As long as you insist on "It's a Windows problem" rather than "It's a user education problem" the battle will never be won.
As long as you insist that it is a "user education problem" the battle will never be won. It's a user motivation problem and no, I don't know how to solve it.
it's just my entertainment PC, and it's not a big deal if someone knows what I watch on netflix
What about all the spam it was hammering out? As soon as you believe a machine to be infected the honorable thing to do is unplug it from the Net until you can fix it.
None of that matters. Basically, as long as Google is not using the mark "JAVA" to sell anything they are not infringing Oracle's trademark. It's perfectly legal to use someone else's "trademarked" word, as long as you don't confuse the public as to what they are buying or act in a way that would "dilute" the mark.
> So where do you see that they're not calling it Java?
Where do you see that Google is selling anything called Java? A trademark is not a copyright. Oracle would certainly be alleging trademark infringement if they thought that they stood any chance of convincing the court that their trademark was being infringed. As far as I can tell they are not.
As nearly as I can tell from the (garbled as usual) article this is about a combination filter and polarizer, not a new type of display. The pixels would still be liquid crystal and I see nothing here that would make them smaller: just more efficient.
These guys claim to have observed systematic variation in decay rates. They then theorized that the variation is connected with solar neutrinos. Invalidating the theory (it seems implausible to me) in no way invalidates the observations.
And by the time we got a reply, we might not even be using conventional radio signaling anymore...
I don't think it too much of a stretch to assume that, knowing that we sent out a radio signal, we just might keep listening for a radio reply even after we quit using radio ourselves.
This probably isn't a suitable system to transmit toward, though. Kepler will find better candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
Ftfy. Studying sea floor mining is not new.
> LILO always struck me as very fragile...
Looks like Grub is pretty fragile, too. The fact is, pc booting is badly broken.
> You have an alternative?
Cruise missiles.
Education cures ignorance, not stupidity.
As long as you insist that it is a "user education problem" the battle will never be won. It's a user motivation problem and no, I don't know how to solve it.
If every outgoing spam cost them $5 they'd become "aware" very quickly (yes, I know that's impractical and a bad idea for many reasons).
What about all the spam it was hammering out? As soon as you believe a machine to be infected the honorable thing to do is unplug it from the Net until you can fix it.
Excessive. A satchel charge in each server room would suffice.
I don't understand why that's such a big deal.
None of that matters. Basically, as long as Google is not using the mark "JAVA" to sell anything they are not infringing Oracle's trademark. It's perfectly legal to use someone else's "trademarked" word, as long as you don't confuse the public as to what they are buying or act in a way that would "dilute" the mark.
We call that LILO.
And yes, LILO is still supported and under development. LILO 23
That would probably not help with the purported patent infringements.
> So where do you see that they're not calling it Java?
Where do you see that Google is selling anything called Java? A trademark is not a copyright. Oracle would certainly be alleging trademark infringement if they thought that they stood any chance of convincing the court that their trademark was being infringed. As far as I can tell they are not.
Can Oracle's reputation get any worse?
Oracle is sueing for patent infringement, not trademark infringement.
Yes, with a seperate LCD shutter for each subpixel, just like LCDs currently use.
That what I said. But that's all it does: there is no electrical control. You still need LCD pixels for that.
While better than nothing, it's a poor substitute for the real thing.
As nearly as I can tell from the (garbled as usual) article this is about a combination filter and polarizer, not a new type of display. The pixels would still be liquid crystal and I see nothing here that would make them smaller: just more efficient.
These guys claim to have observed systematic variation in decay rates. They then theorized that the variation is connected with solar neutrinos. Invalidating the theory (it seems implausible to me) in no way invalidates the observations.
It's generic in a different market. "Apple" is generic in the fruit business but Apple still has a trademark on it in the computer business.
I don't think it too much of a stretch to assume that, knowing that we sent out a radio signal, we just might keep listening for a radio reply even after we quit using radio ourselves.
This probably isn't a suitable system to transmit toward, though. Kepler will find better candidates.
Where did I say that?
> On the other hand, I have never been near a Prius...
You probably have but it was so quiet you didn't notice it.