"There's no arguing with a dedicated weed freak. They are, essentially, religious nutters."
I wasn't going to say it, but absolutely.;-)
"Note, however, that I said ocassional use. The downside of opium is how quickly a physical tolerance builds up, requireing ever higher doses to get the same affect. Not for daily use."
Of course.
"I've always found "fucking relaxing" to be the best long term mental health strategy, but maybe that's just me. An easy bike ride and the Bach D minor Partita can work wonders along this line."
"Opium is the "correct" drug to take the edge off of anxiety and feel good as an occassional use thing."
Haha, nice. I asked because I've had a long running argument with my friends over which drugs work best to relieve anxiety/stress/etc. They backed weed, I backed opiates (OxyContin > major surgeries). Nice to know it is the correct drug.
"He also noted that after 40 years in the business he could tell a lot about people by their drug of choice; and that alcohol was the drug of choice of people who were essentially unhappy and wanted to be numbed."
Just out of curiosity, what did he say about the other drugs?
"This leads me to believe that either the patch was just a tactic to keep their customers, or something else is going on that I don't understand. Perhaps they'd still have to pay NTP even if they rolled out this patch to prevent an injunction?"
Yes, the patch was a PR play to keep users from defecting to the alternatives. RIM was going to have to pay one way or the other (damages + license if they settled (keeping their system the same) or just damages if they continued to fight it (refused to settle). Either way, they were going to pay.
The fact of this case is as follows:
Once upon a time NTP was a real company, with real R&D. They came up with a system similar to what RIM employs today for its blackberries. NTP, like all good companies of the time, filed for patents on this system, and they were duly granted. NTP, in good faith, attempted to market the system, but the time was not right. As time passed, NTP fell on bad times, and underwent a transformation: they fired the employees, stopped marketing their products, and hired lawyers. What is left today is a shell of the former company, with a singular purpose of using the IP they created a long time ago to shakedown other companies. RIM, who was already widely known for using IP in an offensive manner, became a victim of their own tactics.
NTP has full, valid patents (despite their re-examination, which is tinged with politics (government employees are biased in that many of them use blackberries)), and RIM is not an innocent. RIM had a chance to settle, but they decided to play double or nothing, and they lost. They're what we call a sore loser.
"Which brings up another broken aspect of patents, which is if the patent holder's invention is not obvious, how come others were independently able to come up with the exact same method? Of course it's hard to prove that someone came up with an idea independently vs "stole" it, just another problem with the system."
Exactly. And let's be honest, Japanese companies have a history of "borrowing" US technology, including taking little-known or under utitlized inventions and making them popular, all the while hoping the patent owners will not notice. Which is not to say that Japanese companies do not invent (they do, and have been innovating more than US companies lately), but for a multi-billion dollar corporation to not search for patents they might be violating is ludicrous. And while finding an infringing patent may be something akin to finding a needle in a haystack for the common man (nevermind patents have something called a "class", where they are classified by the area they affect), a $1000 prior art search (by certified prior art searchers) or even attempting to patent this technology would have thrust this patent into clear view. Contrary to./ group think, examiners tend to do an excellent job finding prior art (that qualifies), and the reason that the occaisional bad apples get by is because patent lawyers will keep tweaking an application until it issues.
A smarter decision would have been to identify infringing patents, buy (not license) these patents for a large, but not unreasonable amount, then turn around and license these patents to the other players, recouping much of their costs in the process.
The patent system isn't perfect, but it's the best we got. Abolish it, raise its fees, shorten patent lengths, you end up f*cking the little guy more than the big corporations. Corporations have relatively unlimited resources compared to the little guy, and anything that raises the bar hurts us. And for all the stories of the occaisional "patent troll" holding a large corporation for ransom, there are a hell of a lot more untold stories of the small inventor having his dream stolen by a large corporation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've met some of those people. It's like they lost a part of their soul: they are never whole again. After they see their life's greatest achievement taken from them, put into mass production with some corporation's logo attached, and all that money flowing into the pockets of a few unscrupulous and greedy executives, they never dream again. Just...utterly crushed.
"Everytime I was behind a Prosche on a freeway on-ramp with my (now dead) Geo metro, I was able to accelerate hard enough that I passed it before I reached freeway speeds. And that car was only running on 2 cylinders at the time!"
