Again, no. The need for coordination does not necessarily translate to massed maneuvers. Sunzi was not concerned with tactics because they change with technology. Sunzi only discusses principles that applies regardless of the organization.
Where do you get the idea that Sunzi was fixated on the idea of armies controlled by a single entity? He explicitly states, in one instance, that the generals on the field can disobey a prince. Sunzi's idea of war was about coordination of multiple entities each doing their own thing to win a war.
And I contest that contexts are dramatically different. The contexts for tactics may be different, but overall strategies are still the same. Identify weak spots while hide or disguise your own. Borrow your enemies resources to attack them. Usage of spies. etc etc. The main reason why Sunzi was opposed to protracted warfare was the cost to the citizens. If what you say is true, that costs in cyberwarfare are negligible, then that concern of Sunzi doesn't apply. However, given how much money has to be spent on something like the NSA and still be completely ineffective, then your critique is wrong and the concern of protracted warfare does apply and the strategies to suit.
The "knowing yourself" part is to know your own security vulnerabilities, capabilities etc. Knowing your enemy's dirty laundry is fine only if they don't know yours. The essence of that Sunzi quote is about winning decisively at little to no cost to yourself. Winning a hundred battles is hard if you have nothing to fight with after the first battle, and knowing where you stand (and that you can stand) after any number of battles is key.
"Is it round" is even worse because it doesn't explain anything. And no, that wasn't their goal. The goal was to actually define what a planet means, because there wasn't one, and the discovery of more Kuiper belt objects meant the word was becoming meaningless.
And no, it doesn't ignore extrasolar planets or wandering planets. They'll get a category of their own when we find them. Like how adding the word "dwarf" to Pluto-class objects. There is absolutely NO trouble to add the word "extrasolar", for example, to denote the new category. It is simply not a problem. Adding an extra word as a qualifier has never been a problem. The world isn't going to end.
While we all like to think we can rationally debate things based on one phrase, the reality is the definition is a bit more precise than that one sentence. Don't judge a criteria by its headline.
Your imprecision is allowing a moon to be called a planet.
Pluto is called a dwarf planet. Your other points are non-problems. Yes, the planets that have been smashed up? They are no longer planets. Do you want to call the entire asteroid belt a planet just because it may have been one in the past?
Giving similar objects different names in context is not strange to science. Do you also complain about the difference between meteor, meteoroid and meteorite? They literally are the same object but at different points in its life. Get over it.
And yes, we should pick scientific definitions that at least tries to avoid confusion with pseudoscience. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world, and the average person has a much harder time telling the difference between the two. Leave the overreaching definitions to the quacks and the postmodernists.
Because being imprecise with calling moons planets is astrology's job. Even the sun is called a planet in astrology, as would your definition. As I've already explained.
As you say, the current environment warrants it. It really doesn't matter what the law is. They can afford to take a case to court and then prolong it until the defendant can no longer finance their defense, or they settle of court.
Sorry, I should have used "patent lawsuits" instead of "patent trolls". Didn't think I have to draw intestines on stick figures, but there you go. Some people need hand holding to generalize upon an idea, and I guess you're one of these people.
It's as if you didn't even read the summary. The patents are filed with help from pro-bono lawyers working on behalf of Khan Academy. It costs them NOTHING to file patents.
Doesn't matter if the suing party is a bona fide patent troll or a frivolous suit from a "legitimate" company. You nitpick on the "patent troll" part. The issue is simple: Khan Academy doesn't have that much money to defend itself against patent lawsuits, no matter who they come from.
You seem optimistic about the war ending. As long as patent trolling is condoned by the legal system, a small operation like Khan Academy would never be out of the clear. They can be sunk by just one lawsuit.
I would encourage you to look at what the Khan Academy is. Maybe they're new to you, but from the years I've heard about their existence, they have been nothing but benign. Salman Khan still makes the bulk of those 10 minute videos himself using nothing but a paint program.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is where you'd want most error messages to happen.
Again, no. The need for coordination does not necessarily translate to massed maneuvers. Sunzi was not concerned with tactics because they change with technology. Sunzi only discusses principles that applies regardless of the organization.
If they were doing a good job, Snowden would not have been able to leak.
Why don't you read the news. Luckily, you're on a news site where I'm sure this fact has been reported many times.
Where do you get the idea that Sunzi was fixated on the idea of armies controlled by a single entity? He explicitly states, in one instance, that the generals on the field can disobey a prince. Sunzi's idea of war was about coordination of multiple entities each doing their own thing to win a war.
