They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with.
This is what will happen, and it is true, but there's a pretty obvious solution here: if you're too understaffed to correctly assess the validity of patent claims at the current rate that you're approving or denying them, slow the process of approval down to better serve the Greater Good.
Uh, no, your analagy doesn't really fit. The two are not equivalent, did you read any other replies? Tomcat is a servlet container, and JBoss is a full-blown application server, which uses a modified version of Tomcat as it's servlet container. JBoss does a whole lot more than Tomcat, but can be terribly unwieldy to someone that has no experience in it, and especially someone that has no experience, and isn't positive why they're using it. I'd be very, very surprised if Tomcat wasn't suitable to your needs, especially since you mentioned that it's going to be hosted on one machine.
..at least for your grammar. 'Absolutely' is an adverb, and you're using it to modify an adjective, which is incorrect. In addition, 'worse' implies a comparison, which is not being made here. "School is the absolute worst place.." or, "School is absolutely the worst place.." would have been acceptable alternatives.
Among amateur anthropologists, a freely undefined "Europid" functions as a code word that enables discussions of "race" on antiquated bases, as "genetic divisions" to proceed with a scientific air. It and the similarly scientific-sounding "Europoid" circulate freely in Internet blogs. (Source)
I've got a question for Ask Slashdot: why does the market suffer fools like these? Mr. Chuck Stegman let fly a pretty haughty supposition as to the quality of Microsoft's products, and was completely and unequivically wrong on that call. Does Mr. Stegman probably still have a job in the technology analyst biz? Probably. Does Laura DiDio (with a much more abysmal record) have still have one? Sure. Why do companies still exist that have loudmouth figureheads that fanatically predict outcomes which never come to fruition on a regular basis? Is there a huge market for incorrect, biased research? Maybe I should get in on this, while there's still room.
Correct, that's why he originally said this, "a person calls me and they are ready to call the police."
And yes, fire companies don't have a problem with automated systems, because 1.) unless the system is malfunctioning, there's usually something that set off the system, which has a good chance of being something that at least one fireperson should respond to, but even if that's not the case: 2.) they'll generally charge you a fee (I've seen between $200-300) for coming to the site, if there's no actual emergency. It usually takes them about 10-15 minutes on-site, and there's usually 1-2 dudes, so it's probably not a loss for them (that's not to say they're making a killing on it).
Wait hold on, a Vice President is no longer considered an executive? Oops, yo my bad. Or did you not read the part about the Vice President of Finance personally handing the guy a check one day before filing?
And we actually *are* talking about stock, assuming this is a publicly held company, because in such a scenario the courts will freeze the assets of a bankrupt corporation, and disperse them according to bankruptcy law and precedent, willfully doling out money immediately prior to such an action *is*, actually a violation of US law. Oh, and even if it's _not_ a publicly held company, bankruptcy occurs as a measure to ward off creditors, of which the person in question would count. The court would still seize the company's financial records, see that they paid a sizable sum to a consultant one day prior to filing for bankruptcy (as someone else mentioned, precedent is probably set for viewing transactions as far back as a few months as preferential treatment), then seize those assets, and redisperse as fit.
How do you people not understand why this shit is legally and morally wrong?
I'm not sure if that's exactly true. Ethically, it's the same as an executive telling a friend who has stock in a company that they're filing for bankruptcy the next day, and to sell all his shares. The VP of Finance undoubtedly knew that they would be filing for bankruptcy the next day (let's face it, irregardless of whether or not OP fixed the Mac, that wouldn't have saved them), and gave away the $50k knowingly before it would be duely frozen, then dispersed according to normal bankruptcy law...I really don't see how that's not illegal and if it isn't, it's these kind of loopholes that allow wealthy criminals to stay wealthy in this country.
Oh, and thank you "Captain Obvious" for telling us that:
these days, one process can host a myriad of threads, each doing their own thing
Guess what I was being? That's right, facetious! Congratulations.
I only replied because I didn't find your comment very funny, and I don't like people who put pretentious things like "Senior Programmer" in their signature, if I wanted to know what your title at work was, I would ask you; otherwise, I'll judge what I think of you by what you say (though this _is_ Slashdot, and I just don't really care). Also, this rule applies to your comment, haccording to the Purdue University writing lab, Do not use quotation marks for common nicknames, bits of humor, technical terms that readers are likely to know, and trite or well-known expressions. Obviously, you're not a Senior Grammatist.