The question is, was the porsche paying any attention to you?:-)
As an aside, and this is not directed at you, but nothing is more fascinating than people trying to race you when you're not racing them. I mean, I drive a 740il, and I find it hilarious when someone in a Honda Civic flys past me, with the two people in the back turning around to smile and wave at me. They think we're racing, and I haven't even noticed them.
"Most people do not use the power their car has, but they think they need it."
Better to have it, and not need it, then need it and not have it (especially when merging on 76-West in Philly). But I cannot deny that it isn't fun (when the cops aren't around).
You're kidding me, right? Part of the reason that the filing fee is relatively low (in contrast to the maintenance fees) is that the USPTO acknowledges the incredible amount of work that goes into applying for a patent. What you and I might consider prior art, they may not, and vice versa. Even on a good day, when an intensive prior art search has been performed, twelve different lawyers have reviewed the application, and the stars are in the right alignment, your chances of coming out on top are less than certain. Asking someone to pony up $500 is a hell of a lot easier than asking someone to shell out $10,000 on a risky venture.
Secondly, an inventor may not pay out $10,000. Maintenance fees are paid every couple of years, so if the patent is sold before the next fee is due, or if the inventor chooses to abandon the patent for whatever reason, he is in the clear.
Check your HD. Run the manufacturer's drive utility against it. Not just the simple tests, but the most extensive burn-through test it provides. See if it doesn't suddenly report that the HD is failing, and needs to be replaced.
I had a problem recently with my ATI AIW 9800 card locking up and rebooting the system everytime I ran anything 3D intensive. For the longest time I blamed ATI, because Windows and Maxtors utilities couldn't find anything wrong with the disk. Then I started poking around with some of the less obvious options on the Maxtor utility disk, and I find that the HD was the issue all along. One RMA later, games run fine.
Muhahaha. I plan to get a jump on the competition by patenting the 4D interface. It's like a 3D interface, but better;). I'll show Eolas how it's done (by spanking MS for even more money).
But in all seriousness, I am working on the 4D metaphor. I have a prototype I've been working on up on my website, just haven't had the time to finish it.
"Here's what I don't understand. It sounds like the patent office is going to invalidate all of NTP's patents anyway. Why doesn't RIM just pay them whatever the heck they want and sue them for all their money back in 6 months when the patent office gets off their lazy ass?"
The patent office sounded like it was going to inavlidate Eolas patent, and they instead confirmed it (much to MS's chagrin). And the reason RIM won't pay right now is 1.) doing so implies a settlement, and the USPTO may stop re-examining the patent, and 2.) NTP may include a clause stating that the money is theirs, regardless of any later nullification of patents.
"Compare that with the things like the 2000 presidential elections in the USA, where the supreme court ruled that a vote recount was *not* legal - how can you *ever* justify a decision like that? Vote recounts should always be possible."
Certainly. However, there are many issues at play here, some of which may have not been reported (or with any emphasis) overseas.
The first big issue is that the rules for determining a valid ballot were changed for the recount. So, the rest of the US was using one method, and a few counties in FL were using another.
The argument made by Democrats is that the vote distribution would be same no matter the method. The argument made by Republicans is that the vote distribution would change, given that the method changed.
The second issue is that individual counties were being cherry-picked for recounts. Republicans wanted a few where Republican voters turned out strong, Democrats wanted a few others where Democrats turned out strong. Third parties were ignored.
The third issue was the worst. The FL state supreme court is completely made up of Democrats. The US Supreme court is more balanced, but with a conservative (Republican) edge to it.
With the first count, the Republicans won by a slim margin of votes. Close enough that the Democrats filed a lawsuit for a recount. The FL supreme court allowed it. The gap between the Republicans and Democrats closed a little. The Democrats wanted another recount. The FL supreme court allowed it. The US Supreme court steps in, and rules Bush the winner. Later (press initiated) recounts declare Bush the winner.
So, this is the source of continued controversy, in which each side continues to report misinformation about the events that took place.
