Perhaps the insulin injections could be changed to pill forms, etc, -if- the monitoring was more frequent (to the point of rediculous with the current tests).
Not saying it could or would, just thinking that a more active test could potentially lead to alternative treatments which are difficult, or useless in the current environment.
Sometimes putting in the extra work is worth it; but, if the end of the project is a long way off, DONT.
If you put in the extra hours now, will it reduce the extra hours later? Again, if so, fine, otherwise, NO.
Why? Because if the project manager gets it in his head he can have 80hr weeks out of everyone he will plan them that way. It is very easy to become burned out and few managers know how to properly handle it to prevent that.
Re:An exercise in character assassinations
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 2
Google works precisly because it is LESS likely I want to read this guys crap. But, Google will find it anyway, and if I poke around I'll get to read it.
Google isn't perfect, but as a generic search engine it rules.
To test out a search engine I ego surf, if it finds nothing of mine it sucks. If all it finds are my stuff it also sucks. (and likely means the database is about 3 years outdated or more!).
generally, depending on jurisdiction, it isn't illegal to do, it is illegal to provide the tools to others.
That used to be the standard way to skip past some copy protections under dos. First you run TSR, then you run the program/game.The TSR would capture the BIOS request to read the floppy and return the results without reading the disk.
It is relativly easy to modify a program for the same effect. I used to do it back in the days of DOS for games I bought. (seriously, it was a fun thing to do, and trying to read black ink on a red card was more painfull, never mind looking up word 5, page 45 paragraph 2....)
These young wippersnappers around here think you need sourcecode to modify programs...
Keyless entry for cars uses an algorithm of somesort based on the remoteid or something. While it is probably possible to hack it (hell, broadcast a signal strong enough and it might unlock anyway) it is far easier to jimmy it. The key in use is generated each time the button is pressed so it isn't the same as the previous one. (You can't eavesdrop it for instance).
The failuremode of automatically self-assigning an address is virtually useless. Even if you like the functionality on your own network it is an Intentional Decision, not a passive one.
As a developer I am tired of software and hardware which puts itself into a mode where it is almost functional but downright useless.
If it is useless it is a catastophic failure. If a machine cannot access the network it was defined on then the only access available to that machine should be local sign-on. Nothing more.
(Note: there are reasons why DHCP leases won't get renwed that do NOT relate to the server itself crashing. Perhaps the MAC address on it is getting itself chomped at a bad switch/hub. As rare as it is, it does happen.).
In failing to get a DHCP supplied address on a machine that is configured to work via DHCP a significant error has occured.
Would you intentionally run a network using the scheme for APIPA? I wouldn't. It is a nightmare with more potholes than any it is supposed to solve.
Tell me, when you can't print to your printer, does windows RANDOMLY find a printer with similar functions and print there instead?
That would be dumb. So is self assigning an address to a machine in an environment where it is defined as DHCP. Give me a configuration option that says: NEVER SELF-ASSIGN ADDRESS and I'll quit bitching about it. (And no, Registry tweaks don't count).
The default behaviour of having such a function enabled is stupid. It encourages bad networking.
What happens when the DHCP server goes down? You still get a bloody IP address. You shouldn't.
Also, for those who think it will be good for an adhoc network, well, it might be ok, but you may get conflicts when a new machine enters the zone and already had an address.
Recently I investigated GPRS availability where I live.
I can switch to a GSM network (Rogers/AT&T is rolling out GSM as we speak) and get 53kbps of always-on internet. Not fantastic, but not bad.
Unfortunatly they charge per Kilobyte. Yes. You heard me, Per Kilobyte. Even a few cents per K it adds up quick and becomes pointless.
Ok, so check out another provider. Ok, GSM/GPRS service as well. Always on, blah blah, $50/month unlimited. Ok, good deal. fine print: for 12 months. After that, who knows? They revert to their regular rates(?), which aren't any better than Roger/AT&T.
