She is neither reasonably smart nor articulate. She does not read (CS Lewis notwithstanding), she has no intellectual curiosity, and thinks having a country full of fat children is our manifest destiny.
No, not the end of the world, just the US. Conflating the US with the world is a telling conceit, though.
Yes, the the patrons of those scientists had a vested theological interest in those positions. Not that any actual science was really conducted to validate them...
Every business is predicated on profiting off someone else's work. Unless you're selling vegetables from your own garden, using water from your own well (that you dug yourself), using seeds that you came out of the womb with, you're doing some kind of value-add to a bunch of other people's work to make money. And Pandora is doing a significant value-add, called custom distribution that has exposed many, many people to artists they would never, ever hear on other commerical outlets.
Pandora is paying royalties -- and they are going to have to pay far more than any of their terrestrial or orbital competitors to a monopolistic, unregulated monopoly that only benefits the musicians in the most abstract and convoluted way possible. Panodora is not exploiting composers and performers, they welcome innovations like internet radio; SoundExchange and their RICO copyright cabal are the ones who are exploiting not only the artists, but also their fans.
It's been over thirty years since I read this book, and I have never forgotten it. It was a fundamental 'aha!' book for me, framing the distinction between the ideal and the practical when solving a problem. You start with the premise of classical invisibility which you of course know (as a teenager) is impossible. But then you reframe the challenge in terms of what it really means to be invisible. At the time, it was tough to catch the only subtle distinction between 'not seen' and 'not noticed', but once you got it, it showed you there are often many, many unexpected ways to approach and solve a problem. Great to see the book made a lasting impression on others as well.
"...I don't know any other way to get the job done"
Perhaps you're not a smart as you think you are? Smart people know there is no one right way to do something. A solution exists within a context. The context dictates a variety of constraints that must be satisfied which usually means some kind of multi-axis arbitration. Just because you personally find those other axes unimportant, it by no means makes it so. Confronting and solving those kinds of problems is the hallmark of intelligence.
In a broader sense, intelligence is the ability to successfully adapt to context. School, work, society -- sorry, that IS the natural world. Don't pretend that your failure to deal with it is confirmation that it's simply because you are surrounded by morons.
You are absolutely correct. By definition, the independent claim(s) stands alone. One or more dependent claims build off a particular independent claim. The purpose of the independent claim is to cover as much territory as possible whereas the dependent claims are employed to "reify" the independent claim to make a more concrete assertion and better illustrate the meaning of the independent claim.
A software patent usually has two independent claims: a method claim and a machine claim.
So...if you infringe on an independent claim (by duplicating all the elements of that independent claim), you are hosed, irrespective of what the dependent claims say.
Yeah, I had a similar experience, but my contract had a clause that said "All your base are belong to us." I couldn't make heads or tails of it, so I asked my lawyer. He looked at me and said, "Somebody set up us the bomb."
I gave up and signed it anyway. I really don't understand law.
"Absent from our suggested federal response is a role for the Federal Communications Commission. The reason is straightforward: the distributed denial of service attacks involve coordinated and criminal transmission of content over the Internet. It is hard to see how the FCC has statutory authority over such matters. Yet even if it had, or were given, such authority, the agency currently lacks the resources and expertise to do what is necessary at this point, namely, to fight the criminal activity. Simply put, useful FCCinvolvement would require statutory changes, additional resources, and additional expertise to succeed. This is work better left to law enforcement agencies."
Okay, note the line "...distributed denial of service attacks involve coordinated and criminal transmission of content over the Internet"
Criminal transmission of content? WTFF??
Note also how it goes on to say the FCC shouldn't get involved since "FCC involvement would require statutory changes..." In other words, let's not waste time with all this analysis and law-making business and just get straight to the enforcement of what we want.
Slashdot Mirror
The website calculates the grades.
They're extraordinarily good at 'bonus math'.
Since when do Republicans like the government telling companies what to do?
regardless of the hours they work over 40...
It's their solution to the 'skills shortage'.
Try closing your program's console window in the IDE after doing a run.
And what SunOracle is doing with J2ME is, oh well, I have no idea what they are doing there...
The Politico comments section called, they want you to come back.
I find it more instructive that you neglected to include Bush II in your Gedanken experiment.
Get a job that requires a security clearance. They won't figure out how to outsource those for at least another generation.
If you are waiting to be taught, I think we just identified the problem...
