You realize that means that you can make the Immortal Patent pretty trivially then? Make a trivial edit, such as 'change the third "the" to an "a" ', at the 39 year and 360 day mark, get a new forty years.
Let's see, we add this "100% electronic" to a previous article by VA saying that VA and DoD electronic medical records have been combined, and add the two-three years ago VA hack that pulled all the records of a couple hundred thousand vets, and get "yeah, this will turn out well"
If ever in my life I rooted for the Somali Pirates to take a ship, it'd be this guy's. I'm not saying that stupidity should be a capital offense, but if it becomes one via external influences, I'll LMAO.
Because it's worked so well the last half-dozen times it was legislated. So well, in fact, that they have to pass another law stating essentially exactly what the previous ones did. How about next time they want to legislate this, they actually pay the enforcement agency, wait a few months for the enforcement agency to do their jobs, then take a flying leap?
I'd pretty much count on Microsoft phasing out.NET. Soon? Can't see that happening, the investment was too great too recently to get people to switch from visual studio. I DO see the first phase coming soon: accelerating the EOL of the products on the market now. I'd have thought that Microsoft devels would be ready for this kind of dick move by now, it's happened with every other Microsoft IDE.
double-check for "Apple fanbois saying that Apple can do no wrong" and "naivete about trademarks"
Again, you do NOT have to register a trademark, you merely have to clearly mark it as such.
As far as the Microware trademark, no, I didn't, nor did I mention that Apple v Apple kinda blew that split hair out of the water, because either of those bits of information added a useless tangent, which we're now barreling down at breakneck speed. The point is Apple failed to even look if there was an OS9 before going off half-cocked. Now, surprise, they're caught with their hand in the same cookie jar. Even if you assume that Xcerion had the only legal trademark, isn't it the least bit convenient that Apple goes from 0 to bought trademark to WWDC within a little more than a month? I'd bet that even the Xcerion deal was a forced 11th hour job because they'd already named it and needed to buy the domain and make it operational before WWDC (and I'll bet that the only reason the trademark came as part of the deal is Xcerion insisted on it to get more $$). Once is sloppy, twice is shoddy, three times is unbelievably dumb. Apple is pretty much out of the single digit range by now.
Historically, unions aimed at a single company fail pretty miserably, Unions live or die by numerical strength, and you can't get that if one company can scab the entire membership out. Now if they got Best Buy, Radio Shack, etc on board and called themselves the "electronics salesforce union", they might have a chance. Short of that, it'll just be a flash in the pan.
Naivete about trademarks [check] (A trademark need not be registered to be enforceable, just clearly marked) Apple fanbois saying that apple can do no wrong [check] Apple anti-fanbois saying apple can do no right [check] GNUtards expressing blanket anti-IP sentiments [check]
My take:
Apple is clearly not a historical good player, where it comes to the blatant co-opting of trademarks, case in point: OS9 vice MacOS9 (OS9 is a trademark of microware for a TRS-80C operating system, built for the 6809 chipset), the iphone/ios thing (the only reason any settlement at all was proposed was IOS was so entrenched that Apple was guaranteed a court loss), and many other trademarks Apple just steamrolled without checking. I suspect they didn't do due diligence at all, just because it seems that they never have before. I submit that the first "look and feel" lawsuits that Apple started were naught but an extension of this, given that the look and feel that apple was litigating was actually developed by Xerox at PARC, which both Microsoft and Apple liberally ripped off. While I doubt iCloud was much more than a shell company built as a IP landmine, Apple has yet to prove that their due diligence is much more than asking around the offices at Cupertino if anyone's ever heard of a given name. I predict that unless iCloud finds some deep pockets (I heard that there's a few deep pockets around that don't like Apple, some in Redmond), Apple will just keep raising the ante until iCloud's basically forced to settle.
I'm sorry, but on the trust scale, Google, who has yet to lie to me, wins big over Gartner, who lies through their teeth every time they review a product. I still recall Gartner recommending WinME. 'Nuff said there....