Ok, so how about CDCP? Hmm, about $50/month but it's 19200 Maximum. They add compression, but that won't solve the whole speed issue. And of course, only works with appriopriate modem, dead end technology, etc.
No wonder these companies can't recover costs... nobody will pay the rates they want.
If a machine failes to get a DHCP address and the machine is not assigned a static address (and in no other way is it assigned an address from another machine) it has NO GOD DAMN BUSINESS ASSIGNING ITSELF ONE.
Although in this case it might be handy, in most cases it means that if you have a network problem the problem is masked when machines on your network can see each other, but not servers, etc. (Because your DHCP server is fucked and no machines are getting new address').
Never mind that the movies were likely put together by hand, if only to verify they were ok. They could have been corrected for rotation at the time and the frame could have been trimmed down in size.
Read it very carefully. The problem for BT was that prior art existed for systems as you describe which ment that while filing the patent they had to be more specific on interpretation. Which means, that while the Internet/web may infringe patents (the prior art) it doesn't infringe BT since BTs is so specific.
BT was forced to have a very narrow patent or they could not have patented it.
the patent relating to JPEG may be for moving images, but the clain is a compressed single frame, not the detail necessary for animating it.
Mpeg contains a frame (I frames?) which contain a base image, subsequent frames then contain the changes for some number of frames. The first frame does not require the previous frame to build the image. {I}{B}{B}{B}{I2}...
All the B's require the previous images to be displayed properly, while I2 requires none of it.
If I2 is compressed in the SAME manner as JPEG and is patented then JPEG count indeed infringe the patent.
I read through it, and what it made obvious to me was, regardless of whether an idea existed before or not, an extrapolated version of it could be patented, but... and heres the catch, it would have to be an exact match.
I, for instance, agree that a webserver could be construed as a central computer. (atleast in reference to a set of data, whatever that set is.. slashdot posts? whatever). But since BT used that to differentiate themselves from prior-art it chained them to the narrow interpretation.
Had it not been used to avoid conflict with prior art perhaps it could have been contrued in the wider sense.
I'd hate to try and secure the system BT describes though, I don't think I'd want hackers to know what sector on my HD contains what... (and how the hell do you secure that nicely?)
Write a patent which can safely, without question, pass the test of prior-art and then bitch when someone else develops something that more closely resembles the prior art than your patent does.
It takes an image/picture from 300-1000 times per second, runs an algorithm looking for significant features on a very small pixel area, and compares. Very little detail is required to actually work as any contrast at all is enough. (between 2 or more frames)
I pretty much did the same thing. Whenever Opera is mentioned I typically check out the latest version.
Today I actually purchased it, because since the last time I've used it they fixed my pet-peeve.
I hate, loath and despise programs which only open in 1 window and make everything a child window of it.
I browse in a haphazard fashion on multiple sites with multiple purposes all the time. The tabbed browsing helps, but I'm glad to see they offer the choise now to run in seperate windows.
I have to agree with you on the default opening of windows. My setup consists of dual-monitor configuration which is seen by windows as 2048x768 display. (using nVidia nView). Some programs insist on running Full screen by default, or have windows pop-up randomly on the display. Hopefully i can get opera to play nice. (And hell, for the $20US it isn't a big deal if I can't. I'll live).
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the insulin injections could be changed to pill forms, etc, -if- the monitoring was more frequent (to the point of rediculous with the current tests).
Not saying it could or would, just thinking that a more active test could potentially lead to alternative treatments which are difficult, or useless in the current environment.
Sometimes putting in the extra work is worth it; but, if the end of the project is a long way off, DONT.
If you put in the extra hours now, will it reduce the extra hours later? Again, if so, fine, otherwise, NO.
Why? Because if the project manager gets it in his head he can have 80hr weeks out of everyone he will plan them that way. It is very easy to become burned out and few managers know how to properly handle it to prevent that.
Google works precisly because it is LESS likely I want to read this guys crap. But, Google will find it anyway, and if I poke around I'll get to read it.