And I contest that contexts are dramatically different. The contexts for tactics may be different, but overall strategies are still the same. Identify weak spots while hide or disguise your own. Borrow your enemies resources to attack them. Usage of spies. etc etc. The main reason why Sunzi was opposed to protracted warfare was the cost to the citizens. If what you say is true, that costs in cyberwarfare are negligible, then that concern of Sunzi doesn't apply. However, given how much money has to be spent on something like the NSA and still be completely ineffective, then your critique is wrong and the concern of protracted warfare does apply and the strategies to suit.
The "knowing yourself" part is to know your own security vulnerabilities, capabilities etc. Knowing your enemy's dirty laundry is fine only if they don't know yours. The essence of that Sunzi quote is about winning decisively at little to no cost to yourself. Winning a hundred battles is hard if you have nothing to fight with after the first battle, and knowing where you stand (and that you can stand) after any number of battles is key.
"Is it round" is even worse because it doesn't explain anything. And no, that wasn't their goal. The goal was to actually define what a planet means, because there wasn't one, and the discovery of more Kuiper belt objects meant the word was becoming meaningless.
And no, it doesn't ignore extrasolar planets or wandering planets. They'll get a category of their own when we find them. Like how adding the word "dwarf" to Pluto-class objects. There is absolutely NO trouble to add the word "extrasolar", for example, to denote the new category. It is simply not a problem. Adding an extra word as a qualifier has never been a problem. The world isn't going to end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While we all like to think we can rationally debate things based on one phrase, the reality is the definition is a bit more precise than that one sentence. Don't judge a criteria by its headline.
Your imprecision is allowing a moon to be called a planet.
Pluto is called a dwarf planet. Your other points are non-problems. Yes, the planets that have been smashed up? They are no longer planets. Do you want to call the entire asteroid belt a planet just because it may have been one in the past?
Giving similar objects different names in context is not strange to science. Do you also complain about the difference between meteor, meteoroid and meteorite? They literally are the same object but at different points in its life. Get over it.
And yes, we should pick scientific definitions that at least tries to avoid confusion with pseudoscience. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world, and the average person has a much harder time telling the difference between the two. Leave the overreaching definitions to the quacks and the postmodernists.
Because being imprecise with calling moons planets is astrology's job. Even the sun is called a planet in astrology, as would your definition. As I've already explained.
Because it becomes a useless definition. Moons would be considered planets under the round definition.
:)
The only place a moon is a planet should be astrology, and fuck astrology.
Charon is about 750 miles (1200 kilometers) across, about half the diameter of Pluto—making it the solar system’s largest moon relative to its planet.
Sounds like someone at NASA is still not over Pluto not being a planet. Let it go... let it go...
Why isn't this guy in jail yet?
As you say, the current environment warrants it. It really doesn't matter what the law is. They can afford to take a case to court and then prolong it until the defendant can no longer finance their defense, or they settle of court.
Sorry, I should have used "patent lawsuits" instead of "patent trolls". Didn't think I have to draw intestines on stick figures, but there you go. Some people need hand holding to generalize upon an idea, and I guess you're one of these people.
It's as if you didn't even read the summary. The patents are filed with help from pro-bono lawyers working on behalf of Khan Academy. It costs them NOTHING to file patents.
Doesn't matter if the suing party is a bona fide patent troll or a frivolous suit from a "legitimate" company. You nitpick on the "patent troll" part. The issue is simple: Khan Academy doesn't have that much money to defend itself against patent lawsuits, no matter who they come from.
How would you propose they protect themselves from threats of infringement lawsuits from patent trolls?
You seem optimistic about the war ending. As long as patent trolling is condoned by the legal system, a small operation like Khan Academy would never be out of the clear. They can be sunk by just one lawsuit.
I would encourage you to look at what the Khan Academy is. Maybe they're new to you, but from the years I've heard about their existence, they have been nothing but benign. Salman Khan still makes the bulk of those 10 minute videos himself using nothing but a paint program.
Khan Academy started with 0 market share. Khan Academy was hardly the first attempt at building online teaching tools.
They pay the bills using money that is donated to them. None of that is affected by market share or grant money that mysidia mentioned.
Do you even know what the Khan Academy is, you retarded cunt?
To be honest, I don't see any difference between the description and the various different online compilers out there.
But even without prior art, I'd say the patent is not non-obvious enough.
Khan Academy is a non-profit.
The defensive purpose is against patent trolls who may try to sue the Khan Academy.
It's most likely for a defensive purpose and something that the legal firm advised doing.