I think you just wrote their next marketing campaign: "It doesn't suck"
She is neither reasonably smart nor articulate. She does not read (CS Lewis notwithstanding), she has no intellectual curiosity, and thinks having a country full of fat children is our manifest destiny.
No, not the end of the world, just the US. Conflating the US with the world is a telling conceit, though.
To boldly suck in dimensions no one has sucked before.
Augmented Reality. Followed up with bluetooth eyeglasses.
Yes, the the patrons of those scientists had a vested theological interest in those positions. Not that any actual science was really conducted to validate them...
Every business is predicated on profiting off someone else's work. Unless you're selling vegetables from your own garden, using water from your own well (that you dug yourself), using seeds that you came out of the womb with, you're doing some kind of value-add to a bunch of other people's work to make money. And Pandora is doing a significant value-add, called custom distribution that has exposed many, many people to artists they would never, ever hear on other commerical outlets.
Pandora is paying royalties -- and they are going to have to pay far more than any of their terrestrial or orbital competitors to a monopolistic, unregulated monopoly that only benefits the musicians in the most abstract and convoluted way possible. Panodora is not exploiting composers and performers, they welcome innovations like internet radio; SoundExchange and their RICO copyright cabal are the ones who are exploiting not only the artists, but also their fans.
But hey, don't take my word for it, take the word of a musician who has benefitted from it http://www.statesman.com/business/content/shared/money/stories/2008/07/RADIO_ROYALTIES30_COX_F2368.html
YES!
It's been over thirty years since I read this book, and I have never forgotten it. It was a fundamental 'aha!' book for me, framing the distinction between the ideal and the practical when solving a problem. You start with the premise of classical invisibility which you of course know (as a teenager) is impossible. But then you reframe the challenge in terms of what it really means to be invisible. At the time, it was tough to catch the only subtle distinction between 'not seen' and 'not noticed', but once you got it, it showed you there are often many, many unexpected ways to approach and solve a problem. Great to see the book made a lasting impression on others as well.
"...I don't know any other way to get the job done"
Perhaps you're not a smart as you think you are? Smart people know there is no one right way to do something. A solution exists within a context. The context dictates a variety of constraints that must be satisfied which usually means some kind of multi-axis arbitration. Just because you personally find those other axes unimportant, it by no means makes it so. Confronting and solving those kinds of problems is the hallmark of intelligence.
In a broader sense, intelligence is the ability to successfully adapt to context. School, work, society -- sorry, that IS the natural world. Don't pretend that your failure to deal with it is confirmation that it's simply because you are surrounded by morons.
"Company executives want face time with their employees"
Unless, of course, the employees are offshored.
Sure, sure.
...and they dock ya!
Hudsucker Proxy
...though well above astrology
x .asp?PID=359
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde
Of course, if you made it through college (I know you're out there), it puts it between the virgin birth and the resurrection.
super
You are absolutely correct. By definition, the independent claim(s) stands alone. One or more dependent claims build off a particular independent claim. The purpose of the independent claim is to cover as much territory as possible whereas the dependent claims are employed to "reify" the independent claim to make a more concrete assertion and better illustrate the meaning of the independent claim.
A software patent usually has two independent claims: a method claim and a machine claim.
So...if you infringe on an independent claim (by duplicating all the elements of that independent claim), you are hosed, irrespective of what the dependent claims say.
Yeah, I had a similar experience, but my contract had a clause that said "All your base are belong to us." I couldn't make heads or tails of it, so I asked my lawyer. He looked at me and said, "Somebody set up us the bomb."
I gave up and signed it anyway. I really don't understand law.
"Absent from our suggested federal response is a role for the Federal Communications Commission. The reason is straightforward: the distributed denial of service attacks involve coordinated and criminal transmission of content over the Internet. It is hard to see how the FCC has statutory authority over such matters. Yet even if it had, or were given, such authority, the agency currently lacks the resources and expertise to do what is necessary at this point, namely, to fight the criminal activity. Simply put, useful FCCinvolvement would require statutory changes, additional resources, and additional expertise to succeed. This is work better left to law enforcement agencies."
Okay, note the line "...distributed denial of service attacks involve coordinated and criminal transmission of content over the Internet"
Criminal transmission of content? WTFF??
Note also how it goes on to say the FCC shouldn't get involved since "FCC involvement would require statutory changes..." In other words, let's not waste time with all this analysis and law-making business and just get straight to the enforcement of what we want.