The "device" is also a retarded patent - the claim trail goes back to '99, but BUSES using the same setup were being trialed in Norway back in the '70s.
Prior art - and not just a "concept", but a working implementation.
So "preheating the engine in the device" is also invalid.
The USPTO has to go back to demanding working implementations before granting a patent. Not that it's going to matter in another decade, since the world+dog will have moved its' economic center to somewhere on the other side of the globe, when the US defaults on its' debt.
Nope - culture, publishing, etc. was specifically EXEMPTED in NAFTA.
And if you want to end NAFTA, be our guest. We'd love to see the provisions that guarantee you access to our specific percentages of our water and energy lifted, now that the auto makers aren't keeping up with keeping a proportionate share of production in Canada (I'm looking at you, Ford!).
Don't forget - we're your #1 supplier of petroleum products - more than Saudi Arabia. If NAFTA goes, we can charge less for oil in our domestic markets, and grab a significant chunk of what's left of US manufacturing. And what you don't want to buy, China will be happy to take.
This looks like stuff they had in Scientific American back in 1972. Even the microcontroller was anticipated. The only addition (and it's mostly a bullshit one) is "a two-speed transmission may further be provided, to further broaden the vehicle's load range". CVT transmissions weren't envisioned then.
Sure enough, if you look at the list of cited patents, they go back to the early 70s. This is not new, and should not have received a separate patent as an "invention". There's zero inventing involved.
Sample bogus claims:
11. The hybrid vehicle of claim 10, wherein said engine is preheated prior to starting.
16. The method of claim 13, comprising the further step of preheating said engine prior to starting.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein said engine is preheated prior to starting.
This is broad enough to be claiming a patent on a f*cking block heater on any hybrid.
Never mind all the "non-invention-ness" of:
6. The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein said engine comprises a turbocharger operable to increase the maximum torque output by said engine, and wherein said turbocharger is so operated when the power required of said engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein said engine comprises a turbocharger operable to increase the maximum torque output by said engine, and wherein said controller causes said turbocharger to be so operated when the power required of said engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
23. The method of claim 22, further comprising: operating a turbocharger coupled to the engine of the hybrid vehicle to increase maximum torque output (MTO) produced by the engine when torque required of the engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
- in other words the "invention" of using a turbo-charger to increase performance.
Gee, why not add a supercharger at the same time? No turbo lag, etc.
Your patent system is fucked up. Hopefully the Japs will do everyone a favour and do a a Pearl Harbour on it.
Re:Crossbrowser libraries just perpetuate the prob
on
Learning Ext JS
·
· Score: 1
Now, you expect me, one of two developers at a small company, to approach a client like Avnet or the Air Force, and try to dictate IT policy to them?
No, I expect you to see the opportunity, show them the lower costs and better security, make some nice presentations, and use that to enhance your stature in their eyes so that the next time they get p0wned, some PHB has a knee-jerk reaction and says "Call this guy - he warned us about this!"
It's called playing politics, and you have to play the game to get ahead. Read a couple of Dilbert books to put you in the right frame of mind (if it doesn't just depress the hell out of you that people are so stupid).
Like they don't have an IT staff who already knows everything I might tell them?
Yeah, right... most of the "IT staff" are monkeys, same as anywhere else, and the ones who aren't, aren't going to waste their time with such low-level considerations as web browsers - they're working with data, not some boss who can't get rid of the p0rn pop-ups.
And those who are in between support monkey and the real IT staff are mostly just there to keep doing what they're doing. They couldn't effect change if their life depended on it.
Also, "technology company" doesn't mean they necessarily know shit about how to migrate from IE. For example, Avnet (stock symbol AVT sells electronic components and non-pc servers. That's why they go outside for software development - they don't have the expertise in-house for pc-related problems.
So why not recognize an opportunity when you see one? You don't have to replace IE - just offer to help them supplant it with safer, peer-reviewed technology that has a faster update cycle and will SAVE THEM MONEY!!!
The problem is that the CCTV cameras have proven to be very ineffective in deterring crime.