Uh, whoa. Hold on there, chief. I didn't, shall we say, "read the article", per se, but I can tell you right off the bat that this "new technology" is not single-threaded, it's just carried on from one process. Maybe you'd like to call them "light-weight processes", but these days, one process can host a myriad of threads, each doing their own thing. What was that about being a senior programmer, now?
Uh, no, I don't really think so. The deceased can no longer view said videos, and as such the only messages would inevitably be generalized, inane blurbs basically reiterating "I miss you" over and over again. Sure, there are a lot of things I would want to say to those that have passed, but they're not necessarily things that are relevant to the living people that would view them. Thus content - audience = vacuous video blogs.
A. The copyright allows the owner to (a) define the license terms, (b) change these over time, e.g. from GPL to APL, etc., and (c) sell alternative licenses, e.g. commercial opt-out licenses for a GPL'd product.
So a forked right version quite obviously would have multiple copyright holders, for the new and old code. Right? Right. What happens to the forked version if and when the copyright holder decides to re-license their code under a more stringent license? Are they now forced to either license the code or drop the product? What happens if they re-license to a non-derivative license? Is the forked version permanently grandfathered in, so that they can continue to modify the code? I'm not really sure at all how this works.
No. Here's your main problem: First, I'm not really a programmer. I wrote the entire engine. But it's getting complex and difficult to maintain as it is. And the performance is not holding up.
So you're admittedly not a very experienced programmer, and you're expecting to have the web logic engine that you built, presumably from scratch, be scalable and modular, without ever refactoring it? In programming, we call the kind of query you just gave a 'silver bullet' problem, and unfortunately, there is none in this case. No one language, or framework, for that matter, is going to fix problems inherent in poor design. That's not to necessarily denigrate your programming skills, but don't expect that rewriting an app that was developed from scratch and is exhibiting growing pains to see great speed and modularity gains by porting it to another language. I've got a good hunch that if you started all over again, still using Perl, and chose your toolset wisely, your app would be more stable, scalable, functional, and modular. I've worked with a lot of web languages/frameworks, and yes, Ruby would similarly solve the problem, but please don't ever say "real-world use of OO" with regard to Ruby. Rails is what, a year old? Basecamp and 43 Things are the largest sites actually running Rails (the latter being as esoteric as you can get, and pretty low-traffic, at that), and you're not going to see a major player using Ruby at this poing. If I take your meaning of "real-world" correctly, CORBA is more like what you're talking about, though I don't think you necessarily want to mess with that sort of thing right now.
Are you serious? I'm not vegan because I hate the taste of meat or think that humans are not, by nature, omnivores, I do it because I object to the manner with which animals are created, treated, and slaughtered, and because, unlike a wolf, fox, bear, or shark, I have the presence of mind to question where my food comes from and explore alternatives, so don't give me that crap either. It's a question of morals, not preference. Humans have evolved to be omnivorous. If I were removed from "the grid", and were forced to kill and eat an animal for sustainence, I would. That is, if I were forced to, that statement doesn't apply if I'm in the far lot of a KOA campground, and run out of veggie burgers in my Coleman cooler, and am too lazy to go the grocery store.
I do too, and that's really my answer to your question. Milk and eggs come about as a biproduct of reproduction, and there are a heck of a lot of people, so any useful amount of milk and/or eggs has to come from a lot of reproduction going on (lots of gettin' busy). Thus, as you've mentioned, the only way to for that to be in any way sustainable is to slaughter the animals for meat. Since I started out as a vegetarian, and didn't want to support the meat industry monetarily, it was the next logical progression to become vegan. It's not something I pressure on people, though I advocate it, it's just that personally, when I was just veg, I felt like a hypocrite a lot of the time, because I was funding the meat industry semi-directly by supporting an industry that can only be sustained transitively by the meat industry.
Also with regard to milk/cheese grossness, notice that I said it was a coping mechanism. If I were to stop being vegan today, I'd probably find both of them tasty and delicious, but since I'm choosing willfully not to consume either, it's easiest if I think about where it comes from, rather than keep thinking about what I may be missing out on.