Problem is probably with the installer. Install WinRAR (or some other extraction program that can read.exe files), right click on the installer, select extract to folder. This action should provide you with all the files you need. Now, goto the hardware manager, select the device whose driver you want to update (or alternatively, run the new hardware wizard, if it isn't detected), click update driver, select the proper ini file from the extracted files folder. Should install.
"Indeed, it generally means you aren't too clever."
Mr. Gates, as an introvert, would disagree. As would the DOJ (in conversation of the cleverness of Mr. Gates), and many, many/.ers.
"The smarter brains tend to demonstrate less activity due to increased efficiency (or at least that's the theory)."
What theory? Introverts are not Intel processors (P4), and Extraverts are not AMD processors (A64)! Your conjecture seems to claim that while introverts may "clock higher" than extraverts, they in fact do less work with each cycle, and therefore must do more work to be the equivalent of an extravert.
I must be replying to an extravert. Any introvert already knows that there is no comparison between extravert brain power, and that of an introvert.
Agreed. If the editors are going to post advertisements, could they at least post something that has a vague connection with the site's content? "It comes on a CD" does not cut it.
With the current singal-to-noise ratio, we are slowly coming closer to that of TV. The next step will actual posts being subsidized by advertisers.
"This post brought to you by Microsoft Windows Vista. Vista, for all your computing needs!"
"There is definitely a perception that IT salaries are lower, and that will change with time, but the more relevant perception is that (because of IP laws in the US, and coming soon to a government near you) unless you're working for a top-10 employer (Google, Microsoft, Sun, Apple, etc.) whose business is IP, they don't want you to be creative. And if you don't work for a top-10, your creativity may bring the wrath of litigation down upon your head."
Hmm. Perhaps. However, in my experience, companies DO want you to be creative. Telling a group of stockholders that their company has secured a handful of new patents tends to make the stock price rise. If the company is a startup, it is also an excellent way to secure much-needed capital.
Securing IP as an individual is seen as an excellent way to increase your perceived value. Companies tend to sit up and listen when someone is holding some potentially valuable IP (and it gives you a serious edge over other applicants). Score high enough on the IP scale, and the job interview will change to IP negotiations (screw the job, lets talk money:). Even filing for an application is seen as a big thing, as it shows you are concerned about increasing value (of yourself and the company you work for). I am enjoying IP and all the monetary goodness it brings with it right now (a number of offers, but I'm looking for something to retire on (i.e. live and be rich)).
Think about it. IP is the big thing right now. I think the IP and.COM boom V2.0 are synonymous. They do go hand in hand, and while technology is seen as a great way to increase stockholder value, IP is seen as even better (like a 10X modifier for the stock price).
A friend of mine, who was a long-time OSS advocate called me the other day. He joined a startup, and the only reason the company is surviving is because of IP. He's slowly coming around to the new way of doing business, and the possibility of making out big if he's willing to put aside the OSS religion for a few months. That his company is well on its way to being bought out, and they are looking to increase its value even further (and he has stock options) makes the decision rather simple.
So, in short, if you want to increase your candidacy for a job, or make money, or both, file for IP. Anyone can do it (provided you are half as intelligent as you think you are), try it. You can cry about IP law, and what its doing to this country after you secure a good living.
As an added bonus, it's one area which can help you compete with outsourcing.
"The fact that you refute evolution is interesting. Do you have any solid evidence for this wild claim?"
He wasn't 'refuting' evolution. He was pointing out that with the size of human population, evolutionary changes are negligible, like ripples on the surface of the ocean. They are there, but their effects are miniscule. Secondly, given that humans have evolved to the point where we are closely approaching the point where we can modify our own DNA (really modify it, not just shotgun in minor changes). Evolution will no longer consist of natural selection and the random combination of genes. Instead, we will select which genes we want to express.
"Really, now? How, exactly, does the world "keep up" with/us/? When we over-consume, does our environment magically begin to crank out more fuel? Are you suggesting the existence of a "Magic Grinder"? The reality is that as long as we're on Earth we're constrained by resources. As the population grows indefinitely we're bound to push, and eventually begin to overflow those restraints. I personally believe that the overall natural balance is not within our mastery. As we push our natural population constraints to the brink Nature will intervene with sickness, poverty (leading to sickness), and more sickness."