The MOST effective has been cops patrolling - either walking the beat, on bikes, horse, or patrol car.
This is going to increase crime:
Blackmail, David Letterman - style - "I saw what you did and I have a video. Either give me $$$ or I tell the cops which camera, and the timestamp";
Recruiting kids for crime - "Hey, I see you guys are always hanging around here - want to make some $$$ selling drugs?"
Casing future "jobs" - "Hey look - they close shop at 9pm, and then there's the last person to leave at 10pm, and on Thursdays they then go and make the night deposit - let's relieve them of that burden."
Cyber-stalking.
This is just taking a bad idea and making it worse.
I would argue that, if your company is paying you, it is very much their business how you represent your company.
... and I would argue that if they want to tell me how to dress, they should have to pay for it with their pre-tax dollars. Then I'd point out that what they're requiring is really a company "uniform", and that the law here is clear - they are required to pay for employee uniforms.
As to this whole avatar junk, second life will never be "where it's at", so who gives a shit about avatars anyways, except for those trying to generate "buzz" (like Gartner) because they have nothing of substance to offer.
Better yet, when't the last time that Gartner came out with something that didn't want to make you tag it "wankers"
Gartner gets so many things wrong, so much of the time, why should this be any different?
The day someone tells me how to dress is the day they find out that they can't tell me how to dress.
As long as it's clean, presentable, and isn't festooned with slogans promoting criminal acts or competitors' products, it's simply not their business.
And it's not like an avatar is going to have to abide by safety codes like "hard hats required beyond this point".
If your company is depending on avatars to try to hide the fact that "Bob" in customer support in Idaho is really "Bashir" in New Dehli, it ain't gonna work.
Everyone in Quebec knew the same week he was arrested that it was his daughters. Anyone familiar with the laws, the courts' restrictions, and with the family situation, quickly put 2 and 2 together.
Some of the smaller french print media quickly published the fact that it was his daughters (without naming them) before the judge had a chance to issue the gag order - one of my co-workers had a copy of the article, and couldn't believe it - he was a big Hilton fan. The media get away with this from time to time because they don't publish the actual names (and by saying "one or more of his daughters", without identifying how manydaughters he had, they haven't identified the victims with certainty from only the information in the article... absent a gag order and absent a comlaint from the family, they're not going to get a spanking from the judge, who seem to understand the Streisand Effect).
It's the same thing as the Guy Laliberte ex-girlfriend lawsuit. Everyone knows that the Quebec billionaire who was being sued for $50 million in "palimony" was the Cirque de Soleil founder, despite the gag order. We know how to read between the lines, even if a quick net search hadn't turned up enough external evidence.
As for the plea bargain, sure ex parte communications made by either the prosecution or the defense are no-nos. However, the individual who made the inappropriate contact was not the prosecutor; yes, technically, since Wells was an attorney for the State, he was working for one of the parties, but this could also be said of anyone, even a parks groundskeeper. The attorney of record wasn't involved. The judge is dead. The simplest thing to do is let the plea bargain stand and hold a hearing "en blanc" for what the punishment should be...
... and THAT is not something Polanski would want, because he will definitely get jail time.
This is not something that will get the case dismissed - not even in a badly written TV show. Judges have to deal with this from time to time... and when they realize someone's trying to talk about a case with them outside the courtroom, they'll quickly say "Stop. You really can't be talking to me about this. I haven't listened to anything you've said. Now leave - before I change my mind."
Was showing the judge pictures of Polanski partying it up with other under-age kids wrong? Yes. Is it possible that the judge would have changed his mind about the plea bargain even without seeing the pictures? Yes - if you've ever talked to a judge about cases they've tried, they'll tell you that some cases stay in their minds outside the courtroom, at home, etc. This is one of those cases that a judge could very well have had "buyer's remorse" about accepting the plea bargain, so we cant say for certain whether the pics made a difference. Call it 50-50.
Polanski, if he hadn't fled, would have had a legal remedy. When you run, you can't complain at the hearing you skipped that the sentence isn't right. Ultimately, it's his own actions - from the rape to the running - that are the problem, not the courts.