Google isn't perfect, but as a generic search engine it rules.
To test out a search engine I ego surf, if it finds nothing of mine it sucks. If all it finds are my stuff it also sucks. (and likely means the database is about 3 years outdated or more!).
May not be scientific, but it works for me.
If you believe the e-mail I get in my hotmail account I have a number of valuable and unique links, want some?
generally, depending on jurisdiction, it isn't illegal to do, it is illegal to provide the tools to others.
That used to be the standard way to skip past some copy protections under dos. First you run TSR, then you run the program/game.The TSR would capture the BIOS request to read the floppy and return the results without reading the disk.
It is relativly easy to modify a program for the same effect. I used to do it back in the days of DOS for games I bought. (seriously, it was a fun thing to do, and trying to read black ink on a red card was more painfull, never mind looking up word 5, page 45 paragraph 2....)
These young wippersnappers around here think you need sourcecode to modify programs...
Keyless entry for cars uses an algorithm of somesort based on the remoteid or something. While it is probably possible to hack it (hell, broadcast a signal strong enough and it might unlock anyway) it is far easier to jimmy it. The key in use is generated each time the button is pressed so it isn't the same as the previous one. (You can't eavesdrop it for instance).
The failuremode of automatically self-assigning an address is virtually useless. Even if you like the functionality on your own network it is an Intentional Decision, not a passive one.
As a developer I am tired of software and hardware which puts itself into a mode where it is almost functional but downright useless.
If it is useless it is a catastophic failure.
If a machine cannot access the network it was defined on then the only access available to that machine should be local sign-on. Nothing more.
Failure modes should not be otherwise functional.
(Note: there are reasons why DHCP leases won't get renwed that do NOT relate to the server itself crashing. Perhaps the MAC address on it is getting itself chomped at a bad switch/hub. As rare as it is, it does happen.).
In failing to get a DHCP supplied address on a machine that is configured to work via DHCP a significant error has occured.
Would you intentionally run a network using the scheme for APIPA? I wouldn't. It is a nightmare with more potholes than any it is supposed to solve.
Tell me, when you can't print to your printer, does windows RANDOMLY find a printer with similar functions and print there instead?
That would be dumb. So is self assigning an address to a machine in an environment where it is defined as DHCP. Give me a configuration option that says: NEVER SELF-ASSIGN ADDRESS and I'll quit bitching about it. (And no, Registry tweaks don't count).
No, that is NOT how DHCP works. No source address is required.
The default behaviour of having such a function enabled is stupid. It encourages bad networking.
What happens when the DHCP server goes down? You still get a bloody IP address. You shouldn't.
Also, for those who think it will be good for an adhoc network, well, it might be ok, but you may get conflicts when a new machine enters the zone and already had an address.
oops.
Recently I investigated GPRS availability where I live.
I can switch to a GSM network (Rogers/AT&T is rolling out GSM as we speak) and get 53kbps of always-on internet. Not fantastic, but not bad.
Unfortunatly they charge per Kilobyte. Yes. You heard me, Per Kilobyte. Even a few cents per K it adds up quick and becomes pointless.
Ok, so check out another provider. Ok, GSM/GPRS service as well. Always on, blah blah, $50/month unlimited. Ok, good deal. fine print: for 12 months. After that, who knows? They revert to their regular rates(?), which aren't any better than Roger/AT&T.
Ok, so how about CDCP? Hmm, about $50/month but it's 19200 Maximum. They add compression, but that won't solve the whole speed issue. And of course, only works with appriopriate modem, dead end technology, etc.
No wonder these companies can't recover costs... nobody will pay the rates they want.
It's a GOD DAMN HEADACHE.
If a machine failes to get a DHCP address and the machine is not assigned a static address (and in no other way is it assigned an address from another machine) it has NO GOD DAMN BUSINESS ASSIGNING ITSELF ONE.
Although in this case it might be handy, in most cases it means that if you have a network problem the problem is masked when machines on your network can see each other, but not servers, etc. (Because your DHCP server is fucked and no machines are getting new address').