Over-consume? What is this? Going back a few centuries, 90% of humans were preoccupied with farming for the sake of their own needs. They were barely growing enough food to feed themselves! Going forward to the present day, less than 10% of the US population is responsible for feeding the other 90%. Mind you, we produce so much food that we pay farmers NOT to grow food. And even then, we give away the excess that we have to other countries in the form of foreign aid. As the population grows, we adapt the environment so that it grows more efficiently, with greater yields. Contrary to popular fiction, we are trillions of people away from having to worry about limited resources. Not that they aren't limited, but they are limited in the sense that the sun has a limited amount of fuel left to burn. We have a ways to go before we have to worry about it, and even then technology is continually advancing such that people even now are working on it.
And Nature isn't some divine force that keeps tabs on the human population, and intervenes with calamity when it thinks that the herd needs a little thinning. Frankly, were Nature a divine being, I think it'd be proud that human population has expanded and progressed to such a point that we are capable of creating a more fertile garden than it ever did, and that we are even considering expanding to other planets so that they might enjoy the bountiful and diverse richness of life we have here on earth.
All too true. MS is so large, they could easily rip off your idea with very little you could do to get back at them. I'm curious how many people have been ripped off (patent wise) by MS...and how many people have tried and failed getting damages from them. I do not know too many people who have enough constitution or money to stand up against the kind of legal power MS can procure.
I ask because I am in the tenuous position of trying to decide whether MS is infringing on one of my patent applications. If they aren't, no problems. But if they are, I'd like to talk to, or rather study, the successful legal prosecution of another's patent. Windows Vista would be the target...:)
Hardly, I'm just tired of the/. group think, which constitutes a group of normally very intelligent people who either claim that all patents should be outlawed or that they support patents, but only "good" ones. Sadly, the justification for whether or not a patent is "good" is linked to whether or not said patent is currently being infringed upon by the masses. I have yet to hear anyone who belongs to this latter group cite an example of a current, "good" patent.
I mean, patents are society's way of rewarding people for going out on a limb. Which is not to say that all patents are good, and there are a number which are bad (violate the four criteria I listed in my above post). But, when someone gets a patent (in this case, a small inventor, a university professor), and it is found valid, despite a re-examination by the USPTO, and a challenge by MS (one of the most poerful players in the industry), you'd think people would cut him a break. Internet Explorer, as well as Mozilla and Opera are all infringing on the man's patent. He's publicly stated that he's not going after anyone else, so you'd think the OSS crowd would think twice about nailing the guy to a tree.
And according to the courts and the USPTO, Viola does not constitute prior art. Hell, MS is trying to get out of their punishment by claiming that Eolas knew about Viola, and despite the fact that it does not constitute prior art, continues to pound away on this invalid point. More so, it appears the/. crowd is getting on board with MS, just to spite the patent system.
Guess what people? Patents (of all types) are to stay, because they WORK 99% of the time. Throwing away the system because of a few bad apples is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. MS should be whipped because any other OSS project would be destroyed in a similar situation (apply the law evenly). Let them take their lumps because they, more than anyone else, KNEW about this man's technology, they were in talks WITH him about this technology, and then turned around to spite him. Equality in law, and someone should put a stop to the "Patent Reform of 2005", which despite its name would screw small inventors like Eolas (compulsory licensing, eliminate injunctions, and first to file). If you think the patent system is bad now, wait until this law passes. It will truly become a system by the lobbyists, for the corporations.
It's because of people like this university professor, who can still stand up to powerhouse corporations like MS, and WIN that I feel the system, and this patent in particular (no matter how bad people think of it) are a litmus test of a system that works fairly, and, more importantly, should be protected.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe, that was a great party.
/.
But whats even scarier is that my old university was mentioned on
Employ localized GPS and radio jamming. That should fix your problem.
"There's no arguing with a dedicated weed freak. They are, essentially, religious nutters."
;-)
I wasn't going to say it, but absolutely.
"Note, however, that I said ocassional use. The downside of opium is how quickly a physical tolerance builds up, requireing ever higher doses to get the same affect. Not for daily use."
Of course.
"I've always found "fucking relaxing" to be the best long term mental health strategy, but maybe that's just me. An easy bike ride and the Bach D minor Partita can work wonders along this line."