From a consumer perspective, the lower the bar is for "effective security measures" the better, because if an attacker breaks ineffective security measures, you're basically on the "caveat emptor" hook, meaning you failed to do due diligence, therefore any losses are yours. If the security's effective, the bank's on the hook for any losses due to theft. Think of it this way, your bank has a wooden safe, and a robber gets in, you try to sue the bank for your losses, the bank says "well, duh, we had a wooden safe, what'd you expect?", and gets off the hook, while if the bank has a steel vault, you sue, and the bank's required by fiduciary duty to cover your loss, even though it's not negligent. Kinda twisted, huh? But then again, look at the rhetoric flying around Washington about the banks, banking law is truly down the rabbit-hole.
To the rest of us, rougelikes are just that, clones of rogue. Clearly Star Trek isn't a roguelike, yet it's "about using an unpredictable toolkit with complex interactions in order to overcome unpredictable challenges.", no?
the cruzado/cruziero shuffle has been happening about every 10-15 years since 1965. I'll believe it when Brazil has had the same currency for 2 1/2 or 3 decades. Until then, it's just another bit of noise.
Given that Brazil when it revalues their currency switches between "cruzado" and "cruzerio" (and most recently "real", short for "cruzerio real") on an almost clockwork basis, invariably involving a devaluation of 1,000:1 or some other ridiculous figure like that, were they planning on using Cruzados or Cruzerios to exchange, and how many truckloads of whatever they use will it take to make a Rand, Ruble, Yuan, or Rupee?
Google's under fire for fragmenting Java and for relicensing GPL code. Sounds like they're fragmenting two codebases to make the bloody thing, so my response to them is:"karma's a bitch."
I mean, really, did anybody actually expect facebook to not sell your information to the highest bidder? If you put up real information, expect it to be used. The solution: LIE like a rug! Tell them your home address is 1060 W Addison, Chicago, IL (yeah, that one's kinda lame, copying SNL is good only for laughs). Tell them your phone number is 555-1212. Whatever, be creative.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that means that you can make the Immortal Patent pretty trivially then? Make a trivial edit, such as 'change the third "the" to an "a" ', at the 39 year and 360 day mark, get a new forty years.
Let's see, we add this "100% electronic" to a previous article by VA saying that VA and DoD electronic medical records have been combined, and add the two-three years ago VA hack that pulled all the records of a couple hundred thousand vets, and get "yeah, this will turn out well"
For military burials at sea, there is never a coffin
If ever in my life I rooted for the Somali Pirates to take a ship, it'd be this guy's. I'm not saying that stupidity should be a capital offense, but if it becomes one via external influences, I'll LMAO.
Sarbanes-Oxley for starters.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act
Because it's worked so well the last half-dozen times it was legislated. So well, in fact, that they have to pass another law stating essentially exactly what the previous ones did. How about next time they want to legislate this, they actually pay the enforcement agency, wait a few months for the enforcement agency to do their jobs, then take a flying leap?
I'd pretty much count on Microsoft phasing out .NET. Soon? Can't see that happening, the investment was too great too recently to get people to switch from visual studio. I DO see the first phase coming soon: accelerating the EOL of the products on the market now. I'd have thought that Microsoft devels would be ready for this kind of dick move by now, it's happened with every other Microsoft IDE.
double-check for "Apple fanbois saying that Apple can do no wrong" and "naivete about trademarks"
Again, you do NOT have to register a trademark, you merely have to clearly mark it as such.
As far as the Microware trademark, no, I didn't, nor did I mention that Apple v Apple kinda blew that split hair out of the water, because either of those bits of information added a useless tangent, which we're now barreling down at breakneck speed. The point is Apple failed to even look if there was an OS9 before going off half-cocked. Now, surprise, they're caught with their hand in the same cookie jar. Even if you assume that Xcerion had the only legal trademark, isn't it the least bit convenient that Apple goes from 0 to bought trademark to WWDC within a little more than a month? I'd bet that even the Xcerion deal was a forced 11th hour job because they'd already named it and needed to buy the domain and make it operational before WWDC (and I'll bet that the only reason the trademark came as part of the deal is Xcerion insisted on it to get more $$). Once is sloppy, twice is shoddy, three times is unbelievably dumb. Apple is pretty much out of the single digit range by now.
Historically, unions aimed at a single company fail pretty miserably, Unions live or die by numerical strength, and you can't get that if one company can scab the entire membership out. Now if they got Best Buy, Radio Shack, etc on board and called themselves the "electronics salesforce union", they might have a chance. Short of that, it'll just be a flash in the pan.
