Maybe I missed it, but I find it interesting that the patent doesn't explicitly state what a social networking service *is*. Sure, we all "know" what it is -- but in something like a patent shouldn't this be very clearly defined? What if a "social networking service" encompasses presence/IM/chat software? The XMPP protocol (Jabber, now owned by Cisco, is based off this) has drafts (see XEP-0080) already written for providing user location in that context. I'm sure this isn't the only draft written of its kind. Think of large enterprise solutions such as Microsoft OCS, Cisco Unified Presence, Avaya OneX. I bet they all have location solutions in the works. Do these fit into the realm of "social networking services"?
At some of the break rooms at my job there are sensors on the walls that detect movement in the room. When you walk into the room, the lights turn on. After some certain amount of time without any motion in the room they automatically turn off. They're pretty nifty AND energy-saving.
I don't think he plans for the "request/respond" protocols to be used everywhere in a network. The issue is when many users are requesting the same data. Take for example when a site gets "slashdotted," it'd be more efficient if there weren't several thousand requests for the same exact index.html from some host being individually transmitted through the network.
In your example of tracking users on Slashdot, parts of that could fall back on the current conversational protocols. It should probably be possible for clients to decide on whether they want to request data by means of the broadcast system or the conversational system. Then I guess the issue is how does the client decide when it should use one or when it should use the other?
Or, maybe custom homepages and whatnot would have to start being initiated by the client sending a request indicating it needs a specific set of data, instead of the server side realizing that a specific client is requesting data and that it should send the modified data. So in other words, you'd still have to know you want to receive a certain set of data.
There's definitely a lot of finer details to this...
Maybe they didn't include basic information on purpose so that you'd RTFAs they linked to.
What's the point of the abstract then? Let's just all link to the website, give the headline, and say "discuss" on this website from now on. That'll really get people's attention to comment, won't it...
What do you mean? I'm a student majoring in engineering at NC State and there's all kinds of programs, career fairs, etc. and people here to help you get employed while you're here and set up some contacts for when you leave. It's all your responsibility though to take some initiative, they aren't going to spoon feed you a job. There's hundreds of employers interested in hiring students from this school for internships. This area gives kids in the tech field a great opportunity to get internships because we're so close to Research Triangle Park. I'm sure many other schools that are big into science and tech offer the same programs.
FTA: His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
I don't see how this can be true (and I especially dislike how that end of the article makes the headline here), seeing as how the Cardinal said his belief was that the story of Genesis shows how God was creator of the Earth and all things on it, whether it was by way of evolution as His tool or otherwise.
I think the Cardinal is saying that God could have orchestrated every element of evolution, using it as his tool to create life, and I fail to see how this rejects any views that the universe was formed by means of an intelligent designer.
Norton bogs down machines because by default it is set to do all kinds of scans in the background every time you are downloading or opening a file and other things like that. If you use a combination of virus protection with just good computer sense then you can minimize the amount of crap Norton needs to be doing in the background designed for people who click on anything before thinking about what it is.
If you're really serious into FPS games (as in, making money off it, and believe me that's happening; See The CPL, ESWC, WCG) then over the last year or two mice have really advanced.
First of all the new ergonomic designs simply make it a lot easier to make large mouse movements across a big pad since your fingers are positioned somewhat on the sides instead of totally over the top. Most big-time FPS gamers use a lower sensitivity and a large mousepad surface.
Second, the optical sensors in the mice have advanced as well, for example with Logitech's MX518 supporting 1600DPI as opposed to most 800DPI sensors. That makes every little movement you make much more accurate.
Whether it's really making a big difference at all in terms of aiming and skill, it's probably something that wouldn't be explicable by a gamer but you could just "feel" like the mouse is more responsive.
One of the advantages of open source projects is that anyone can contribute to the project and so you often have a lot of people submitting code and ideas, making the application better over time with this collective development and knowledge. So opening up the code to other companies like this kind of achieves that same goal.
