that have function cannot be legitimately included in a design patent (perhaps arguably everything on an iPhone!)?
b) Parts of the design may have both functional and non-functional aspects but only the non-functional aspect is protected (for example if you had a round purple button in a certain place, other people couldn't put something round and purple in the same place regardless of whether it functioned as a button).
c) Something else?
I don't necessarily disagree in principle but I will observe that if everybody behaves that way then it wouldn't work very well, particularly for complex devices. Apple could only enter the mobile phone market at all because so many other entities offer their patents more freely.
It is inconsistent to be so high and mighty about your own innovation (which is in reality not much more than a thin but well thought out veneer) while you are so clearly standing on the shoulders of giants. Indeed this is why I think Apple's actions are based on strategy rather than principal.
I am not sure it is a good long term strategy though. Apple grows by being disruptive and entering new markets. The mobile phone market was asleep when Apple entered. Used to handling patents in a more "gentlemanly" fashion they did not perceive the threat Apple posed to their way of doing business.
The next market Apple tries to enter will surely not be so naive and will probably do everything they can to keep them from getting a foothold.
The reason it is public is because Apple are using their patents in the courts to restrict competition from entering the market rather than licencing for a reasonable sum to make money.
I don't think this has anything to do with "image". Rather they realise that this is a critical time in cornering a market that will continue to pay off for them for a long time.
Just like the iPod made the iPhone purchase a "no brainer" for many people the iPhone makes (or will make) the iPad or Apple TV (etc etc) a no brainer. Once people are invested in the iTunes/Appstore ecosystem they are more likely to stay there (and keep spending more money there).
Removing credible alternatives to the iPhone from the market doesn't just mean more iPhone sales now, it means more recurring sales down the road too.
Slashdot Mirror
I think if you had something that combined gold and chlorine into gold chloride you might reasonably describe it as 'creating' gold chloride.
Thus I don't think it's entirely objectionable to describe something doing the opposite process as 'creating' gold (implying metallic gold rather than gold atoms).
Both "create" and "gold" have multiple meanings.
Which isn't to say that "extract" or something wouldn't have been a better choice.
It should perhaps be noted that approved helmets at the time looked like this.
Yes, he has invented a machine that allows him to travel alternate timelines in parallel universes. He uses this machine solely for arguing on the internet.
Either that or the damage done to the helmets indicates a level of force best not applied to a naked head.
Please don't just make shit up.
Your description sounds really weird. I've never had a CFL that doesn't turn on more or less instantly. The slowest would have been a very low wattage one (bedside lamp) and that would be on and bright in the time it would take to move your hand from the switch to a book.Surely you must know other people with CFLs, do they behave the same way?
Anecdotally there seems to be more complaints from Americans, is it feasible that the bulbs are less suited to a 120V supply?
It's not just about preparing them for future employment but also about preparing them for the rest of the college.
I dunno about the content of this particular course but there is a difference between having vague knowledge of (for example) Word and knowing how to use it properly.
I did a Chemical Engineering degree and just muddled through with Word (aside from teaching myself how to drive equation editor from the keyboard). Only afterwards when changing career paths and doing a "bullshit" computer course did I learn how to use styles properly and so forth, knowledge that would have saved me no end of time during my degree.
In fact that information is probably more useful during your course when you are working largely on your own. In the real world almost no-one uses Word properly so any document that involves collaboration will inevitably be a clusterfuck.
Sounds like a waste of a good fork if there's bacon around.
Clearly the reader is expected to solve for X.
It is disingenuous to call it a "software problem". The underlying problem is a hardware one, ie that seeks on spinning media are fundamentally expensive. You could write software better to mitigate exposure to that problem but that would only be attempting a 'software solution to a hardware problem". You add software complexity and can't solve the problem, only (attempt to) minimise it.
SSDs are a hardware solution to a hardware problem.
If it's Open Source and they aren't paying for support then how are they going to be spending "real dollars" on it?
Crumbs, I am glad I work somewhere decisions are made based on what makes sense not on avoiding any sort of responsibility.
When Apple made the first iPhone they probably had very little real world usage info.
By now they have a good idea how people use their iPhones and what they should target.