Also:
Rape takes away the victims' power and self-esteem; forced exposure takes away their freedom.
Our continuing to treat it as something that should be hidden away just reinforces the low self-esteem and takes away their freedom to say "this happened to me and I want to be able to talk about it without shame or fear."
word count isn't going to affect their ability to convey the core of who they are all that much.
I have to agree that, at the small word counts we're looking at (whether it's 125 words or 500 words), this is true because there's not all that much there. Now, if they were talking about 5,000 - 25,000 words, there'd be a chance of actually getting to know a bit about the person behind the writing - sometimes.
Here's a thought. A better "test", if you really are interested in getting some insight into the person's capabilities, would probably be to have candidates take part in an online debate, subject not disclosed beforehand. You'll quickly sort out the wallflowers from the participators, those who can defend their ideas from those who go "because... I don't know, just 'cuz, okay", and those who can string together a cogent sentence consistently from the "my mom proof-reads all my submissions" crowd, as well as finding those candidates who can build upon other people's comments and come up with something approaching a solution.
You'd even get a transcript so that a second evaluator can compare notes, and so that the whole process can be evaluated, fine-tuned, etc.
Just a thought... but anything's got to be better than a twitter-sized "essay". It's not rocket science, after all.
Re:Crossbrowser libraries just perpetuate the prob
on
Learning Ext JS
·
· Score: 1
The fact is that I have customers using IE6. So my options are to 1) support IE6, or 2) lose customers.
...
they can choose to migrate if they want to.
... so why is "helping them migrate" not an option?
What, you don't want to get paid for providing that sort of useful, and over the long term, money-saving help?
Ethics don't even come into the picture.
... only true if you have none.
If you acknowledge that exploits that allow for system compromise and exposure of private data are more likely in environments where IE6 is still the "standard", then supporting IE6 is enabling such events. You become part of the problem, and nobody' going to be thanking you for it when it happens. Saying "I just did what the customer asked" is no more a defense, from an ethics point of view, than "I was just following orders."
It's because of the attitude of people like you that there's less pressure to fix non-standards-compliant systems. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Maybe one day, when we finally get the question of liability sorted out once and for all in the software field, such attitudes will be seen for what they are - reckless, negligent, unprofessional, and lazy.
Surely you're not going to advocate dropping all support for IE entirely.
If Microsoft (remember the image buffer overflow bug a while back that affected ALL versions of IE and was remotely exploitable?) and the DoD can come out and say "Don't use IE", why not?
Contrast with: "Shorter = less crap.", 1 symbol, 3 words, vs your 1 number, 7 words.
That's not even a repentance (sic), so it's a bad comparison.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Repentance:
1. The act or process of repenting.
2. Remorse or contrition for past conduct or sin
Just because it passed the "spillingckucker" doesn't make it correct.
But if you want, I can even remove the symbol:
"Shorter, less crap." 3 words.
Look, this whole MIT essay thing is not a valid method of weeding out candidates who have made it into the short list (the top 10%). Not if it's only going to be a couple of hundred words. And especially since you KNOW that there's a lot of apple-polishing and "writing to the test". Because it's not valid, it's inherently unfair, and too open to manipulation and evaluator bias. Better to contact the teachers, and ask for examples of submitted work that weren't written with MIT in mind, no?
Re:Crossbrowser libraries just perpetuate the prob
on
Learning Ext JS
·
· Score: 1
just because I want to do less work
That's NOT the reason. Talk about missing the point.
Quality: it's easier to produce quality with code that only has to meet the standards, and not diddle around with obsolete browsers.
Maintenance: 90% of the cost of software is maintenance. Standards-compatible code is cheaper in the long run.
