Submarine patents were worse than that. They'd file, then they were able to change the patent before it was issued.
So...
You file a generic patent on some new tech which is on the horizon. E.g. securely replicating web applications for mobile users. You don't know your own implementation, that doesn't matter.
You wait for somebody to come up with a working implementation, filing "continuations" to your patent, stalling the issuing
Somebody implements the idea
You file continuations to cause your patent to match their working implementation
You stop filing continuations
The patent office issues your patent
You sue the orignal inventor for rights to their own creation.
I'm 30 and I still hear it. It's a disgusting sound. I can hear it throughout a house with a television. It hits you at a subconcious level too... like a fan running or other sources of white noise... I feel relieved when the thing is turned off and the sound stops.
Computer monitors with higher refresh rates and LCD displays are so nice.
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
I was a potential juror for a narcotics offense. Some guy was caught with some piddly amount of cocaine, and a dozen police officers and detectives were involved in the fellow's takedown.
I was kind of torn, I wasn't so sure it should be a criminal offense. It was a shame they found all the jurors they needed before they reached me as a potential. It would have been interesting to hear what the lawyers would have thought regarding the viewpoint.
I could try him impartially, no problem there. But I'd feel sick convicting him if that really were the only thing he did.
Several months ago, a Canadian radio program brought in some "experts" from law enforcement and the legal profession. The problem as they describe is not that the evidence is faulty, it's that the expectations of evidence is elevated, and what is considered "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt" is blown out of proportion.
Jurors begin playing lawyer, asking for evidence and trails of evidence to ensure that there was no logical possibilty that the evidence was tainted. They'll also ask for DNA evidence, fingerprinting, bloodsplattering, balistics, etc. when it is inappropriate. They'll raise the possibility of police mishandling of evidence if all these various techniques are not being used... obviously there *must* be a cover-up if there's no detailed balistics report, or if the body wasn't autopsied.
The defense lawyer should be making these cases, they are in a better position to understand the limits of what is reasonable. Admittedly, it makes their job easy when reasonable doubt becomes unreasonable, but it's gotten bad enough to slow down and cause problems for jury selection.
I can't bear to watch CSI. It's not even fiction, it's pure fantasy.
The English "or" is an exclusive OR. The boolean OR is an inclusive OR.
When you ask somebody if they'd like to have their cake or eat it, you're not implying that both is an option. If both were an option, you'd say "and/or", or you would provide "both" as a third option.
Ontario has the skill testing question too... Hmm... I always thought "skill testing question" was misleading, do you know what the literal phrase in French might be and how you would translate it literally into English?
Sometimes the French is more descriptive... and sometimes it isn't. e.g. "Egg nog" vs. "Lait de Poulet"
By response, I think he means that the bass speaker needs to be able to reset itself and recharge its capacitors before the next beat. If it doesn't, then you're losing effectiveness.
What's this about tweeters being in phase? Just as long as you're not introducing a delay in the circuits, right?
Hardware manufacturers ignore Linux because binary-only drivers are a legal grey area. It must begin to hurt their bottom line not to support Linux before they'll do anything about it.
Software companies don't have a stable desktop API to target.
Software companies which don't rely on a desktop API have no problem with Linux. E.g. DB/2, Oracle, Java, etc.
The multi-paned desktop environment seems to be required only because X11 doesn't have a concept of maximized windows or decent keyboard shortcuts to move between apps non-visually.
A terminal shell to a Linux machine is just as good as a local shell on a Linux machine. Linux is awesome at network transparency... Using a Windows client and a Linux server plays to Linux's strengths and Windows' weaknesses. You get the best of both worlds.
You seem to be suggesting that a dedicated Linux server and a dedicated Linux client is better than a dedicated Linux server with virtualized Linux sandboxes and a dedicated Windows client. I can't agree. Your argument seems to center around the notion that Windows is useless though. I can't agree with that either.
For a home machine, crashes are just fine. Remote exploits are not.
I run my home server headless and use Cygwin/X for remote apps anyways. It gives me a few Linux apps on my Windows machine and keeps away the kind of instability you describe. IMHO, Windows is by far a better desktop OS than Linux... but Linux is a better server and has some fantastic tools.
It's easier for sysadmins to say "sure, here's root, blow it up", than "no, you can't have root on this box, we'll consider your request for the patch during the next maintinence window"
It also lets you spawn dedicated servers in software.
For my home machine, my "server" can be stripped down to the most bare of bare components while my "sandbox" can have the compiler, web browser and other junk.
It's totally correct. Poorly written documents will be reformatted into oblivion when the page and font metrics change with the printer drivers.
You need to PDF stuff if you want to protect it from this kind of reformatting... or you need to know how to use a wordprocessor to do styles, orphan protection, and other basic concepts... basic concepts which Word's counter-intuitive design impede people from learning.
Slashdot Mirror
We should be teaching children their "QWE"'s not their "ABC"'s
Submarine patents were worse than that. They'd file, then they were able to change the patent before it was issued.
So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_app lication
I'm 30 and I still hear it. It's a disgusting sound. I can hear it throughout a house with a television. It hits you at a subconcious level too... like a fan running or other sources of white noise... I feel relieved when the thing is turned off and the sound stops.