And again, correct.
"Opium is the "correct" drug to take the edge off of anxiety and feel good as an occassional use thing."
Haha, nice. I asked because I've had a long running argument with my friends over which drugs work best to relieve anxiety/stress/etc. They backed weed, I backed opiates (OxyContin > major surgeries). Nice to know it is the correct drug.
"He also noted that after 40 years in the business he could tell a lot about people by their drug of choice; and that alcohol was the drug of choice of people who were essentially unhappy and wanted to be numbed."
Just out of curiosity, what did he say about the other drugs?
"This leads me to believe that either the patch was just a tactic to keep their customers, or something else is going on that I don't understand. Perhaps they'd still have to pay NTP even if they rolled out this patch to prevent an injunction?"
Yes, the patch was a PR play to keep users from defecting to the alternatives. RIM was going to have to pay one way or the other (damages + license if they settled (keeping their system the same) or just damages if they continued to fight it (refused to settle). Either way, they were going to pay.
The fact of this case is as follows:
Once upon a time NTP was a real company, with real R&D. They came up with a system similar to what RIM employs today for its blackberries. NTP, like all good companies of the time, filed for patents on this system, and they were duly granted. NTP, in good faith, attempted to market the system, but the time was not right. As time passed, NTP fell on bad times, and underwent a transformation: they fired the employees, stopped marketing their products, and hired lawyers. What is left today is a shell of the former company, with a singular purpose of using the IP they created a long time ago to shakedown other companies. RIM, who was already widely known for using IP in an offensive manner, became a victim of their own tactics.
NTP has full, valid patents (despite their re-examination, which is tinged with politics (government employees are biased in that many of them use blackberries)), and RIM is not an innocent. RIM had a chance to settle, but they decided to play double or nothing, and they lost. They're what we call a sore loser.
As I understand things:
OS X -> Uses the CPU to draw the windows, and the GPU to compose (composite) the desktop.
Windows 98,NT,2000,XP,2003 -> Uses the CPU to draw the windows and to compose the desktop.
Windows Vista -> Uses the GPU to draw the windows and to compose the desktop.
OS X uses the GPU to offload some work. Vista will use the GPU to offload all the work.
Right...this reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon.
In the first pane, Dilbert and Dogbert are watching the news. From the newscast: "There hasn't been a murder in this town since 1978."
In the second pane, with the word "Optimist" floating over his head, Dilbert thinks "We're safe forever."
In the third pane, with the word "Pessimist" floating over his head, Dogbert thinks "We're due."
"Which brings up another broken aspect of patents, which is if the patent holder's invention is not obvious, how come others were independently able to come up with the exact same method? Of course it's hard to prove that someone came up with an idea independently vs "stole" it, just another problem with the system."
./ group think, examiners tend to do an excellent job finding prior art (that qualifies), and the reason that the occaisional bad apples get by is because patent lawyers will keep tweaking an application until it issues.
Exactly. And let's be honest, Japanese companies have a history of "borrowing" US technology, including taking little-known or under utitlized inventions and making them popular, all the while hoping the patent owners will not notice. Which is not to say that Japanese companies do not invent (they do, and have been innovating more than US companies lately), but for a multi-billion dollar corporation to not search for patents they might be violating is ludicrous. And while finding an infringing patent may be something akin to finding a needle in a haystack for the common man (nevermind patents have something called a "class", where they are classified by the area they affect), a $1000 prior art search (by certified prior art searchers) or even attempting to patent this technology would have thrust this patent into clear view. Contrary to
A smarter decision would have been to identify infringing patents, buy (not license) these patents for a large, but not unreasonable amount, then turn around and license these patents to the other players, recouping much of their costs in the process.
The patent system isn't perfect, but it's the best we got. Abolish it, raise its fees, shorten patent lengths, you end up f*cking the little guy more than the big corporations. Corporations have relatively unlimited resources compared to the little guy, and anything that raises the bar hurts us. And for all the stories of the occaisional "patent troll" holding a large corporation for ransom, there are a hell of a lot more untold stories of the small inventor having his dream stolen by a large corporation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've met some of those people. It's like they lost a part of their soul: they are never whole again. After they see their life's greatest achievement taken from them, put into mass production with some corporation's logo attached, and all that money flowing into the pockets of a few unscrupulous and greedy executives, they never dream again. Just...utterly crushed.