Speed: quicker to produce, and quicker at run-time, if you just stick with the standards rather than trying to cover all the bases
Then there's the whole ethics question. Just as a car mechanic (car analogy time, folks) is prohibited by law from taking an unsafe vehicle, and "patching it" so that you can continue to operate it in an unsafe manner, we have a similar responsibility wrt IE6. I discussed this with a mechanical engineer last night, and when he was doing rail transportation safety, it was SOP that rail cars were not to leave the yards if both the car AND the load were not certified safe. If there was a question, they'd do a crash test. In one case the customer specified a certain type of car because it would be cheaper for them, but he refused to certify, because he believed the load would not be stable, despite being tied down. Sure enough. because this was a big order, and the customer was the government, he insisted on a crash test. The load arrived at the test site with the tie-downs already having worked themselves loose. The customer was told "you're not getting the cars you want, because our tests show it's not safe."
We already know that IE6 is a mess. We have a similar ethical responsibility to not continue to enable a bad situation. If their IT department doesn't want to do their jobs properly and ensure the use of better browsers, that's their problem, not yours.
We whine and bitch about software liability, and how the vendors don't even pay lip service to it. I'm in favour of software liability - at ALL levels. That includes both the big boys and independent devs and everyone in between. Why should this be the only industry where everyone shirks responsibility>
That sort of attitude is neither ethical, nor professional.
A few short counter-examples to prove you really don't get it:
With the tightrope example, you can dismiss the obvious answer (the tightrope) simply because it is obvious.
People are usually mistaken about what is "obvious", the truthfulness of it, as well as to whether it's actually all that obvious to others:
"Of course heavier objects fall faster - it's obvious" - but wrong
"Women have four fewer teeth than men" - Aristotle (and he had two wives - he could have checked
"That newfangled train is doomed - it's obvious that people won't be able to breathe properly if they travel that fast" - lots of people making fun of Fulton's Folly
"God made everything - it's obvious" - neither obvious nor correct
"It's obvious that you click on "Start" to shut down." - Microsoft
"It's obvious people will order their $PRODUCT_TOO_BULKY_TO_SHIP_ECONOMICALLY_TO_INDIVIDUAL_CUSTOMERS_DUMB_IDEA off the Internet" - billions of investor dollars wrongfully thought that was an "obvious truth"
"O.J. is obviously guilty" vs "O.J. is obviously not guilty"
"Housing prices will always go up - now is obviously the best time to buy, before they get even more expensive." Bwhaahahahaahahaha!
"Obviously GM will never go bankrupt."
"They're Arabs - they're obviously terr'rists!" - both racist and obviously not so obvious what one has to do with the other.
"Passengers won't like the Concorde - obviously you can't even talk to each other if you're traveling faster than the speed of sound."
"The universe has always existed, and always will - it's in a steady state it's obvious" - look at pretty much any astronomy text prior to the 1960s - they all taught "steady-state universe" as fact.
"It's obviously a fake - there can't be any such thing as a mammal with fur, a bill like a duck, and that lays eggs." - biologists on being confronted with the duck-billed platypus
"Obviously another fraud - those fish became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous" - the Coelacanth begs to differ
"There are so many of them, we can obviously hunt them forever without making a dent in their numers" - buffalo, passenger pigeon, dodo bird,
When diagnosing a problem, do you check the obvious? It's funny to hear how production was shut down for several hours because they called an electrician to "fix" the machine - and all he had to do was turn the big yellow knob from "Off" to "On" (last month).
Or people who - TWICE - have their car towed to replace a supposedly defective fuel pump - and both times it turns out they were just out of gas. (There's a reason why we call him "Bubba").
Or to be called upon to drive 1400km because the software I wrote prints fine on the mainframe, but not on the local computer and the VPs are going to be looking at it at 10 am so PLEASE come and fix it... and the printer isn't plugged into the pc. (And this is AFTER their tech support... a multi-billion-dollar corporation).
NEVER overlook the obvious. Especially if you're writing end-user documentation, or (in a manufacturing or production process) writing out procedures manuals. What's blindingly obvious to you might be completely opaque to someone else.
Speaking of overlooking the obvious, just look at how many people DON'T do the obvious, and wash their hands after using the toilet. Obviously disgusting when you think of it, but people willfully overlook the obvious.