Most vegans (including myself) aren't against eating animal-derived products simply because they're derived from animals (though as a coping mechanism, you do eventually see things like a plain glass of milk or a block of cheese as pretty gross..which, if you think about it, they really are), but because of how they're derived. Good for instances include milk and eggs; in both cases, when you're mass-producing either product, it's practically inefficient to keep around very many males around, as only a few are necessary for the continuation of product, and extra animals hanging around consume a large amount of resources. I mean, milking a cow isn't intrinsically wrong, though it is weird when you think about it, but continually inseminating in animal in order to continually retrieve a product (or in this case, a raw good..either way, though) from it is pretty messed up from my POV. Back to those male cows though: you've got a lot of them, but you can't just kill them, that would be resource consuming in and of itself, so what do you do? You sell them off for veal. They, more often than not, have their hooves nailed to the tiny cages they'll spend the rest of their lives in, before being slaughtered for a delicacy. If I chose not to eat meat, but consumed a lot of dairy, I'd be directly funding one of the most inhumane (again, POV) parts of the industry I was personally boycotting. Male egg chicks are at least disposed of quickly, but usually not disposed of, generally just discarded, i.e. in a dumpster or elsewhere.
So yeah, those are my main reasons for not partaking in animal products. It'd require some deep thought, but initially I'd say that yes, it is possible that I'd consume products that were derived from an animal, so long as it was humane, sterile, and non-harmful to the animal. This seems, again initally, like a pretty non-invasive procedure, and there will probably always be host animals around, hopefully ones living happy lives.
*Note: I'm not in anyway trying to proselytize here; I'm not telling you what to do, think, eat, or say. The above information is accurate, as far as I'm concerned.
Or an excerpt from the history of the entertainment industry, when black folk would put on vaudeville shows wearing blackface and with their lips painted red, to mock the white shows of the time, which were immitating black people by wearing blackface with their lips painted red.
Slashdot Mirror
They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with.
This is what will happen, and it is true, but there's a pretty obvious solution here: if you're too understaffed to correctly assess the validity of patent claims at the current rate that you're approving or denying them, slow the process of approval down to better serve the Greater Good.
Halliburton? Walmart? Exxon? Microsoft?
You forgot Shin-Ra.
Uh, no, your analagy doesn't really fit. The two are not equivalent, did you read any other replies? Tomcat is a servlet container, and JBoss is a full-blown application server, which uses a modified version of Tomcat as it's servlet container. JBoss does a whole lot more than Tomcat, but can be terribly unwieldy to someone that has no experience in it, and especially someone that has no experience, and isn't positive why they're using it. I'd be very, very surprised if Tomcat wasn't suitable to your needs, especially since you mentioned that it's going to be hosted on one machine.
..at least for your grammar. 'Absolutely' is an adverb, and you're using it to modify an adjective, which is incorrect. In addition, 'worse' implies a comparison, which is not being made here. "School is the absolute worst place.." or, "School is absolutely the worst place.." would have been acceptable alternatives.
Sayin'.
Among amateur anthropologists, a freely undefined "Europid" functions as a code word that enables discussions of "race" on antiquated bases, as "genetic divisions" to proceed with a scientific air. It and the similarly scientific-sounding "Europoid" circulate freely in Internet blogs. (Source)
I've got a question for Ask Slashdot: why does the market suffer fools like these? Mr. Chuck Stegman let fly a pretty haughty supposition as to the quality of Microsoft's products, and was completely and unequivically wrong on that call. Does Mr. Stegman probably still have a job in the technology analyst biz? Probably. Does Laura DiDio (with a much more abysmal record) have still have one? Sure. Why do companies still exist that have loudmouth figureheads that fanatically predict outcomes which never come to fruition on a regular basis? Is there a huge market for incorrect, biased research? Maybe I should get in on this, while there's still room.
Um..
Brinks won't call the police first.
Correct, that's why he originally said this, "a person calls me and they are ready to call the police."
And yes, fire companies don't have a problem with automated systems, because 1.) unless the system is malfunctioning, there's usually something that set off the system, which has a good chance of being something that at least one fireperson should respond to, but even if that's not the case: 2.) they'll generally charge you a fee (I've seen between $200-300) for coming to the site, if there's no actual emergency. It usually takes them about 10-15 minutes on-site, and there's usually 1-2 dudes, so it's probably not a loss for them (that's not to say they're making a killing on it).
"...what MRI company do you work for again?"
"A major one."
Which, of course, bears no resemblance whatsoever to biblical teachings, but hey...such is the state of Modern European Christianity, wheeeee!