"Everytime I was behind a Prosche on a freeway on-ramp with my (now dead) Geo metro, I was able to accelerate hard enough that I passed it before I reached freeway speeds. And that car was only running on 2 cylinders at the time!"
:-)
The question is, was the porsche paying any attention to you?
As an aside, and this is not directed at you, but nothing is more fascinating than people trying to race you when you're not racing them. I mean, I drive a 740il, and I find it hilarious when someone in a Honda Civic flys past me, with the two people in the back turning around to smile and wave at me. They think we're racing, and I haven't even noticed them.
"Most people do not use the power their car has, but they think they need it."
Better to have it, and not need it, then need it and not have it (especially when merging on 76-West in Philly). But I cannot deny that it isn't fun (when the cops aren't around).
You're kidding me, right? Part of the reason that the filing fee is relatively low (in contrast to the maintenance fees) is that the USPTO acknowledges the incredible amount of work that goes into applying for a patent. What you and I might consider prior art, they may not, and vice versa. Even on a good day, when an intensive prior art search has been performed, twelve different lawyers have reviewed the application, and the stars are in the right alignment, your chances of coming out on top are less than certain. Asking someone to pony up $500 is a hell of a lot easier than asking someone to shell out $10,000 on a risky venture.
Secondly, an inventor may not pay out $10,000. Maintenance fees are paid every couple of years, so if the patent is sold before the next fee is due, or if the inventor chooses to abandon the patent for whatever reason, he is in the clear.
Check your HD. Run the manufacturer's drive utility against it. Not just the simple tests, but the most extensive burn-through test it provides. See if it doesn't suddenly report that the HD is failing, and needs to be replaced.
I had a problem recently with my ATI AIW 9800 card locking up and rebooting the system everytime I ran anything 3D intensive. For the longest time I blamed ATI, because Windows and Maxtors utilities couldn't find anything wrong with the disk. Then I started poking around with some of the less obvious options on the Maxtor utility disk, and I find that the HD was the issue all along. One RMA later, games run fine.
Muhahaha. I plan to get a jump on the competition by patenting the 4D interface. It's like a 3D interface, but better ;). I'll show Eolas how it's done (by spanking MS for even more money).
But in all seriousness, I am working on the 4D metaphor. I have a prototype I've been working on up on my website, just haven't had the time to finish it.
Cheers
PressPass
"Here's what I don't understand. It sounds like the patent office is going to invalidate all of NTP's patents anyway. Why doesn't RIM just pay them whatever the heck they want and sue them for all their money back in 6 months when the patent office gets off their lazy ass?"
The patent office sounded like it was going to inavlidate Eolas patent, and they instead confirmed it (much to MS's chagrin). And the reason RIM won't pay right now is 1.) doing so implies a settlement, and the USPTO may stop re-examining the patent, and 2.) NTP may include a clause stating that the money is theirs, regardless of any later nullification of patents.
"Compare that with the things like the 2000 presidential elections in the USA, where the supreme court ruled that a vote recount was *not* legal - how can you *ever* justify a decision like that? Vote recounts should always be possible."
Certainly. However, there are many issues at play here, some of which may have not been reported (or with any emphasis) overseas.
The first big issue is that the rules for determining a valid ballot were changed for the recount. So, the rest of the US was using one method, and a few counties in FL were using another.
The argument made by Democrats is that the vote distribution would be same no matter the method. The argument made by Republicans is that the vote distribution would change, given that the method changed.
The second issue is that individual counties were being cherry-picked for recounts. Republicans wanted a few where Republican voters turned out strong, Democrats wanted a few others where Democrats turned out strong. Third parties were ignored.
The third issue was the worst. The FL state supreme court is completely made up of Democrats. The US Supreme court is more balanced, but with a conservative (Republican) edge to it.
With the first count, the Republicans won by a slim margin of votes. Close enough that the Democrats filed a lawsuit for a recount. The FL supreme court allowed it. The gap between the Republicans and Democrats closed a little. The Democrats wanted another recount. The FL supreme court allowed it. The US Supreme court steps in, and rules Bush the winner. Later (press initiated) recounts declare Bush the winner.
