but you'll need lots of hard disk space to record digitized messages. Now that dates it, in so many ways. I had a 270MB Disc around then, the only partition I have nowadays which would fit on that is/boot (and '/', although it is larger for emergencies).
Who the hell thought anyone wanted to save all that digitized speech anyway, the NSA? It would be illegal here (Germany) for privacy reasons.
I can't remember the original quote, it went something like this: everyone in life has a purpose, even if its to serve as a bad example. This is the purpose of the USPTO, to show us Europeans how not to do it. Of course we have special interest groups (patent lawyers, some large companies) who would like this but the USPTO is an excellent 'bad example'. It is a pity they can't patent themselves to stop imitations.
So we get a Slashdot post about the USPTO not looking at the patent application properly, where the poster (or/. editor) did not look at it either. My brain hurts.
Whatever, as someone else here said, Vocaltec started the ball rolling back in 1995. Maybe they only patented in Israel, not the US, but that won't help Intel here.
VBA is a language created by Microsoft. Open Office now has some VBA capability. Now think of the Mono project, it is there as an implementation of Microsoft's.Net.
The patches which add VBA capability did not go in in the last week or so, they predate the Novell / Microsoft agreement. Since Novell did not have access to Microsoft sources when this code was written, where is the difference? It is just a programming language is being implemented here.
I also imagine that if this turned out not to be the case, whoever submitted the patches would have a problem - especially if they acted in bad faith. Open Office is mostly under the LGPL, so what happens to people who take proprietary code which does not belong to them and place it under the LPGL? In particular, what would happen if the company they worked for then was paid several hundred million dollars by the patent owners?
Looking at this from another direction, I thought Microsoft were dropping VBA at some point. Are we going to have a situation where VBA applications will only work under Open Office and not under Excel?
Speaking personally, VBA is a security risk. The only thing I want to have to do with it on my system is to disable it in the setup options. I use SuSE 10.1 but did road-test OpenSuSE 10.0, I am thinking of moving back again for 10.2 (my laptop is brand new so I will need it) but this issue is not a show-stopper.
I am not sure if that is true, but if it is then it is an excellent reason for the EU to be vary careful about adopting US Patent practices. Going back a step, this patent sounds like it could be legitimate (although a posting below begs to differ). Was it filed in the EU as well?
If his supporters took power, it would not be to reinstate him. He has allegedly personally shot government ministers in the past when he felt their loyalty was wavering. His sons might have done it, but they are dead.
A limited number of employees were targeted. Were their email addresses public? If not then it should not be *that* difficult to find out who was behind this. Either an employee (on or off the target list) or someone else reasonably close to the hospital in question.
Don't blame Microsoft for OS/2's deficiencies, blame IBM. Gates tried to convince IBM not to use so much assembler, but IBM were drawing on centuries of experience - or something - and were not listening. It took the Cookie Monster (Gerstner) to pull IBM's arrogance.
If the Linux side play their cards carefully, Microsoft will not be able to go back on agreements. Insisting developments are Open Source will be essential.
The most obvious explanation I can think of is that they have decided Linux is not going to displace Windows on the desktop, and that the technologies in question are useful on the desktop rather than on servers. If SuSE (and others) take up Microsoft solutions on the desktop, they will not be developing parallel solutions.
I am not sure if TV programs are currently streamed at all but I am sure that if they are, it is in multiple formats and Linux distributions will be providing programs to handle the non-proprietary formats. There is talk of some Windows program which - when installed - will cripple the ability of PCs to receive these streams. I would prefer it if the ISPs simply refused to pass this stuff through. I would strongly consider changing to a broadband ISP which offered this if it solved the problem.
You do not know what you are talking about, and some other ignoramus moderated you 'insightful'. excellent means to spread their propaganda.
The ARD in particular is made up of regional companies which sometines reflect the prevailing political trends in those regions (pretty disparate) and sometimes deliberately buck trends. There is consensus on one point though, the Neo Nazis do not get a good press.
ZDF (the other TV station) has traditionally been fairly close to the Christian Democrats although I am not sure if that currently applies.
In Germany their is a radio fee and a TV fee (as opposed to the UK where the radio fee was dropped in the early 60's). Here, the radio fee is being applied as a TV fee on Internet devices.