For the first two the answer seems obvious, an awful lot of people have them. If you are writing software you want people to use then that is kind of important.
Apple's challenge is to manage the competing problems of fragmentation and stagnation. To my mind stagnation is possibly a bigger issue for Apple. Personally I have a 3GS and even the 5 still seems like an extremely iterative release.
You have to wonder how "flexible" Ecuador would be if Assange ever made it there and USAID shows up with an offer of "development dollars".
It's the Axis of e-Evil.
Apple can only get anywhere near the mobile space because so many other companies have a reasonable approach to their IP.
Apple stands on the shoulders of giants, then turns belches loudly into the giants ear.
I'm not sure it's that clever. The UK probably has more at stake than Ecuador does, ie all the UK embassies and diplomats around the world that depend on the conventions surrounding diplomatic status. If the UK is seen to weaken that convention it will be politically harder for them to demand others respect it making UK embassies more vulnerable.
I thought this would be "worked out" and Assange will be coughed up. Probably because money would change hands behind the scenes (either to individuals or "aid" to Ecuador).
Now I am not so sure, it may be politically impossible (internally) for the Ecuador politicians to back down.
Many critics of Assange claim Wikileaks damaged diplomacy by exposing it's inner workings. Even if that is true it is nothing compared to the damage that would be done by revoking the status of an embassy over an asylum seeker.
I don't see how it indicates "bias". It does indicate an inability to produce a relatvely meaningful benchmark (as in one that allows comparison).
Similarly the "Windows logo to desktop" seems like a strange benchmark as the benchmark result would be improved by simply showing the Windows logo later. Why wouldn't you just compare the time from power on to desktop (which is presumably what people actually care about)?
Of course, but "false flag" sounds so cool!
Australia was specifically mentioned because the comms coming back during the landing came via Australia.
Other countries are involved with the various science instruments on the rover. My impression is that they they weren't mentioned specifically because they didn't want to risk omitting someone. There's a few non Americans listed on the MSL Project Science Group.
Wikipedia lists Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, United States, United Kingdom as having a role on the instrument team.
"The Curiosity Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) captured the rover's descent to the surface of the Red Planet. The instrument shot 4 fps video from heatshield separation to the ground." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcGMDXy-Y1I
Apple seemed to do a fairly good job of doing it more or less on their own. Why buy one of these old dinosaurs who have (unfortunately from them) all their really critical IP available under FRAND terms?
Thank you for taking the time to answer so thoroughly, it is much appreciated and much clearer to me now.
Does this mean that:
a) Parts of the design that have function cannot be legitimately included in a design patent (perhaps arguably everything on an iPhone!)?
b) Parts of the design may have both functional and non-functional aspects but only the non-functional aspect is protected (for example if you had a round purple button in a certain place, other people couldn't put something round and purple in the same place regardless of whether it functioned as a button).
c) Something else?
I don't necessarily disagree in principle but I will observe that if everybody behaves that way then it wouldn't work very well, particularly for complex devices. Apple could only enter the mobile phone market at all because so many other entities offer their patents more freely.
It is inconsistent to be so high and mighty about your own innovation (which is in reality not much more than a thin but well thought out veneer) while you are so clearly standing on the shoulders of giants. Indeed this is why I think Apple's actions are based on strategy rather than principal.
I am not sure it is a good long term strategy though. Apple grows by being disruptive and entering new markets. The mobile phone market was asleep when Apple entered. Used to handling patents in a more "gentlemanly" fashion they did not perceive the threat Apple posed to their way of doing business.
The next market Apple tries to enter will surely not be so naive and will probably do everything they can to keep them from getting a foothold.
The reason it is public is because Apple are using their patents in the courts to restrict competition from entering the market rather than licencing for a reasonable sum to make money.
I don't think this has anything to do with "image". Rather they realise that this is a critical time in cornering a market that will continue to pay off for them for a long time.
Just like the iPod made the iPhone purchase a "no brainer" for many people the iPhone makes (or will make) the iPad or Apple TV (etc etc) a no brainer. Once people are invested in the iTunes/Appstore ecosystem they are more likely to stay there (and keep spending more money there).
Removing credible alternatives to the iPhone from the market doesn't just mean more iPhone sales now, it means more recurring sales down the road too.