It might calm some people to know that such a system is in place to detect certain terror-inducing chemical attacks or bioweapons, but it may not actually detect anything.
Yeah, ideally the original inventor retains the rights. But nowadays, patents are granted to people who invent nothing (merely to force others to pay them royalties) and patent rights can be sold to other companies or individuals who do absolutely nothing to innovate anything or advance science.
The problem is not the federal rules. Even without those rules, HOV lanes are a good idea.
Granted, when looking at the number of vehicles per day utilising those lanes, they look like poor performers. But the job of a highway should not be to move the most vehicles, it should be to move the most people.
Look then at the number of people per day moving through those lanes. HOV lanes often move as many people as two or three general-purpose lanes. Measured in that way, HOV lanes are great. They have increased (people-moving) roadway capacity for a lower cost than building new general-purpose lanes could.
Also, adding more lanes to increase capacity does not work. The added capacity will become full almost as soon as it is built. Plus, road maintenance costs would increase.
I am sorry for (as you say) shooting off my mouth. But I really do not want to read or even glance at the specs. That is not the kind of stuff I like to read.
Are you sure that the low, full, and high speed definitions were there in the original USB 2.0 specs?
The USB 2.0 standard calls for data transfer speeds of 480Mbits/s (over 40 times faster than USB 1.1). If a product is released as USB 2.0 compliant, it had better be able to meet that requirement.
Once the standard is released to the world, the standards body cannot expect consumers to accept USB 1.1 as USB 2.0.
If your product fails to meet the USB 2.0 standard (as we know it), it will be returned as defective and the consumer will go buy something else that meets his/her needs.
Lots of people in LA (and elsewhere) might like to buy a license plate from Laos. That would really confuse the cops when you tell them the car is registered in Laos.
You are right. If only more people understood this, we might have more informative comments here.
SCO can show you two pieces of source code that appear to match, but how do they prove where those pieces of code came from, who wrote them, when, etc.?
No, SCO does not have proof that code was taken from them and used in Linux.
They have shown two sets of code that are mostly identical over about 80 lines.
They have not established for certain that one set of code is their own, that one is Linux source code, which dates these two sets of source code were created, nor who actually wrote the code (nor who could have copied it from one to the other).
They have not shown that the code in question was not stolen from Linux by SCO. In fact, that is still very much a possibility.
SCO has clearly found damning evidence that some code in Linux has been stolen.
No, SCO has not. They have not shown anything clearly. They have not proven that any code came from SCO and was put into Linux.
Show us the code from SCO, show us the code from Linux, and prove that SCO originally created the code in question, and that Linux got the code from someone who had no connection to SCO / Caldera.
In the court case, SCO has to prove that their own code was put into Linux by someone attached to IBM.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
That is a clear case of stock-price manipulation. It sounds likely to be true, but we would have to see the management selling off their stocks. Does anyone know if that is happening?
Is anyone going to feel sorry for the poor suckers who buy SCO stocks these days?
Where the hell do you get the divine knowledge to know that noone anywhere ever fell for the temptation to copy-paste a little?
It was not divine knowledge. He is not Joseph Smith. In this case, he claimed that there is no proprietary code that belongs to SCO in the Linux kernel.
A chef would not piss into a gourmet soup. Why would anyone copy code from an inferior product? That makes no sense.
That is correct. Anyone can make a new piece of software that can handle the same inputs and yield the same outputs without any of the source code necessarily being alike. (Think of GNU's implementations of ls, grep, etc.)
And even if the source code is alike, it did not have to be copied. It could have been the most obvious way to perform the same functions. The later program may have taken nothing from the first, yet appear to be a knock-off inside and out. (It really is a knock-off on the outside.)
SCO seems to be hoping that a jury will believe that Linux programmers took SCO code and 'munged it' slightly to look different. Hopefully, the defendants will show that there could be other explanation(s) that resulted in the source code we have today.
So why didn't someone come in and build a new transit system?
Construction costs are high, so the longer a system is in use, the better chance it has of paying off its initial costs. Operating costs are another matter.
Unfortunately, GM destroyed a system that was built when construction costs were lower, and the system had been around for a while.