Wait hold on, a Vice President is no longer considered an executive? Oops, yo my bad. Or did you not read the part about the Vice President of Finance personally handing the guy a check one day before filing?
And we actually *are* talking about stock, assuming this is a publicly held company, because in such a scenario the courts will freeze the assets of a bankrupt corporation, and disperse them according to bankruptcy law and precedent, willfully doling out money immediately prior to such an action *is*, actually a violation of US law. Oh, and even if it's _not_ a publicly held company, bankruptcy occurs as a measure to ward off creditors, of which the person in question would count. The court would still seize the company's financial records, see that they paid a sizable sum to a consultant one day prior to filing for bankruptcy (as someone else mentioned, precedent is probably set for viewing transactions as far back as a few months as preferential treatment), then seize those assets, and redisperse as fit.
How do you people not understand why this shit is legally and morally wrong?
I'm not sure if that's exactly true. Ethically, it's the same as an executive telling a friend who has stock in a company that they're filing for bankruptcy the next day, and to sell all his shares. The VP of Finance undoubtedly knew that they would be filing for bankruptcy the next day (let's face it, irregardless of whether or not OP fixed the Mac, that wouldn't have saved them), and gave away the $50k knowingly before it would be duely frozen, then dispersed according to normal bankruptcy law. ..I really don't see how that's not illegal and if it isn't, it's these kind of loopholes that allow wealthy criminals to stay wealthy in this country.
Uh, agreed. Even the title's inane: "...list of the 10 strangest and funniest computer mishaps... Some of them are funny!"
Let me guess..the rest are strange?
Oh, and thank you "Captain Obvious" for telling us that:
these days, one process can host a myriad of threads, each doing their own thing
Guess what I was being? That's right, facetious ! Congratulations.
I only replied because I didn't find your comment very funny, and I don't like people who put pretentious things like "Senior Programmer" in their signature, if I wanted to know what your title at work was, I would ask you; otherwise, I'll judge what I think of you by what you say (though this _is_ Slashdot, and I just don't really care). Also, this rule applies to your comment, haccording to the Purdue University writing lab, Do not use quotation marks for common nicknames, bits of humor, technical terms that readers are likely to know, and trite or well-known expressions. Obviously, you're not a Senior Grammatist.
What is RMS' death toll?
I'd imagine he's got some seriouslykiller funk surrounding him, Free Software evangelists don't have time to shower, y'know.
Uh, whoa. Hold on there, chief. I didn't, shall we say, "read the article", per se, but I can tell you right off the bat that this "new technology" is not single-threaded, it's just carried on from one process. Maybe you'd like to call them "light-weight processes", but these days, one process can host a myriad of threads, each doing their own thing. What was that about being a senior programmer, now?
..that doesn't mean you have to _not_ put LCD screens in tombstones, take your hat off, watch your language, or get a babysitter for church.
Uh, no, I don't really think so. The deceased can no longer view said videos, and as such the only messages would inevitably be generalized, inane blurbs basically reiterating "I miss you" over and over again. Sure, there are a lot of things I would want to say to those that have passed, but they're not necessarily things that are relevant to the living people that would view them. Thus content - audience = vacuous video blogs.
"Nice gas you have here tho..."
Q3. What about the copyrights?
A. The copyright allows the owner to (a) define the license terms, (b) change these over time, e.g. from GPL to APL, etc., and (c) sell alternative licenses, e.g. commercial opt-out licenses for a GPL'd product.
So a forked right version quite obviously would have multiple copyright holders, for the new and old code. Right? Right. What happens to the forked version if and when the copyright holder decides to re-license their code under a more stringent license? Are they now forced to either license the code or drop the product? What happens if they re-license to a non-derivative license? Is the forked version permanently grandfathered in, so that they can continue to modify the code? I'm not really sure at all how this works.
No. Here's your main problem:
First, I'm not really a programmer.
I wrote the entire engine.
But it's getting complex and difficult to maintain as it is.
And the performance is not holding up.
So you're admittedly not a very experienced programmer, and you're expecting to have the web logic engine that you built, presumably from scratch, be scalable and modular, without ever refactoring it? In programming, we call the kind of query you just gave a 'silver bullet' problem, and unfortunately, there is none in this case. No one language, or framework, for that matter, is going to fix problems inherent in poor design. That's not to necessarily denigrate your programming skills, but don't expect that rewriting an app that was developed from scratch and is exhibiting growing pains to see great speed and modularity gains by porting it to another language. I've got a good hunch that if you started all over again, still using Perl, and chose your toolset wisely, your app would be more stable, scalable, functional, and modular.