Again, it bears repeating - NEVER overlook the obvious. Just ask the patient who have had the wrong leg amputated - EVEN AFTER WRITING "NOT THIS LEG" IN MARKER ON THEIR LEG. they never thought that the doctor might only see "THIS LEG" because of the coverings in place. To them, it was OBVIOUS the doctor would see everything they wrote. And to the doctor, it was OBVIOUS that "THIS LEG" meant "THIS LEG" - but they were both wrong, and as you know, two
Please learn to read in context... the context was "leaders of tomorrow." What do many of the leaders of today have in common? The very things I enumerated.
So if the essay is supposed to help select the leaders of tomorrow (as the poster further up in the thread posited), it should, based on current practice, select for amoral drunken thieving lying coke-heads and other scoundrels.
why the hell do you try break down any assay (sic) are lieing (sic) and bullshit? communication ability is THE number one factor that seperates (sic) the successful from the could have been.
My question is "why are they storing email passwords in plaintext"?
Of course, they're probably not, just comparing the hash values of $usr_pw" and "12345", but that is also the most common password on voice email boxes.
One guy up here was convicted - TWICE - for "hacking" into police detectives' voicemail by just randomly dialing extensions, and entering "12345". You'd think after the first conviction, the cops would, you knw, CHANGE THEIR FRIGGING PASSWORDS. Even 38258 (FUCK U) would have been better.
On a side note, try dialing numbers like 1-800-FUCK-OFF. Last time we checked (party, late at night) they were assigned.
Re:The guys behind EXTJS are terrible
on
Learning Ext JS
·
· Score: 1
On a side note, there are a lot of developers who think the FSF is a bit stuck-up/control freakazoids/whatever because they insist on copyright assignment as a precondition for inclusion in the gnu toolchain.
As for proprietary vs gpl works:
What I was saying is that if you want the upstream developers (Ext, LLC.) to merge these patches into the main development trunk, I'd assume that they'd want copyright control so that they could distribute them in both the GPLv3'd version and their proprietary-licensed version. If they didn't require the copyright assignment, then they'd rapidly have a rift between the codebase of the proprietary and GPLv3 versions of the library, which would be a PITA for them.
... it seems to me that if you're going to dual-license something as your revenue model, you should also be prepared to offer a share of it to anyone who makes a major addition - in other words, if they're willing to dual-license their code.
Everyone is free to dual-license their own code, just as they're free to put it under a bsd license. Or pd. Or their own... but often, licensing is just as much or more abut recognition than about anything else. Recognition that "hey, I wrote this and if you use it and want to take a few seconds to send a thank-you email, that would be nice." Recognition that your work meets a certain acceptable standard by other people's criteria. Recognition, in the case of gpl works, that sharing benefits everyone. All these are more social than economic, but then again, it's to be expected - software is an expressive art form, after all.
I was intentionally referring to it in both ways... not just because it's an intentional warping of the original sense of the phrase, but also because let's face it, who you can tap for info is based on who you know, or who those around you know. And for a lot of information, that is based on your social environment.
Curiosity and a willingness to dig away at things until enlightenment happens (so that learning isn't "work") are what they really should be looking for (and they CAN test for that if they put their minds to it), not a pretty meaningless dork essay. 125 words, 500 words... it's all pitifully contrived, on both sides.
Heck, better to give them a situation and see how many jokes they can come up with in 2 minutes - you'll see if they are creative, can think fast on their feet, make connections between seemingly disparate objects and events, and know how to communicate with others.
Speaking of which:
Q: Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, and a Catholic priest are in an airplane when it crashes. Who's saved?
A: The CHIDREN!
short version:
125 words prevent answers containing lots of filler.
7 words
For someone who claims that shorter is better, your answer is 50% filler.
Contrast with: "Shorter = less crap.", 1 symbol, 3 words, vs your 1 number, 7 words.
Good writers can be just as good with 125 words as 500, and horrible writers skill doesn't change with length requirements.
Irony: Your original response in praise of brevity, and against the article (I believe you said "purple prose") was 163 words. Couldn't do it in 125 the first time?
Also, your claim:
125 words prevent answers containing lots of filler.
... is demonstrably false: see "Twitter", fmylife, etc.