It would have cost much more to rebuild the system, while the operating costs would be about the same.
Even if the previous mass transit system had been profitable, that does not mean a new one built at that time would be profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
It might calm some people to know that such a system is in place to detect certain terror-inducing chemical attacks or bioweapons, but it may not actually detect anything.
Chalk it up to a difference in usage of collective nouns.
The poster was only making fun of one person -- Charleton Heston.
Yeah, ideally the original inventor retains the rights. But nowadays, patents are granted to people who invent nothing (merely to force others to pay them royalties) and patent rights can be sold to other companies or individuals who do absolutely nothing to innovate anything or advance science.
No, I am not making this up.
Granted, when looking at the number of vehicles per day utilising those lanes, they look like poor performers. But the job of a highway should not be to move the most vehicles, it should be to move the most people. Look then at the number of people per day moving through those lanes. HOV lanes often move as many people as two or three general-purpose lanes. Measured in that way, HOV lanes are great. They have increased (people-moving) roadway capacity for a lower cost than building new general-purpose lanes could.
Also, adding more lanes to increase capacity does not work. The added capacity will become full almost as soon as it is built. Plus, road maintenance costs would increase.
Amen, brother! In fact, it is the law in Washington state.
Are you sure that the low, full, and high speed definitions were there in the original USB 2.0 specs?
Once the standard is released to the world, the standards body cannot expect consumers to accept USB 1.1 as USB 2.0.
If your product fails to meet the USB 2.0 standard (as we know it), it will be returned as defective and the consumer will go buy something else that meets his/her needs.
What does talk about a dam and how to make reall[y] good noodles have to do with Switzerland?
Lots of people in LA (and elsewhere) might like to buy a license plate from Laos. That would really confuse the cops when you tell them the car is registered in Laos.
But the Vatican selling its domain would be like selling papal indulgences. The Church would never do that.
the newspaper for people who can't read!
SCO can show you two pieces of source code that appear to match, but how do they prove where those pieces of code came from, who wrote them, when, etc.?
They have shown two sets of code that are mostly identical over about 80 lines.
They have not established for certain that one set of code is their own, that one is Linux source code, which dates these two sets of source code were created, nor who actually wrote the code (nor who could have copied it from one to the other).
They have not shown that the code in question was not stolen from Linux by SCO. In fact, that is still very much a possibility.
No, SCO has not. They have not shown anything clearly. They have not proven that any code came from SCO and was put into Linux.
Show us the code from SCO, show us the code from Linux, and prove that SCO originally created the code in question, and that Linux got the code from someone who had no connection to SCO / Caldera.
In the court case, SCO has to prove that their own code was put into Linux by someone attached to IBM.
I left my Wallet in El Segundo
Is anyone going to feel sorry for the poor suckers who buy SCO stocks these days?
It was not divine knowledge. He is not Joseph Smith. In this case, he claimed that there is no proprietary code that belongs to SCO in the Linux kernel.
A chef would not piss into a gourmet soup. Why would anyone copy code from an inferior product? That makes no sense.
Oddly enough, some TCP/IP-related source code used on many different platforms seems to have that phrase in it.
I wouldn't call it boycotting SCO. We just are not buying crappy products.
And even if the source code is alike, it did not have to be copied. It could have been the most obvious way to perform the same functions. The later program may have taken nothing from the first, yet appear to be a knock-off inside and out. (It really is a knock-off on the outside.)
SCO seems to be hoping that a jury will believe that Linux programmers took SCO code and 'munged it' slightly to look different. Hopefully, the defendants will show that there could be other explanation(s) that resulted in the source code we have today.
Have you ever used OpenServer or UnixWare? If you have, you know that Linux was already far ahead of SCO by 1994.
Where is the good SCO code I keep hearing about? It obviously was never in their own crappy products.
Construction costs are high, so the longer a system is in use, the better chance it has of paying off its initial costs. Operating costs are another matter.
Unfortunately, GM destroyed a system that was built when construction costs were lower, and the system had been around for a while.
It would have cost much more to rebuild the system, while the operating costs would be about the same.
Even if the previous mass transit system had been profitable, that does not mean a new one built at that time would be profitable.