So while companies like TI try to resolve high-cost issues for mobility in developing nations, it seems like the trend here in North America is to see how much crap we can fit in to a $300+ cell phone: Video cameras, terrible quality picture cameras, cellphone PDAs, etc.
Don't get me wrong I like my full-featured cellphones with things like web access for weather, advanced contact lists, text messaging, etc., but nowadays it's hard to find a well built phone without something... unphony... that you end up paying for and not making a good enough use out of.
Most cell phones these days have the capability for upgrading firmware, which you could either download over the wireless or take into your wireless carrier's nearest store and have them do it for you there. I'm sure all cell phone companies will come out with updates for the phones that automatically adjust time for daylight savings.
Right. People here are quick to lash out at laws that are designed to allow the feds to "snoop" (i.e. the FCC VoIP backdoor thing from yesterday). The limitations removed for law enforcement by these laws is designed to be used responsibly and for the right reasons (well what would be classified as right in the eyes of law enforcement at the time) with warrants needing to be issued and such.
People become too concerned and start thinking that every Joe Agent out there is going to take advantage of his "snooping powers" and put it to bad use somehow, but then Joe Agent becomes just as much of a criminal as the people he seeks to prosecute daily in the eyes of the justice system. There are unethical and immoral people all over out there, but then again there's also a much larger majority that abides by moral and ethical standards. Some people should calm down a bit and stop assuming that everyone working to protect the commonwealth is really against us.
People like you are so paranoid. What do you think the government wants to spy on you for? They have no motive, or at least they shouldn't. Saying that they want to keep tabs on 99.9% of the legit people on the Internet is just stupid. The government isn't interested ingoing after people for legal activity.
Times have changed now in the last 5-6 years... the administrations can use fighting terrorism as a major catalyst to get all this legislation passed. The Clinton administration didn't quite have that leverage.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this just mandating that wiretapping for federal agencies be supported by the broadband voice networks? How is this any different from wiretapping a typical phone line. I'm not sure what the big deal is here... I can see that no one really just wants the government to have the ability to easily start a wiretap but this type of thing has already been in place for 10+ years on the old phone lines.
Looking at that picture of YaST2, I had no idea it was like that now. The last time I had used SuSE was back when it was 6.3... and YaST was still a pretty flaky text-only configuration tool (even though it was still one of the best attempts at making the task of configuration a little more painless). It's really nice to come back to a project and see that it has made so much progress (of course though I would expect lots of development like this out of a major corporation).
But that's what I mean about Netscape... perhaps I wasn't clear. Netscape is direct competition to IE, unlike the iPod which MS has nothing directly to compete against (although your WM argument does make sense, didn't think of that).
What I'm saying is I don't think it'd be logical for MS to force competitors out of using a product they don't have an alternative for themselves.
No, Microsoft currently doesn't have anything to compete against the iPod. Just the fact that Apple and MS are market rivals doesn't mean that MS would try to threaten a company like HP from promoting Apple products.
Canadians and Mexicans, who fall under special immigration rules, are exempt from needing the chip.
So this means that only people who AREN'T citizens of Canada/Mexico trying to cross the border into the US will need this RFID chip. (maybe permanent residents are excluded also?) This discourages (or, at least makes it harder for) foreigners from entering Canada, which has less strict immigration rules (at least I know many Canadians think so), and then entering America because the US has one of the most open borders in the world with the Canadians.
The US likes to place a lot of blame on our neighboring nations for letting "terrorists" into their nations and then crossing over our rather unstrict borders. It's not too hard to establish this in our terror-paranoid society today.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I missed it, but I find it interesting that the patent doesn't explicitly state what a social networking service *is*. Sure, we all "know" what it is -- but in something like a patent shouldn't this be very clearly defined? What if a "social networking service" encompasses presence/IM/chat software? The XMPP protocol (Jabber, now owned by Cisco, is based off this) has drafts (see XEP-0080) already written for providing user location in that context. I'm sure this isn't the only draft written of its kind. Think of large enterprise solutions such as Microsoft OCS, Cisco Unified Presence, Avaya OneX. I bet they all have location solutions in the works. Do these fit into the realm of "social networking services"?
