Butler does this (actually, it is a 2 key combination). There are also apps that allow you to assign keys to scripts if you want to code your own. Check out macosxhints.com for tons of information on Butler (including a handy config guide!) and assigning keys.
The new password is apparently someone's PHONE NUMBER in Germany! No idea whose, but I gleaned this tidbit by getting a Babelfish translation of the page (orig, in German).
For those in the US - Is this the networking equivalent of calling Jenny? (867-5309)
Speaking as someone who has taken, passed, and actually practices patent law in the field of software and computers, I wish you the best on the big quiz. Remember - the MPEP's index is your best friend.
From what I can tell, this "robot" can't give you creases in your shirt sleeves. Speaking as someone who has worn both a "real" uniform and the "corporate" uniform, I can tell you that a single, razor-sharp crease in the proper position on the sleeve is an absolute necessity. People who have worn uniforms notice this right away. Even those who have not themselves worn uniforms can tell you someone looks "better" when their shirt sleeves are properly pressed, even if they cannot articulate just why that is.
OneLouder has it correct so I add my "yeah - that's the ticket" post.
If this was not the case, we would rapidly run out of words. A word that is generic for one category of things is highly original for another. Think of how much time, effort, and money has been spent to get people to associate the word "Yahoo!" with an internet web site.
The problem is that argument assumes that M$ had the right to get a trademark in the first place. The question you pose is appropriate when asking whether someone is wilfully infringing on a valid trademark.
Trademarks 101: You cannot trademark a generic name.
Trademarks 102: A trademark that is "descriptive" can acquire a secondary meaning through pervasive use. (e.g., millions of $$ in advertising)
Trademarks 103: Generic names cannot acquire secondary meaning because only trademarks can have secondary meanings and generic names cannot be trademarked.
Trademarks 104: You cannot trademark a generic name.
If you let generic names become trademarks because the name has acquired secondary meaning, that is almost the equivalent of saying that with enough money, you can buy words out of the language. No one would let me enforce the trademark HOUSE for my brand of prefabricated homes. Windows should be no different.
In other words, when M$ says
"would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?"
it is really saying:
"Don't look at the hole in the floor under the carpet. Just admire what a pretty carpet it is and believe you won't fall through if you walk across it."
No - I'm implying just the opposite. Most people charged with writing/interpreting/enforcing laws have no technical skills whatsoever. If you don't understand the problem, you cannot craft an adequate solution.
Your last sentence in the comment, "Until lawyers," is out of place and overly broad.
Sorry - that is not my sig. However, the comments I made regarding my sig (which says essentially the same thing) hold true for that comment as well. It is not out of place - it is the central issue. Lawyers who do not know how to properly investigate facts do clients an EXTREME DISSERVICE. If this guy went to jail because of malware, he has been severely victimized by both the malware and by his lawyer. If however, he is making up this story and he actually knew he had kiddie pr0n, I say he should rot in jail for the rest of his life so he can't contribute to the victimization of more kids.
You do have an opportunity to stand up for yourself. He gave that up. Freely accepting a perhaps unjust felony conviction is ultimately his fault.
Very true. HOWEVER - you cannot make a reasonably informed decision whether to give up your right to a trial unless you have a competent lawyer who can objectively estimate the strength of the State's case against you. Without that estimation, you cannot assess the risk of a trial.
Your last sentence in the comment, "Until lawyers," is out of place and overly broad.
My "last sentence" is my sig. I don't believe it is overly broad. Lawyers are the front lines in courts pressing for proper applications of the laws. When lawyers don't understand the facts in ANY case, technical or not, there is a great danger that the law will be misapplied. The application of law to facts is the core of legal analysis. Example: The federal wiretapping statue says it is illegal to intercept a communication while "in transit." Federal agents copied an email while in the "store" phase of store-and-forward transmission and successfully argued that the message was not "in transit." A lawyer who understood the basic operation of packet-switced networks would have shot that argument down in a heartbeat.
AND IF he is telling the truth about not actually surfing to child porn sites, then he is a victim. I have a hard time believing that malware caused his browser to go to kiddie pr0n sites. I have a slightly easier time believing that the kiddie pr0n images were on the drive when he boght the machine from eBay. But what I find notable is the lack of any detail regarding what investigative steps his defense lawyer took to see if he was truly responsible.
Until lawyers get technically savvy, laws affecting technology will be terrible.
Sorry, but I think you are seriously misguided on this point. Who is any individual to be able to say "Linux doesn't need THAT." (caveat: Linux is used in the distribution sense, not in the kernel sense. And no, I am not going to call it GNU/Linux.). If these guys see something they think is useful and which addresses a perceived need, I say GO FOR IT! The open source nature of the codebase gives them the ability to innovate any way they see fit. Licenses like the GPL are designed to ENCOURAGE efforts like this.
By the way, this is EXACTLY the same tactic that Microsoft used to get ITS dominant position. Windows piggy-backed on the market position of IBM. I predict that if this company is still around in 5 years, you'll be wishing you owned its stock instead of telling them to make their product compatible with other Linux distros.
Or maybe it is strategically placed so that whatever sound does eminante from it is easily overwhelmed by the music I am usually playing at the time. If I can't hear it, it is silent to me. Cheating with a definition? Perhaps - but at least you know I am cheating.
My Favorite Noise Reduction Technique
on
A Silent PC Solution?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I use a Macintosh G5. Except for all the fans whirring on start-up (which makes it sound like a Ferrari revving up for about 2 seconds) it is almost completely silent.
You obviously need to transfer to one of the most unwired campuses so you can suck up those mod points and be the cheesy karma whore you were destined to become. Come - join those of us with "Excellent" karma. You'll like it. I promise.