So, this is the source of continued controversy, in which each side continues to report misinformation about the events that took place.
Problem is probably with the installer. Install WinRAR (or some other extraction program that can read .exe files), right click on the installer, select extract to folder. This action should provide you with all the files you need. Now, goto the hardware manager, select the device whose driver you want to update (or alternatively, run the new hardware wizard, if it isn't detected), click update driver, select the proper ini file from the extracted files folder. Should install.
"Indeed, it generally means you aren't too clever."
/.ers.
Mr. Gates, as an introvert, would disagree. As would the DOJ (in conversation of the cleverness of Mr. Gates), and many, many
"The smarter brains tend to demonstrate less activity due to increased efficiency (or at least that's the theory)."
What theory? Introverts are not Intel processors (P4), and Extraverts are not AMD processors (A64)! Your conjecture seems to claim that while introverts may "clock higher" than extraverts, they in fact do less work with each cycle, and therefore must do more work to be the equivalent of an extravert.
I must be replying to an extravert. Any introvert already knows that there is no comparison between extravert brain power, and that of an introvert.
And ISTPs are king!
Agreed. If the editors are going to post advertisements, could they at least post something that has a vague connection with the site's content? "It comes on a CD" does not cut it.
With the current singal-to-noise ratio, we are slowly coming closer to that of TV. The next step will actual posts being subsidized by advertisers.
"This post brought to you by Microsoft Windows Vista. Vista, for all your computing needs!"
"There is definitely a perception that IT salaries are lower, and that will change with time, but the more relevant perception is that (because of IP laws in the US, and coming soon to a government near you) unless you're working for a top-10 employer (Google, Microsoft, Sun, Apple, etc.) whose business is IP, they don't want you to be creative. And if you don't work for a top-10, your creativity may bring the wrath of litigation down upon your head."
:). Even filing for an application is seen as a big thing, as it shows you are concerned about increasing value (of yourself and the company you work for). I am enjoying IP and all the monetary goodness it brings with it right now (a number of offers, but I'm looking for something to retire on (i.e. live and be rich)).
.COM boom V2.0 are synonymous. They do go hand in hand, and while technology is seen as a great way to increase stockholder value, IP is seen as even better (like a 10X modifier for the stock price).
Hmm. Perhaps. However, in my experience, companies DO want you to be creative. Telling a group of stockholders that their company has secured a handful of new patents tends to make the stock price rise. If the company is a startup, it is also an excellent way to secure much-needed capital.
Securing IP as an individual is seen as an excellent way to increase your perceived value. Companies tend to sit up and listen when someone is holding some potentially valuable IP (and it gives you a serious edge over other applicants). Score high enough on the IP scale, and the job interview will change to IP negotiations (screw the job, lets talk money
Think about it. IP is the big thing right now. I think the IP and
A friend of mine, who was a long-time OSS advocate called me the other day. He joined a startup, and the only reason the company is surviving is because of IP. He's slowly coming around to the new way of doing business, and the possibility of making out big if he's willing to put aside the OSS religion for a few months. That his company is well on its way to being bought out, and they are looking to increase its value even further (and he has stock options) makes the decision rather simple.
So, in short, if you want to increase your candidacy for a job, or make money, or both, file for IP. Anyone can do it (provided you are half as intelligent as you think you are), try it. You can cry about IP law, and what its doing to this country after you secure a good living.
As an added bonus, it's one area which can help you compete with outsourcing.
"The fact that you refute evolution is interesting. Do you have any solid evidence for this wild claim?"
/us/? When we over-consume, does our environment magically begin to crank out more fuel? Are you suggesting the existence of a "Magic Grinder"? The reality is that as long as we're on Earth we're constrained by resources. As the population grows indefinitely we're bound to push, and eventually begin to overflow those restraints. I personally believe that the overall natural balance is not within our mastery. As we push our natural population constraints to the brink Nature will intervene with sickness, poverty (leading to sickness), and more sickness."