At some of the break rooms at my job there are sensors on the walls that detect movement in the room. When you walk into the room, the lights turn on. After some certain amount of time without any motion in the room they automatically turn off. They're pretty nifty AND energy-saving.
This guy seriously sounds like a crack head going insane from all the blinking stuff in his room.
I don't think he plans for the "request/respond" protocols to be used everywhere in a network. The issue is when many users are requesting the same data. Take for example when a site gets "slashdotted," it'd be more efficient if there weren't several thousand requests for the same exact index.html from some host being individually transmitted through the network.
In your example of tracking users on Slashdot, parts of that could fall back on the current conversational protocols. It should probably be possible for clients to decide on whether they want to request data by means of the broadcast system or the conversational system. Then I guess the issue is how does the client decide when it should use one or when it should use the other?
Or, maybe custom homepages and whatnot would have to start being initiated by the client sending a request indicating it needs a specific set of data, instead of the server side realizing that a specific client is requesting data and that it should send the modified data. So in other words, you'd still have to know you want to receive a certain set of data.
There's definitely a lot of finer details to this...
Maybe they didn't include basic information on purpose so that you'd RTFAs they linked to.
What's the point of the abstract then? Let's just all link to the website, give the headline, and say "discuss" on this website from now on. That'll really get people's attention to comment, won't it...
If everyone just googled "How to make a nuclear bomb."
;D
There'd be a lot of doors getting knocked on
What do you mean? I'm a student majoring in engineering at NC State and there's all kinds of programs, career fairs, etc. and people here to help you get employed while you're here and set up some contacts for when you leave. It's all your responsibility though to take some initiative, they aren't going to spoon feed you a job. There's hundreds of employers interested in hiring students from this school for internships. This area gives kids in the tech field a great opportunity to get internships because we're so close to Research Triangle Park. I'm sure many other schools that are big into science and tech offer the same programs.
That poor guy thought he was being creative and funny. Leave it up to someone out there to have already beat him to it AND got the website for it.
FTA:
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
I don't see how this can be true (and I especially dislike how that end of the article makes the headline here), seeing as how the Cardinal said his belief was that the story of Genesis shows how God was creator of the Earth and all things on it, whether it was by way of evolution as His tool or otherwise.
I think the Cardinal is saying that God could have orchestrated every element of evolution, using it as his tool to create life, and I fail to see how this rejects any views that the universe was formed by means of an intelligent designer.
Norton bogs down machines because by default it is set to do all kinds of scans in the background every time you are downloading or opening a file and other things like that. If you use a combination of virus protection with just good computer sense then you can minimize the amount of crap Norton needs to be doing in the background designed for people who click on anything before thinking about what it is.
If you're really serious into FPS games (as in, making money off it, and believe me that's happening; See The CPL, ESWC, WCG) then over the last year or two mice have really advanced.
First of all the new ergonomic designs simply make it a lot easier to make large mouse movements across a big pad since your fingers are positioned somewhat on the sides instead of totally over the top. Most big-time FPS gamers use a lower sensitivity and a large mousepad surface.
Second, the optical sensors in the mice have advanced as well, for example with Logitech's MX518 supporting 1600DPI as opposed to most 800DPI sensors. That makes every little movement you make much more accurate.
Whether it's really making a big difference at all in terms of aiming and skill, it's probably something that wouldn't be explicable by a gamer but you could just "feel" like the mouse is more responsive.
One of the advantages of open source projects is that anyone can contribute to the project and so you often have a lot of people submitting code and ideas, making the application better over time with this collective development and knowledge. So opening up the code to other companies like this kind of achieves that same goal.