Computer monitors with higher refresh rates and LCD displays are so nice.
So you're saying you want to see my frontal lobe?
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
--Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
I was a potential juror for a narcotics offense. Some guy was caught with some piddly amount of cocaine, and a dozen police officers and detectives were involved in the fellow's takedown.
I was kind of torn, I wasn't so sure it should be a criminal offense. It was a shame they found all the jurors they needed before they reached me as a potential. It would have been interesting to hear what the lawyers would have thought regarding the viewpoint.
I could try him impartially, no problem there. But I'd feel sick convicting him if that really were the only thing he did.
Several months ago, a Canadian radio program brought in some "experts" from law enforcement and the legal profession. The problem as they describe is not that the evidence is faulty, it's that the expectations of evidence is elevated, and what is considered "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt" is blown out of proportion.
Jurors begin playing lawyer, asking for evidence and trails of evidence to ensure that there was no logical possibilty that the evidence was tainted. They'll also ask for DNA evidence, fingerprinting, bloodsplattering, balistics, etc. when it is inappropriate. They'll raise the possibility of police mishandling of evidence if all these various techniques are not being used... obviously there *must* be a cover-up if there's no detailed balistics report, or if the body wasn't autopsied.
The defense lawyer should be making these cases, they are in a better position to understand the limits of what is reasonable. Admittedly, it makes their job easy when reasonable doubt becomes unreasonable, but it's gotten bad enough to slow down and cause problems for jury selection.
I can't bear to watch CSI. It's not even fiction, it's pure fantasy.
There's an upside and a downside.
If you don't dress well, you won't get promoted to management.
I forgot what the downside was.
Also in the article:
"He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."
The article is quite strange. Reading between the lines... he's gone from suicidal to modern miracle... I think he might be confused.
The English "or" is an exclusive OR. The boolean OR is an inclusive OR.
When you ask somebody if they'd like to have their cake or eat it, you're not implying that both is an option. If both were an option, you'd say "and/or", or you would provide "both" as a third option.
(it had to be said.)
They're hanging out with the Brex geologists and the engineers from the "Golden Palace.com Space Program Powered by the da Vinci" project.
How is that different than 0.001 LoC?
I do think the French is more descriptive... It's also a funny example. All these mamalian hens in Quebec.
I was wondering if the French term used for "skill testing question" might give a hint as to its real purpose.
Ontario has the skill testing question too... Hmm... I always thought "skill testing question" was misleading, do you know what the literal phrase in French might be and how you would translate it literally into English?
Sometimes the French is more descriptive... and sometimes it isn't. e.g. "Egg nog" vs. "Lait de Poulet"
Oh yeah, I jumped too when I read this in the MS EULA. "the lord of the ground sal have the maidinhead of all virginis dwelling on the same."
http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm
By response, I think he means that the bass speaker needs to be able to reset itself and recharge its capacitors before the next beat. If it doesn't, then you're losing effectiveness.
What's this about tweeters being in phase? Just as long as you're not introducing a delay in the circuits, right?
Hardware manufacturers ignore Linux because binary-only drivers are a legal grey area. It must begin to hurt their bottom line not to support Linux before they'll do anything about it.
Software companies don't have a stable desktop API to target.
Software companies which don't rely on a desktop API have no problem with Linux. E.g. DB/2, Oracle, Java, etc.
Oh yeah, and Vader's helmet is a stylized WWII German military helmet :-)
The multi-paned desktop environment seems to be required only because X11 doesn't have a concept of maximized windows or decent keyboard shortcuts to move between apps non-visually.
A terminal shell to a Linux machine is just as good as a local shell on a Linux machine. Linux is awesome at network transparency... Using a Windows client and a Linux server plays to Linux's strengths and Windows' weaknesses. You get the best of both worlds.
You seem to be suggesting that a dedicated Linux server and a dedicated Linux client is better than a dedicated Linux server with virtualized Linux sandboxes and a dedicated Windows client. I can't agree. Your argument seems to center around the notion that Windows is useless though. I can't agree with that either.
For a home machine, crashes are just fine. Remote exploits are not.
I run my home server headless and use Cygwin/X for remote apps anyways. It gives me a few Linux apps on my Windows machine and keeps away the kind of instability you describe. IMHO, Windows is by far a better desktop OS than Linux... but Linux is a better server and has some fantastic tools.
It's easier for sysadmins to say "sure, here's root, blow it up", than "no, you can't have root on this box, we'll consider your request for the patch during the next maintinence window"
It also lets you spawn dedicated servers in software.
For my home machine, my "server" can be stripped down to the most bare of bare components while my "sandbox" can have the compiler, web browser and other junk.
Does anywhere other than Cologne and Dusseldorf have those silly little (expensive) beer glasses?
It's totally correct. Poorly written documents will be reformatted into oblivion when the page and font metrics change with the printer drivers.
You need to PDF stuff if you want to protect it from this kind of reformatting... or you need to know how to use a wordprocessor to do styles, orphan protection, and other basic concepts... basic concepts which Word's counter-intuitive design impede people from learning.
Yeah, the EFF is going to sue this "China" out of existance! They don't stand a chance!