Look, words are how we communicate - sometimes less is more, sometimes less is less. Just as sometimes a cigar is a phallic symbol, and sometimes it's just a smelly cancer-causing pacifier for insecure men.
But back to your point - that you believe that 125 words should be sufficient. You cannot tell every shaggy dog story in 125 words. You cannot explain every complex subject in 125 words. And sometimes, brevity would lose the essence.
For example, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways..." is a lot better than a simple "yes."
You might also want to consider the social advantages of not being quite so brief the next time a woman asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" A simple "Yes" will condemn you. A "No", without any other words of reassurance, likewise is a major faux pas. Just as bad is that briefest of responses - silence. Too much of that, and you're going to hear those 4 words everyone dreads. No, not "Is it in yet?" - those OTHER 4 words - "We need to talk." Best be prepared to wax loquacious unless you like sleeping in the doghouse.
Could I have "dumbed it down" with fewer words? Sure - but it would not have conveyed the same nuances in the same fashion.
Since when is "leader" synonymous with "politician"?
Since when do only politicians do all the things I enumerated? Only politicians lie? Only politicians do crack? Cheat on their spouses? Commit fraud? Skim over the "executive summary" because they can't be arsed to read anything more than half a page long?
You're the one that brought up the "leader" thing... and far too many "leaders" today are only there because they happened to be the ones that were there, not because of any merit. Just chance and having the right connections. they still lie, bankrupt the business after draining the employee pension funds dry, etc. Look how many people thought Alan Greenspan was such a good leader in the world of finance... or examine just how many billions companies owned by Warren Buffet got in bail-out funds. Or the disaster known as Sarah Palin. Leaders? In many cases, only because people are too stupid to realize the truth. That "once a leader" doesn't mean "always a leader", and "you can fool some of the people some of the time" is good advice to take to heart, and that a dose of cynicism is a healthy antidote to a diet of bullshit.
Even today, we don't deal completely openly with rape when a minor is involved. And yes, the "damaged goods" label still sticks, unfortunately, and this is especially true for many minorities.
I don't know where you're from, but up here we're pretty open about it. The "damaged goods" label no longer exists, because the victims ignore the court protection of their identities and speak out against their aggressors. Look at Davie Hilton's daughters... they went on TV to talk about how their father sexually abused them. Nobody thinks badly of them - to the contrary, here they're seen as strong role models.
We now know that dealing openly with this sort of thing is the best thing for the victim. It shows that society not only doesn't consider them as "damaged goods", but that they have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. It's when we allow perps to get off easy "in the best interests of the child" that we fuck the kids over, by acting like its something they should be ashamed of. Nice way of making someone a victim a second time.
Society CAN change, but it requires that we deal with this sort of thing openly, not like a bunch of Victorian-age closed-minded prudes.
As for the judge - the judge has the right (and he even informed Polanski at the hearing before Polanski admitted guilt) that he was not obliged to accept the plea bargain, that he would review it first, as well as the submissions by both sides, but he also wasn't bound by law to accept the position of either side; judges are free in such cases to give as much or as little consideration to either sides' arguments as they feel the specifics of the case merit. Just because neither side asked for jail time doesn't mean the judge can't throw him in jail. Even joint recommendations can be tossed in the trash. Theres' nothing wrong about a judge deciding that a defendant deserves jail time even if both sides are asking otherwise.
Part of this is to prevent corruption (collusion or a "favour" or any sort of quid pro quo between the DA's office and the defendants' lawyers).
Slashdot Mirror
The "device" is also a retarded patent - the claim trail goes back to '99, but BUSES using the same setup were being trialed in Norway back in the '70s.
Prior art - and not just a "concept", but a working implementation.
So "preheating the engine in the device" is also invalid.
The USPTO has to go back to demanding working implementations before granting a patent. Not that it's going to matter in another decade, since the world+dog will have moved its' economic center to somewhere on the other side of the globe, when the US defaults on its' debt.
Nope - culture, publishing, etc. was specifically EXEMPTED in NAFTA.
