Congratulations, AC, you've shown yourself to be so much smarter than all the rest of us that clearly couldn't possibly have done or noticed a simple typo, and proved your superior knowledge to the world by not only pointlessly pointing it out*, but also endlessly harp about it.
*except for the part where I specifically admitted 'wanted' was indeed bad grammar, but hey, I guess you could be forgiven for not having noticed that, which was the main point of the post after all.
...when a simple (small, perfectly accurate, in accordance with the guidelines) edit I did to clarify a definition apparently warranted no less than 3 separate "warnings" about it; I could only conclude that they didn't, in fact, wanted contributions.
Try something more complex, like the original story describes.
Looking for specifics will usually results in useless irrelevant results. (Yes, 'NSTableView' will result in NSTableView results, but searching for specific problems about NSTableView will give you a bunch of iOS specific uselessness).
"They try very hard to present me with what they think I'm searching for instead of what I'm actually searching for.
Tell me about it!
Search for something like NSTableView, it give you back results for UITableView (since it thinks that because there's more links with 'UITableView', then golly gee, you therefore must really mean that, don't you?)
I'm sure it's been mentioned here already, but one of the major advantages of "native" apps (be it desktop or mobile) is that, unlike a browser, doesn't necessarily require an active network connection, which (at least in North America) has been rather sub-standard considering what other countries get.
While it's true that browsers now have local data stores for data that might reduce the need for an active connection to a server, native apps usually are better able to handle a greater amount of data than browsers allow, or are simply faster or have more performance features that browsers won't/can't have..
Then there's the whole set of features that a native app can have (mostly mobile, thinking accelerometers here, etc.) that usually take years for browsers to get...
My point (which I clearly stated originally): Why the hell should companies, including tax payers (costs of running courts & all) have to pay for the USPTO's fuckups?
If a patent is declared "invalid", then why was it a "patent" to begin with!? And why do companies have to pay, out of their own pocket, to "fix" these invalid patents?? (Please, do provide *detailded* reasons why the companies should be burdened with the costs of cleaning up the USPTO's messes).
Either the USPTO didn't do their job right (incompetence gets you fired in the real world, but not if you're a bureaucrat apparently), or they're purposely gaming the system (I smell collusion). It's clear that, because they can't get in trouble (that BS immunity stuff & all), they can just rubber-stamp everything and let someone else do their work (read: clean up their mess).
A "patent" previously granted that turns out to be invalid due to prior art? Bad faith/incompetence (both the examiner, and its supervisor for keeping incompetent personel on the job at tax payers' expense)
Monkeys... er, 'examiners' at the USPTO rubber-stamping "patents" to meet quotas (which only got 'fixed' very recently, in terms of speed of tech)? Again bad faith/incompetence/ill will
Monke....'examiners' not understanding and/or not questioning validity of obfuscated "patent" description and still approving said "patents".... say it with me: bad faith/incompetence
USPTO knowing there's a problem with patent trolls but not doing anything about it (including but not limited to the above listed).... bad faith, especially considering this causes the opposite of their mandate to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...' (how the hell can anyone innovate when they're getting sued by patent trolls?)
And of course there's the USPTO pretending it's never their fault ("oh, we're so overworked!"), and those that make excuses for them, that all are part of the problem and instead of rectifying the situation, by whatever means will get us there (have Congress & the Government do it? Don't make me puke!)
You might be kidding, but that's not far from the truth.
On my hatchback one of the turn signal lights burnt out - the manual said to bring it to a dealer for replacement. Ya, like I'll pay $60 for a friggin' light bulb. (The non-hatchback version doesn't have this 'requirement').
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, AC, you've shown yourself to be so much smarter than all the rest of us that clearly couldn't possibly have done or noticed a simple typo, and proved your superior knowledge to the world by not only pointlessly pointing it out*, but also endlessly harp about it.
*except for the part where I specifically admitted 'wanted' was indeed bad grammar, but hey, I guess you could be forgiven for not having noticed that, which was the main point of the post after all.
Kinda like some AC's about my original post :) Too bad ./ doesn't have some sort of moderator-monitored editing of posts itself! ;)
Yes, indeed - hate mis-proof reading my own stuff! However, my original argument stands
Actually in this instance it was correct - 'wanted' is past tense, hence grammar (If I had written 'wantde', that would be a spelling error).
Yes, indeed - hate mis-proof reading my own stuff! However, my original argument stands.
...when a simple (small, perfectly accurate, in accordance with the guidelines) edit I did to clarify a definition apparently warranted no less than 3 separate "warnings" about it; I could only conclude that they didn't, in fact, wanted contributions.
Really sad that one has to work *around* a patent - so much for patents encouraging innovation, at least not the 'get-around-it' kind.
Looking for specifics will usually results in useless irrelevant results. (Yes, 'NSTableView' will result in NSTableView results, but searching for specific problems about NSTableView will give you a bunch of iOS specific uselessness).
Tell me about it!
Search for something like NSTableView, it give you back results for UITableView (since it thinks that because there's more links with 'UITableView', then golly gee, you therefore must really mean that, don't you?)
Steve Gibson agrees with me.
I disagree. If it's for your own stuff, it's more of a trailer.
A trailer is simply and ad for some other movie/show than what I'm currently watching.
This or that
32MB is a lot of data for a sensor.
Not if you're a spy agency.
... spy OS.
I've never seen where lack of justification ever stopped the government.
Or due process...
I'm sure it's been mentioned here already, but one of the major advantages of "native" apps (be it desktop or mobile) is that, unlike a browser, doesn't necessarily require an active network connection, which (at least in North America) has been rather sub-standard considering what other countries get.
While it's true that browsers now have local data stores for data that might reduce the need for an active connection to a server, native apps usually are better able to handle a greater amount of data than browsers allow, or are simply faster or have more performance features that browsers won't/can't have..
Then there's the whole set of features that a native app can have (mostly mobile, thinking accelerometers here, etc.) that usually take years for browsers to get...
So, that means all the UK stuff that I can't watch here will become available then?
An example of what?
Dude, seriously!?
And here is another fine example for you.
If a patent is declared "invalid", then why was it a "patent" to begin with!? And why do companies have to pay, out of their own pocket, to "fix" these invalid patents?? (Please, do provide *detailded* reasons why the companies should be burdened with the costs of cleaning up the USPTO's messes).
Either the USPTO didn't do their job right (incompetence gets you fired in the real world, but not if you're a bureaucrat apparently), or they're purposely gaming the system (I smell collusion). It's clear that, because they can't get in trouble (that BS immunity stuff & all), they can just rubber-stamp everything and let someone else do their work (read: clean up their mess).
And of course there's the USPTO pretending it's never their fault ("oh, we're so overworked!"), and those that make excuses for them, that all are part of the problem and instead of rectifying the situation, by whatever means will get us there (have Congress & the Government do it? Don't make me puke!)
Fine. Sue the individual examiners then.
Sure, some will say 'that's how the system works', but I don't see why companies should have to pay to clean up a government agency's screwups.
Also, it might make the USPTO think twice (read: actually do their job) before approving bogus "patents".
On my hatchback one of the turn signal lights burnt out - the manual said to bring it to a dealer for replacement. Ya, like I'll pay $60 for a friggin' light bulb. (The non-hatchback version doesn't have this 'requirement').
Seriously, OS X Yosemite's 'auto correct' is a total failure: meant to post "...it can't be relied upon..."