I've worked with a lot of web languages/frameworks, and yes, Ruby would similarly solve the problem, but please don't ever say "real-world use of OO" with regard to Ruby. Rails is what, a year old? Basecamp and 43 Things are the largest sites actually running Rails (the latter being as esoteric as you can get, and pretty low-traffic, at that), and you're not going to see a major player using Ruby at this poing. If I take your meaning of "real-world" correctly, CORBA is more like what you're talking about, though I don't think you necessarily want to mess with that sort of thing right now.
Are you serious? I'm not vegan because I hate the taste of meat or think that humans are not, by nature, omnivores, I do it because I object to the manner with which animals are created, treated, and slaughtered, and because, unlike a wolf, fox, bear, or shark, I have the presence of mind to question where my food comes from and explore alternatives, so don't give me that crap either. It's a question of morals, not preference. Humans have evolved to be omnivorous. If I were removed from "the grid", and were forced to kill and eat an animal for sustainence, I would. That is, if I were forced to, that statement doesn't apply if I'm in the far lot of a KOA campground, and run out of veggie burgers in my Coleman cooler, and am too lazy to go the grocery store.
but my answer is to vote with my wallet
I do too, and that's really my answer to your question. Milk and eggs come about as a biproduct of reproduction, and there are a heck of a lot of people, so any useful amount of milk and/or eggs has to come from a lot of reproduction going on (lots of gettin' busy). Thus, as you've mentioned, the only way to for that to be in any way sustainable is to slaughter the animals for meat. Since I started out as a vegetarian, and didn't want to support the meat industry monetarily, it was the next logical progression to become vegan. It's not something I pressure on people, though I advocate it, it's just that personally, when I was just veg, I felt like a hypocrite a lot of the time, because I was funding the meat industry semi-directly by supporting an industry that can only be sustained transitively by the meat industry.
Also with regard to milk/cheese grossness, notice that I said it was a coping mechanism. If I were to stop being vegan today, I'd probably find both of them tasty and delicious, but since I'm choosing willfully not to consume either, it's easiest if I think about where it comes from, rather than keep thinking about what I may be missing out on.
Most vegans (including myself) aren't against eating animal-derived products simply because they're derived from animals (though as a coping mechanism, you do eventually see things like a plain glass of milk or a block of cheese as pretty gross..which, if you think about it, they really are), but because of how they're derived. Good for instances include milk and eggs; in both cases, when you're mass-producing either product, it's practically inefficient to keep around very many males around, as only a few are necessary for the continuation of product, and extra animals hanging around consume a large amount of resources. I mean, milking a cow isn't intrinsically wrong, though it is weird when you think about it, but continually inseminating in animal in order to continually retrieve a product (or in this case, a raw good..either way, though) from it is pretty messed up from my POV.
Back to those male cows though: you've got a lot of them, but you can't just kill them, that would be resource consuming in and of itself, so what do you do? You sell them off for veal. They, more often than not, have their hooves nailed to the tiny cages they'll spend the rest of their lives in, before being slaughtered for a delicacy. If I chose not to eat meat, but consumed a lot of dairy, I'd be directly funding one of the most inhumane (again, POV) parts of the industry I was personally boycotting. Male egg chicks are at least disposed of quickly, but usually not disposed of, generally just discarded, i.e. in a dumpster or elsewhere.
So yeah, those are my main reasons for not partaking in animal products. It'd require some deep thought, but initially I'd say that yes, it is possible that I'd consume products that were derived from an animal, so long as it was humane, sterile, and non-harmful to the animal. This seems, again initally, like a pretty non-invasive procedure, and there will probably always be host animals around, hopefully ones living happy lives.
*Note: I'm not in anyway trying to proselytize here; I'm not telling you what to do, think, eat, or say. The above information is accurate, as far as I'm concerned.
Or an excerpt from the history of the entertainment industry, when black folk would put on vaudeville shows wearing blackface and with their lips painted red, to mock the white shows of the time, which were immitating black people by wearing blackface with their lips painted red.
Snake? Snaaaaaaaaaaaake!