Radio programs are normally available streamed, afaik TV programs are not and no-one is going to demand that the extra cash raised is ring-fenced.
I certainly will not be getting a UMTS mobile phone because the fee is raised there as well. Given the obscene amount of money various Mobile Phone companies paid for their UMTS licenses, maybe they should sue . . .
Bollox. a: Both main parties supported this monstrosity. b: This is a tax on businesses rather than people. Businesses (especially small businesses) do not have the vote. c: This monstrosity did not make the radar in the elections.
When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Poll Tax in the UK 17-odd years ago, it was between elections and the other two points were not met (+ the sums involved were far far larger). Her party decided she was an electoral liability and dumped her. Of course for at least 15 years after that, they felt so guilty over that this that their policy was pretty much whatever their sacred ex-leader wanted.
When you are paying the TV fee already, you don't have to pay an extra fee. Originally the amount set was the same as for the TV license, then it was reduced to the same amount as a radio license (17 reduced to 6 I think). There were some of good reasons for this:
by being so greedy, they had alienated everyone
the TV programs are not available on the net, or they are available in such poor quality that a PC is no substitute (unless a TV card is installed, but that is a different situation)
radio programs are streamed to the net in decent quality
Really they should either scrap this fee altogether or only demand it if the radio fee is not being paid. ZDF (= 'Second German TV') is the problem with the second solution - they are a pure TV company who do not have radio programs so they would lose out - and pure greed militates against the first solution. Back when this fee was originally voted on, the German Government were complaining about the 'take whatever you can get' mentality. Well hello guys, look in a mirror.
The GEZ? Aldi (a sort of WalMart selling groceries + all sorts of special offers) had a special offer selling TVs a couple of years ago. The TVs were boxed up and sold without being displayed. The GEZ wanted a TV license fee for each TV Aldi was selling, even though those devices were not hooked up. The GEZ won the court case. Consider them a mafia with the law and the courts in their rather deep pockets.
This fee is imposed at each location rather than on each device. So far. As others have said here, businesses have to have internet-capable devices to submit tax-returns.
Some journalist reported what she said (may have said: this *is* the Daily Mail) so the jury is still out on which spelling she would have used. (although I can't imagine someone like her would have got it wrong)
I didn't know AMD could do that, as I run Windows and under Windows the two cores speed up and slow down (several steps from 1GHz to 2.2GHz) at the same time. At the moment, AMD can't - this capability will be new. The more cores a processor has, the more you need this independent control.
I imagine this sort of capability will mean a lot to companies running large server farms - think of Gooogle. I don't think I will need a 4-core machine at home, although a 2-core which runs CoolnQuiet independently (will they backport this capability?) *would* be nice.
I thought Via were discontinuing the C3. The AMD Geode would then be an alternative, although I think it has (even) less muscle than the C3.
Going back to the C3, I have just looked at Via's website and they have the Eden ULV which draws 3.5W @ 1GHz and 7.5W @ 1.5GHz. Both can be passively cooled. That must be why the C3 is history, I would guess my C3 Ezra 866 processor's requirements as being around 8-10W.
That would make a nice variation on those 'BSD is dead' trolls - 'BSD kills your memory hogs'.
I work under a mainframe OS and before VM was introduced (20 years ago?) the OS would happily swap processes or unused parts of processes out, it would kill any process which tried to allocate more memory than was physically available.
Apparently P2P apps implement some of this, and RFC3514 has covered some more since early 2003. I would just love it if that RFC torpedoed a patent like this.
Ah, of course, that was the essential difference I was missing.
Wait a minute, doesn't the Internet consist of a set of tubes? With little postmen pushing all those emails around? Microsoft should have gone for an email based authentification system - then they would have been safe.
Microsoft are claiming that this is a bad patent because of prior Art. Is this really the case?
I remember an encrypted CD back from the mid 90s containing all sorts of expensive software where you paid to get the various encryption keys. Someone cracked it. I suppose that approach was different enough to the sort of activation scheme XP uses as to not be covered by it.
Slashdot Mirror
but you'll need lots of hard disk space to record digitized messages. /boot (and '/', although it is larger for emergencies).