And if you want to end NAFTA, be our guest. We'd love to see the provisions that guarantee you access to our specific percentages of our water and energy lifted, now that the auto makers aren't keeping up with keeping a proportionate share of production in Canada (I'm looking at you, Ford!).
Don't forget - we're your #1 supplier of petroleum products - more than Saudi Arabia. If NAFTA goes, we can charge less for oil in our domestic markets, and grab a significant chunk of what's left of US manufacturing. And what you don't want to buy, China will be happy to take.
Any hybrid with a block heater can also be sued - 4 separate claims on hybrids that "pre-heat the engine".
Sure enough, if you look at the list of cited patents, they go back to the early 70s. This is not new, and should not have received a separate patent as an "invention". There's zero inventing involved.
Sample bogus claims:
11. The hybrid vehicle of claim 10, wherein said engine is preheated prior to starting.
16. The method of claim 13, comprising the further step of preheating said engine prior to starting.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein said engine is preheated prior to starting.
This is broad enough to be claiming a patent on a f*cking block heater on any hybrid.
Never mind all the "non-invention-ness" of:
6. The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein said engine comprises a turbocharger operable to increase the maximum torque output by said engine, and wherein said turbocharger is so operated when the power required of said engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein said engine comprises a turbocharger operable to increase the maximum torque output by said engine, and wherein said controller causes said turbocharger to be so operated when the power required of said engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
23. The method of claim 22, further comprising: operating a turbocharger coupled to the engine of the hybrid vehicle to increase maximum torque output (MTO) produced by the engine when torque required of the engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
- in other words the "invention" of using a turbo-charger to increase performance.
Gee, why not add a supercharger at the same time? No turbo lag, etc.
Your patent system is fucked up. Hopefully the Japs will do everyone a favour and do a a Pearl Harbour on it.
No, I expect you to see the opportunity, show them the lower costs and better security, make some nice presentations, and use that to enhance your stature in their eyes so that the next time they get p0wned, some PHB has a knee-jerk reaction and says "Call this guy - he warned us about this!"
It's called playing politics, and you have to play the game to get ahead. Read a couple of Dilbert books to put you in the right frame of mind (if it doesn't just depress the hell out of you that people are so stupid).
Yeah, right ... most of the "IT staff" are monkeys, same as anywhere else, and the ones who aren't, aren't going to waste their time with such low-level considerations as web browsers - they're working with data, not some boss who can't get rid of the p0rn pop-ups.
And those who are in between support monkey and the real IT staff are mostly just there to keep doing what they're doing. They couldn't effect change if their life depended on it.
Also, "technology company" doesn't mean they necessarily know shit about how to migrate from IE. For example, Avnet (stock symbol AVT sells electronic components and non-pc servers. That's why they go outside for software development - they don't have the expertise in-house for pc-related problems.
So why not recognize an opportunity when you see one? You don't have to replace IE - just offer to help them supplant it with safer, peer-reviewed technology that has a faster update cycle and will SAVE THEM MONEY!!!
Those last 3 words are magic in this economy.
The problem is that the CCTV cameras have proven to be very ineffective in deterring crime.
The MOST effective has been cops patrolling - either walking the beat, on bikes, horse, or patrol car.
This is going to increase crime:
This is just taking a bad idea and making it worse.
As to this whole avatar junk, second life will never be "where it's at", so who gives a shit about avatars anyways, except for those trying to generate "buzz" (like Gartner) because they have nothing of substance to offer.
Better yet, when't the last time that Gartner came out with something that didn't want to make you tag it "wankers"
So yu moved to Canada, eh?
Back here, DDO is "almost" Toronto ... but with better food. Do the restaurants there still suck?
OT - so, what part of "up here" are you from, eh?
As you can guess, I'm in PoutineVille (actually, the West Island).
Gartner gets so many things wrong, so much of the time, why should this be any different?
The day someone tells me how to dress is the day they find out that they can't tell me how to dress.
As long as it's clean, presentable, and isn't festooned with slogans promoting criminal acts or competitors' products, it's simply not their business.