Naivete about trademarks [check] (A trademark need not be registered to be enforceable, just clearly marked)
Apple fanbois saying that apple can do no wrong [check]
Apple anti-fanbois saying apple can do no right [check]
GNUtards expressing blanket anti-IP sentiments [check]
My take:
Apple is clearly not a historical good player, where it comes to the blatant co-opting of trademarks, case in point: OS9 vice MacOS9 (OS9 is a trademark of microware for a TRS-80C operating system, built for the 6809 chipset), the iphone/ios thing (the only reason any settlement at all was proposed was IOS was so entrenched that Apple was guaranteed a court loss), and many other trademarks Apple just steamrolled without checking. I suspect they didn't do due diligence at all, just because it seems that they never have before. I submit that the first "look and feel" lawsuits that Apple started were naught but an extension of this, given that the look and feel that apple was litigating was actually developed by Xerox at PARC, which both Microsoft and Apple liberally ripped off. While I doubt iCloud was much more than a shell company built as a IP landmine, Apple has yet to prove that their due diligence is much more than asking around the offices at Cupertino if anyone's ever heard of a given name. I predict that unless iCloud finds some deep pockets (I heard that there's a few deep pockets around that don't like Apple, some in Redmond), Apple will just keep raising the ante until iCloud's basically forced to settle.
So wait, we're supposed to do analysis for free for the NYT, which will then hide said work behind their paywall? Yeah, suuuure.
I'm going to go right ahead and say they ain't codeMASTERS if they got hacked....
When they make magnaram for Solaris/SPARC, let me know, until then, kindly keep your platform-dependent solutions to yourself.
They closed the memory leak bug with wontfix. NOW all of a sudden they care about memory? Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm sorry, but on the trust scale, Google, who has yet to lie to me, wins big over Gartner, who lies through their teeth every time they review a product. I still recall Gartner recommending WinME. 'Nuff said there....
From a consumer perspective, the lower the bar is for "effective security measures" the better, because if an attacker breaks ineffective security measures, you're basically on the "caveat emptor" hook, meaning you failed to do due diligence, therefore any losses are yours. If the security's effective, the bank's on the hook for any losses due to theft. Think of it this way, your bank has a wooden safe, and a robber gets in, you try to sue the bank for your losses, the bank says "well, duh, we had a wooden safe, what'd you expect?", and gets off the hook, while if the bank has a steel vault, you sue, and the bank's required by fiduciary duty to cover your loss, even though it's not negligent. Kinda twisted, huh? But then again, look at the rhetoric flying around Washington about the banks, banking law is truly down the rabbit-hole.
It's an ocean depth, it should properly be in fathoms. SI doesn't apply to nautical charts, they're still in NMi and fathoms (it's 6033 fathoms, BTW)
not the $%^& series, dolt
To the rest of us, rougelikes are just that, clones of rogue. Clearly Star Trek isn't a roguelike, yet it's "about using an unpredictable toolkit with complex interactions in order to overcome unpredictable challenges.", no?
the cruzado/cruziero shuffle has been happening about every 10-15 years since 1965. I'll believe it when Brazil has had the same currency for 2 1/2 or 3 decades. Until then, it's just another bit of noise.
Given that Brazil when it revalues their currency switches between "cruzado" and "cruzerio" (and most recently "real", short for "cruzerio real") on an almost clockwork basis, invariably involving a devaluation of 1,000:1 or some other ridiculous figure like that, were they planning on using Cruzados or Cruzerios to exchange, and how many truckloads of whatever they use will it take to make a Rand, Ruble, Yuan, or Rupee?
Google's under fire for fragmenting Java and for relicensing GPL code. Sounds like they're fragmenting two codebases to make the bloody thing, so my response to them is:"karma's a bitch."
well, the IDG article calls it a Word document, so I'm assuming word macro or VBA script
I mean, really, did anybody actually expect facebook to not sell your information to the highest bidder? If you put up real information, expect it to be used. The solution: LIE like a rug! Tell them your home address is 1060 W Addison, Chicago, IL (yeah, that one's kinda lame, copying SNL is good only for laughs). Tell them your phone number is 555-1212. Whatever, be creative.
the server's slashdotted