I wish I had one of these last week.
HD was starting to fail and I had no reasonable method to get 40g of data onto anything for backup.
I mean, what good is tape or CD? Even DVD would have required multiple discs.
HD was the only solution, bought a 60 and prayed as it copied files. (Worked!)
Now to send this HD back to Maxtor for replacement...
Never mind that the movies were likely put together by hand, if only to verify they were ok. They could have been corrected for rotation at the time and the frame could have been trimmed down in size.
No, it takes 27 pages to prevent an appeal based on the judge not following procedure and protocol.
sucks to be his secretary.
Read it very carefully. The problem for BT was that prior art existed for systems as you describe which ment that while filing the patent they had to be more specific on interpretation. Which means, that while the Internet/web may infringe patents (the prior art) it doesn't infringe BT since BTs is so specific.
BT was forced to have a very narrow patent or they could not have patented it.
the patent relating to JPEG may be for moving images, but the clain is a compressed single frame, not the detail necessary for animating it.
Mpeg contains a frame (I frames?) which contain a base image, subsequent frames then contain the changes for some number of frames. The first frame does not require the previous frame to build the image.
{I}{B}{B}{B}{I2}...
All the B's require the previous images to be displayed properly, while I2 requires none of it.
If I2 is compressed in the SAME manner as JPEG and is patented then JPEG count indeed infringe the patent.
Actually, I think your wrong.
I read through it, and what it made obvious to me was, regardless of whether an idea existed before or not, an extrapolated version of it could be patented, but... and heres the catch, it would have to be an exact match.
I, for instance, agree that a webserver could be construed as a central computer. (atleast in reference to a set of data, whatever that set is.. slashdot posts? whatever). But since BT used that to differentiate themselves from prior-art it chained them to the narrow interpretation.
Had it not been used to avoid conflict with prior art perhaps it could have been contrued in the wider sense.
I'd hate to try and secure the system BT describes though, I don't think I'd want hackers to know what sector on my HD contains what... (and how the hell do you secure that nicely?)
As I understand my history Microsoft filed for the patent on 1's and 0's in 2012.
Yep.
Write a patent which can safely, without question, pass the test of prior-art and then bitch when someone else develops something that more closely resembles the prior art than your patent does.
whooops.
It takes an image/picture from 300-1000 times per second, runs an algorithm looking for significant features on a very small pixel area, and compares. Very little detail is required to actually work as any contrast at all is enough. (between 2 or more frames)
If it were simply 4096 from a palette you'd be right, but it isn't.
It is 4096 colour DEPTH. Thats it.
Basicly, that means your stuck with 4 bits of red, 4 bits of green, 4 bits of blue. So, 16 shades of red, blue green.
With a palette based method it could atleast be 4,096 from 16 million, or some-such. it isn't.
I'd be pissed if I had bought one of these.
HIRE A TAX ACCOUNTANT.
If you are part owner of the business, and the business is out of state you want, you NEED an accountant.
You want to be the one having to go out and de-ice the towers?
The advantage of satellite is atleast the dish is close by and easy to maintain (comparably speaking), even when its -40f + Windchill.
Thats kinda funny (not in a good way).
I pretty much did the same thing. Whenever Opera is mentioned I typically check out the latest version.
Today I actually purchased it, because since the last time I've used it they fixed my pet-peeve.
I hate, loath and despise programs which only open in 1 window and make everything a child window of it.
I browse in a haphazard fashion on multiple sites with multiple purposes all the time. The tabbed browsing helps, but I'm glad to see they offer the choise now to run in seperate windows.
I have to agree with you on the default opening of windows. My setup consists of dual-monitor configuration which is seen by windows as 2048x768 display. (using nVidia nView). Some programs insist on running Full screen by default, or have windows pop-up randomly on the display. Hopefully i can get opera to play nice.
(And hell, for the $20US it isn't a big deal if I can't. I'll live).