So while companies like TI try to resolve high-cost issues for mobility in developing nations, it seems like the trend here in North America is to see how much crap we can fit in to a $300+ cell phone: Video cameras, terrible quality picture cameras, cellphone PDAs, etc.
Don't get me wrong I like my full-featured cellphones with things like web access for weather, advanced contact lists, text messaging, etc., but nowadays it's hard to find a well built phone without something... unphony... that you end up paying for and not making a good enough use out of.
Most cell phones these days have the capability for upgrading firmware, which you could either download over the wireless or take into your wireless carrier's nearest store and have them do it for you there. I'm sure all cell phone companies will come out with updates for the phones that automatically adjust time for daylight savings.
Right. People here are quick to lash out at laws that are designed to allow the feds to "snoop" (i.e. the FCC VoIP backdoor thing from yesterday). The limitations removed for law enforcement by these laws is designed to be used responsibly and for the right reasons (well what would be classified as right in the eyes of law enforcement at the time) with warrants needing to be issued and such.
People become too concerned and start thinking that every Joe Agent out there is going to take advantage of his "snooping powers" and put it to bad use somehow, but then Joe Agent becomes just as much of a criminal as the people he seeks to prosecute daily in the eyes of the justice system. There are unethical and immoral people all over out there, but then again there's also a much larger majority that abides by moral and ethical standards. Some people should calm down a bit and stop assuming that everyone working to protect the commonwealth is really against us.
People like you are so paranoid. What do you think the government wants to spy on you for? They have no motive, or at least they shouldn't. Saying that they want to keep tabs on 99.9% of the legit people on the Internet is just stupid. The government isn't interested ingoing after people for legal activity.
The title of this article puts into my head visions of millions of pac-men chomping down on the ocean.
Times have changed now in the last 5-6 years... the administrations can use fighting terrorism as a major catalyst to get all this legislation passed. The Clinton administration didn't quite have that leverage.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this just mandating that wiretapping for federal agencies be supported by the broadband voice networks? How is this any different from wiretapping a typical phone line. I'm not sure what the big deal is here... I can see that no one really just wants the government to have the ability to easily start a wiretap but this type of thing has already been in place for 10+ years on the old phone lines.
Yeah speaking of commercials, has anyone seen a monster.com commercial lately? Those things used to run all the time.
Looking at that picture of YaST2, I had no idea it was like that now. The last time I had used SuSE was back when it was 6.3... and YaST was still a pretty flaky text-only configuration tool (even though it was still one of the best attempts at making the task of configuration a little more painless). It's really nice to come back to a project and see that it has made so much progress (of course though I would expect lots of development like this out of a major corporation).
Who's going to arrest them... why, the government of course. The government arrests people in the government lots you know ;)
But that's what I mean about Netscape... perhaps I wasn't clear. Netscape is direct competition to IE, unlike the iPod which MS has nothing directly to compete against (although your WM argument does make sense, didn't think of that).
What I'm saying is I don't think it'd be logical for MS to force competitors out of using a product they don't have an alternative for themselves.
No, Microsoft currently doesn't have anything to compete against the iPod. Just the fact that Apple and MS are market rivals doesn't mean that MS would try to threaten a company like HP from promoting Apple products.
FTA:
Canadians and Mexicans, who fall under special immigration rules, are exempt from needing the chip.
So this means that only people who AREN'T citizens of Canada/Mexico trying to cross the border into the US will need this RFID chip. (maybe permanent residents are excluded also?) This discourages (or, at least makes it harder for) foreigners from entering Canada, which has less strict immigration rules (at least I know many Canadians think so), and then entering America because the US has one of the most open borders in the world with the Canadians.
The US likes to place a lot of blame on our neighboring nations for letting "terrorists" into their nations and then crossing over our rather unstrict borders. It's not too hard to establish this in our terror-paranoid society today.