Wait a minute - you're actually at #51 on the list. If I were you, I'd complain to the administration. You should be able to build your karma and attend classes at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Butler does this (actually, it is a 2 key combination). There are also apps that allow you to assign keys to scripts if you want to code your own. Check out macosxhints.com for tons of information on Butler (including a handy config guide!) and assigning keys.
Notice that some manufacturers don't call them Laptops anymore - precisely because of the heat issues. They are now called "portable computers."
They were dialing it long before I posted my comment - the article was up for a long time before I got a translation.
The new password is apparently someone's PHONE NUMBER in Germany! No idea whose, but I gleaned this tidbit by getting a Babelfish translation of the page (orig, in German). For those in the US - Is this the networking equivalent of calling Jenny? (867-5309)
Apple released X11, an X-windowing system based on XFree86. I wonder if X11 will change also.
Speaking as someone who has taken, passed, and actually practices patent law in the field of software and computers, I wish you the best on the big quiz. Remember - the MPEP's index is your best friend.
From what I can tell, this "robot" can't give you creases in your shirt sleeves. Speaking as someone who has worn both a "real" uniform and the "corporate" uniform, I can tell you that a single, razor-sharp crease in the proper position on the sleeve is an absolute necessity. People who have worn uniforms notice this right away. Even those who have not themselves worn uniforms can tell you someone looks "better" when their shirt sleeves are properly pressed, even if they cannot articulate just why that is.
Classic example - Aspirin. Now a generic term in the US - but go to Canada and you'll see Aspirin BRAND pain reliever.
Hilarious. You've been reading Slashdot too long. Wish I had some mod points right now.
Descriptive terms are fine for trademarking, but usually result in what is referred to as a "weak mark" as opposed to a strong mark.
If this was not the case, we would rapidly run out of words. A word that is generic for one category of things is highly original for another. Think of how much time, effort, and money has been spent to get people to associate the word "Yahoo!" with an internet web site.
If you let generic names become trademarks because the name has acquired secondary meaning, that is almost the equivalent of saying that with enough money, you can buy words out of the language. No one would let me enforce the trademark HOUSE for my brand of prefabricated homes. Windows should be no different.
In other words, when M$ says
"would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?"
it is really saying:
"Don't look at the hole in the floor under the carpet. Just admire what a pretty carpet it is and believe you won't fall through if you walk across it."
No - I'm implying just the opposite. Most people charged with writing/interpreting/enforcing laws have no technical skills whatsoever. If you don't understand the problem, you cannot craft an adequate solution.
See my sig.
I wish I had mod points right now ... +10 F-in hilarious!
6. ???
7. PROFIT!
Sorry - that is not my sig. However, the comments I made regarding my sig (which says essentially the same thing) hold true for that comment as well. It is not out of place - it is the central issue. Lawyers who do not know how to properly investigate facts do clients an EXTREME DISSERVICE. If this guy went to jail because of malware, he has been severely victimized by both the malware and by his lawyer. If however, he is making up this story and he actually knew he had kiddie pr0n, I say he should rot in jail for the rest of his life so he can't contribute to the victimization of more kids.
Very true. HOWEVER - you cannot make a reasonably informed decision whether to give up your right to a trial unless you have a competent lawyer who can objectively estimate the strength of the State's case against you. Without that estimation, you cannot assess the risk of a trial.
Your last sentence in the comment, "Until lawyers," is out of place and overly broad.
My "last sentence" is my sig. I don't believe it is overly broad. Lawyers are the front lines in courts pressing for proper applications of the laws. When lawyers don't understand the facts in ANY case, technical or not, there is a great danger that the law will be misapplied. The application of law to facts is the core of legal analysis. Example: The federal wiretapping statue says it is illegal to intercept a communication while "in transit." Federal agents copied an email while in the "store" phase of store-and-forward transmission and successfully argued that the message was not "in transit." A lawyer who understood the basic operation of packet-switced networks would have shot that argument down in a heartbeat.
I'm just gonna get 1,000,000 free Gmail addresses and email all my data to myself 1 Gb at a time.
Until lawyers get technically savvy, laws affecting technology will be terrible.
"Linux doesn't need windows compatibility. . . ."
Sorry, but I think you are seriously misguided on this point. Who is any individual to be able to say "Linux doesn't need THAT ." (caveat: Linux is used in the distribution sense, not in the kernel sense. And no, I am not going to call it GNU/Linux.). If these guys see something they think is useful and which addresses a perceived need, I say GO FOR IT! The open source nature of the codebase gives them the ability to innovate any way they see fit. Licenses like the GPL are designed to ENCOURAGE efforts like this.
By the way, this is EXACTLY the same tactic that Microsoft used to get ITS dominant position. Windows piggy-backed on the market position of IBM. I predict that if this company is still around in 5 years, you'll be wishing you owned its stock instead of telling them to make their product compatible with other Linux distros.
Or maybe it is strategically placed so that whatever sound does eminante from it is easily overwhelmed by the music I am usually playing at the time. If I can't hear it, it is silent to me. Cheating with a definition? Perhaps - but at least you know I am cheating.
I use a Macintosh G5. Except for all the fans whirring on start-up (which makes it sound like a Ferrari revving up for about 2 seconds) it is almost completely silent.
Wait a minute - you're actually at #51 on the list. If I were you, I'd complain to the administration. You should be able to build your karma and attend classes at the same time.
I'll believe it when my Mr. Fusion(TM) is using beer cans and banana peels to power the Flux Capacitor(TM) on my DeLorean(TM).