Now that dates it, in so many ways. I had a 270MB Disc around then, the only partition I have nowadays which would fit on that is
Who the hell thought anyone wanted to save all that digitized speech anyway, the NSA? It would be illegal here (Germany) for privacy reasons.
I can't remember the original quote, it went something like this: everyone in life has a purpose, even if its to serve as a bad example. This is the purpose of the USPTO, to show us Europeans how not to do it. Of course we have special interest groups (patent lawyers, some large companies) who would like this but the USPTO is an excellent 'bad example'. It is a pity they can't patent themselves to stop imitations.
So we get a Slashdot post about the USPTO not looking at the patent application properly, where the poster (or /. editor) did not look at it either. My brain hurts.
Whatever, as someone else here said, Vocaltec started the ball rolling back in 1995. Maybe they only patented in Israel, not the US, but that won't help Intel here.
VBA is a language created by Microsoft. Open Office now has some VBA capability. Now think of the Mono project, it is there as an implementation of Microsoft's .Net.
The patches which add VBA capability did not go in in the last week or so, they predate the Novell / Microsoft agreement. Since Novell did not have access to Microsoft sources when this code was written, where is the difference? It is just a programming language is being implemented here.
I also imagine that if this turned out not to be the case, whoever submitted the patches would have a problem - especially if they acted in bad faith. Open Office is mostly under the LGPL, so what happens to people who take proprietary code which does not belong to them and place it under the LPGL? In particular, what would happen if the company they worked for then was paid several hundred million dollars by the patent owners?
Looking at this from another direction, I thought Microsoft were dropping VBA at some point. Are we going to have a situation where VBA applications will only work under Open Office and not under Excel?
Speaking personally, VBA is a security risk. The only thing I want to have to do with it on my system is to disable it in the setup options. I use SuSE 10.1 but did road-test OpenSuSE 10.0, I am thinking of moving back again for 10.2 (my laptop is brand new so I will need it) but this issue is not a show-stopper.
I am not sure if that is true, but if it is then it is an excellent reason for the EU to be vary careful about adopting US Patent practices.
Going back a step, this patent sounds like it could be legitimate (although a posting below begs to differ). Was it filed in the EU as well?
If his supporters took power, it would not be to reinstate him. He has allegedly personally shot government ministers in the past when he felt their loyalty was wavering. His sons might have done it, but they are dead.
A limited number of employees were targeted. Were their email addresses public? If not then it should not be *that* difficult to find out who was behind this. Either an employee (on or off the target list) or someone else reasonably close to the hospital in question.
Don't blame Microsoft for OS/2's deficiencies, blame IBM. Gates tried to convince IBM not to use so much assembler, but IBM were drawing on centuries of experience - or something - and were not listening. It took the Cookie Monster (Gerstner) to pull IBM's arrogance.
If the Linux side play their cards carefully, Microsoft will not be able to go back on agreements. Insisting developments are Open Source will be essential.
The most obvious explanation I can think of is that they have decided Linux is not going to displace Windows on the desktop, and that the technologies in question are useful on the desktop rather than on servers. If SuSE (and others) take up Microsoft solutions on the desktop, they will not be developing parallel solutions.
aha - I thought you meant an additional 23 Euro.
With me it will be 2 x 5.x - private radio and business PC(s).
Why 23 Euro and not 5.x Euro? If you have 4 PCs you should still only have to pay once.
Radio programs are streamed in RA and WMF.
I am not sure if TV programs are currently streamed at all but I am sure that if they are, it is in multiple formats and Linux distributions will be providing programs to handle the non-proprietary formats.
There is talk of some Windows program which - when installed - will cripple the ability of PCs to receive these streams. I would prefer it if the ISPs simply refused to pass this stuff through. I would strongly consider changing to a broadband ISP which offered this if it solved the problem.
You do not know what you are talking about, and some other ignoramus moderated you 'insightful'.
excellent means to spread their propaganda.
The ARD in particular is made up of regional companies which sometines reflect the prevailing political trends in those regions (pretty disparate) and sometimes deliberately buck trends. There is consensus on one point though, the Neo Nazis do not get a good press.
ZDF (the other TV station) has traditionally been fairly close to the Christian Democrats although I am not sure if that currently applies.