He wasn't 'refuting' evolution. He was pointing out that with the size of human population, evolutionary changes are negligible, like ripples on the surface of the ocean. They are there, but their effects are miniscule. Secondly, given that humans have evolved to the point where we are closely approaching the point where we can modify our own DNA (really modify it, not just shotgun in minor changes). Evolution will no longer consist of natural selection and the random combination of genes. Instead, we will select which genes we want to express.
"Really, now? How, exactly, does the world "keep up" with
Over-consume? What is this? Going back a few centuries, 90% of humans were preoccupied with farming for the sake of their own needs. They were barely growing enough food to feed themselves! Going forward to the present day, less than 10% of the US population is responsible for feeding the other 90%. Mind you, we produce so much food that we pay farmers NOT to grow food. And even then, we give away the excess that we have to other countries in the form of foreign aid. As the population grows, we adapt the environment so that it grows more efficiently, with greater yields. Contrary to popular fiction, we are trillions of people away from having to worry about limited resources. Not that they aren't limited, but they are limited in the sense that the sun has a limited amount of fuel left to burn. We have a ways to go before we have to worry about it, and even then technology is continually advancing such that people even now are working on it.
And Nature isn't some divine force that keeps tabs on the human population, and intervenes with calamity when it thinks that the herd needs a little thinning. Frankly, were Nature a divine being, I think it'd be proud that human population has expanded and progressed to such a point that we are capable of creating a more fertile garden than it ever did, and that we are even considering expanding to other planets so that they might enjoy the bountiful and diverse richness of life we have here on earth.
Hmm. Do you think it would be better to file suit (shot across the bow) or to approach them before pursuing legal action?
Running a litigation shell sounds risky...but worthwhile.
All too true. MS is so large, they could easily rip off your idea with very little you could do to get back at them. I'm curious how many people have been ripped off (patent wise) by MS...and how many people have tried and failed getting damages from them. I do not know too many people who have enough constitution or money to stand up against the kind of legal power MS can procure.
I ask because I am in the tenuous position of trying to decide whether MS is infringing on one of my patent applications. If they aren't, no problems. But if they are, I'd like to talk to, or rather study, the successful legal prosecution of another's patent. Windows Vista would be the target...:)
Hardly, I'm just tired of the /. group think, which constitutes a group of normally very intelligent people who either claim that all patents should be outlawed or that they support patents, but only "good" ones. Sadly, the justification for whether or not a patent is "good" is linked to whether or not said patent is currently being infringed upon by the masses. I have yet to hear anyone who belongs to this latter group cite an example of a current, "good" patent.
/. crowd is getting on board with MS, just to spite the patent system.
I mean, patents are society's way of rewarding people for going out on a limb. Which is not to say that all patents are good, and there are a number which are bad (violate the four criteria I listed in my above post). But, when someone gets a patent (in this case, a small inventor, a university professor), and it is found valid, despite a re-examination by the USPTO, and a challenge by MS (one of the most poerful players in the industry), you'd think people would cut him a break. Internet Explorer, as well as Mozilla and Opera are all infringing on the man's patent. He's publicly stated that he's not going after anyone else, so you'd think the OSS crowd would think twice about nailing the guy to a tree.
And according to the courts and the USPTO, Viola does not constitute prior art. Hell, MS is trying to get out of their punishment by claiming that Eolas knew about Viola, and despite the fact that it does not constitute prior art, continues to pound away on this invalid point. More so, it appears the
Guess what people? Patents (of all types) are to stay, because they WORK 99% of the time. Throwing away the system because of a few bad apples is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. MS should be whipped because any other OSS project would be destroyed in a similar situation (apply the law evenly). Let them take their lumps because they, more than anyone else, KNEW about this man's technology, they were in talks WITH him about this technology, and then turned around to spite him. Equality in law, and someone should put a stop to the "Patent Reform of 2005", which despite its name would screw small inventors like Eolas (compulsory licensing, eliminate injunctions, and first to file). If you think the patent system is bad now, wait until this law passes. It will truly become a system by the lobbyists, for the corporations.
It's because of people like this university professor, who can still stand up to powerhouse corporations like MS, and WIN that I feel the system, and this patent in particular (no matter how bad people think of it) are a litmus test of a system that works fairly, and, more importantly, should be protected.