In Germany their is a radio fee and a TV fee (as opposed to the UK where the radio fee was dropped in the early 60's). Here, the radio fee is being applied as a TV fee on Internet devices.
Radio programs are normally available streamed, afaik TV programs are not and no-one is going to demand that the extra cash raised is ring-fenced.
I certainly will not be getting a UMTS mobile phone because the fee is raised there as well. Given the obscene amount of money various Mobile Phone companies paid for their UMTS licenses, maybe they should sue . . .
Bollox.
a: Both main parties supported this monstrosity.
b: This is a tax on businesses rather than people. Businesses (especially small businesses) do not have the vote.
c: This monstrosity did not make the radar in the elections.
When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Poll Tax in the UK 17-odd years ago, it was between elections and the other two points were not met (+ the sums involved were far far larger). Her party decided she was an electoral liability and dumped her. Of course for at least 15 years after that, they felt so guilty over that this that their policy was pretty much whatever their sacred ex-leader wanted.
Originally the amount set was the same as for the TV license, then it was reduced to the same amount as a radio license (17 reduced to 6 I think). There were some of good reasons for this:
- by being so greedy, they had alienated everyone
- the TV programs are not available on the net, or they are available in such poor quality that a PC is no substitute (unless a TV card is installed, but that is a different situation)
- radio programs are streamed to the net in decent quality
Really they should either scrap this fee altogether or only demand it if the radio fee is not being paid.ZDF (= 'Second German TV') is the problem with the second solution - they are a pure TV company who do not have radio programs so they would lose out - and pure greed militates against the first solution. Back when this fee was originally voted on, the German Government were complaining about the 'take whatever you can get' mentality. Well hello guys, look in a mirror.
The GEZ?
Aldi (a sort of WalMart selling groceries + all sorts of special offers) had a special offer selling TVs a couple of years ago. The TVs were boxed up and sold without being displayed. The GEZ wanted a TV license fee for each TV Aldi was selling, even though those devices were not hooked up. The GEZ won the court case. Consider them a mafia with the law and the courts in their rather deep pockets.
This fee is imposed at each location rather than on each device. So far.
As others have said here, businesses have to have internet-capable devices to submit tax-returns.
Someone needs to clean up the typos there, they detract from 'the message'.
How would a '4 Lancashire men' sketch run? Atlas *was* in Manchester? Or was it at Didcot?
Some journalist reported what she said (may have said: this *is* the Daily Mail) so the jury is still out on which spelling she would have used.
(although I can't imagine someone like her would have got it wrong)
I didn't know AMD could do that, as I run Windows and under Windows the two cores speed up and slow down (several steps from 1GHz to 2.2GHz) at the same time.
At the moment, AMD can't - this capability will be new. The more cores a processor has, the more you need this independent control.
I imagine this sort of capability will mean a lot to companies running large server farms - think of Gooogle. I don't think I will need a 4-core machine at home, although a 2-core which runs CoolnQuiet independently (will they backport this capability?) *would* be nice.
I thought Via were discontinuing the C3.
The AMD Geode would then be an alternative, although I think it has (even) less muscle than the C3.
Going back to the C3, I have just looked at Via's website and they have the Eden ULV which draws 3.5W @ 1GHz and 7.5W @ 1.5GHz. Both can be passively cooled. That must be why the C3 is history, I would guess my C3 Ezra 866 processor's requirements as being around 8-10W.
That would make a nice variation on those 'BSD is dead' trolls - 'BSD kills your memory hogs'.
I work under a mainframe OS and before VM was introduced (20 years ago?) the OS would happily swap processes or unused parts of processes out, it would kill any process which tried to allocate more memory than was physically available.
Apparently P2P apps implement some of this, and RFC3514 has covered some more since early 2003. I would just love it if that RFC torpedoed a patent like this.
Ah, of course, that was the essential difference I was missing.
Wait a minute, doesn't the Internet consist of a set of tubes? With little postmen pushing all those emails around? Microsoft should have gone for an email based authentification system - then they would have been safe.
Microsoft are claiming that this is a bad patent because of prior Art. Is this really the case?
I remember an encrypted CD back from the mid 90s containing all sorts of expensive software where you paid to get the various encryption keys. Someone cracked it. I suppose that approach was different enough to the sort of activation scheme XP uses as to not be covered by it.