And it's not like an avatar is going to have to abide by safety codes like "hard hats required beyond this point".
If your company is depending on avatars to try to hide the fact that "Bob" in customer support in Idaho is really "Bashir" in New Dehli, it ain't gonna work.
Everyone in Quebec knew the same week he was arrested that it was his daughters. Anyone familiar with the laws, the courts' restrictions, and with the family situation, quickly put 2 and 2 together.
Some of the smaller french print media quickly published the fact that it was his daughters (without naming them) before the judge had a chance to issue the gag order - one of my co-workers had a copy of the article, and couldn't believe it - he was a big Hilton fan. The media get away with this from time to time because they don't publish the actual names (and by saying "one or more of his daughters", without identifying how manydaughters he had, they haven't identified the victims with certainty from only the information in the article... absent a gag order and absent a comlaint from the family, they're not going to get a spanking from the judge, who seem to understand the Streisand Effect).
It's the same thing as the Guy Laliberte ex-girlfriend lawsuit. Everyone knows that the Quebec billionaire who was being sued for $50 million in "palimony" was the Cirque de Soleil founder, despite the gag order. We know how to read between the lines, even if a quick net search hadn't turned up enough external evidence.
As for the plea bargain, sure ex parte communications made by either the prosecution or the defense are no-nos. However, the individual who made the inappropriate contact was not the prosecutor; yes, technically, since Wells was an attorney for the State, he was working for one of the parties, but this could also be said of anyone, even a parks groundskeeper. The attorney of record wasn't involved. The judge is dead. The simplest thing to do is let the plea bargain stand and hold a hearing "en blanc" for what the punishment should be ...
This is not something that will get the case dismissed - not even in a badly written TV show. Judges have to deal with this from time to time ... and when they realize someone's trying to talk about a case with them outside the courtroom, they'll quickly say "Stop. You really can't be talking to me about this. I haven't listened to anything you've said. Now leave - before I change my mind."
Was showing the judge pictures of Polanski partying it up with other under-age kids wrong? Yes. Is it possible that the judge would have changed his mind about the plea bargain even without seeing the pictures? Yes - if you've ever talked to a judge about cases they've tried, they'll tell you that some cases stay in their minds outside the courtroom, at home, etc. This is one of those cases that a judge could very well have had "buyer's remorse" about accepting the plea bargain, so we cant say for certain whether the pics made a difference. Call it 50-50.
Polanski, if he hadn't fled, would have had a legal remedy. When you run, you can't complain at the hearing you skipped that the sentence isn't right. Ultimately, it's his own actions - from the rape to the running - that are the problem, not the courts.
Also:
Our continuing to treat it as something that should be hidden away just reinforces the low self-esteem and takes away their freedom to say "this happened to me and I want to be able to talk about it without shame or fear."
She's dead. Jim. Ain't karma a bitch!
I have to agree that, at the small word counts we're looking at (whether it's 125 words or 500 words), this is true because there's not all that much there. Now, if they were talking about 5,000 - 25,000 words, there'd be a chance of actually getting to know a bit about the person behind the writing - sometimes.
Here's a thought. A better "test", if you really are interested in getting some insight into the person's capabilities, would probably be to have candidates take part in an online debate, subject not disclosed beforehand. You'll quickly sort out the wallflowers from the participators, those who can defend their ideas from those who go "because ... I don't know, just 'cuz, okay", and those who can string together a cogent sentence consistently from the "my mom proof-reads all my submissions" crowd, as well as finding those candidates who can build upon other people's comments and come up with something approaching a solution.
You'd even get a transcript so that a second evaluator can compare notes, and so that the whole process can be evaluated, fine-tuned, etc.
Just a thought ... but anything's got to be better than a twitter-sized "essay". It's not rocket science, after all.
What, you don't want to get paid for providing that sort of useful, and over the long term, money-saving help?
If you acknowledge that exploits that allow for system compromise and exposure of private data are more likely in environments where IE6 is still the "standard", then supporting IE6 is enabling such events. You become part of the problem, and nobody' going to be thanking you for it when it happens. Saying "I just did what the customer asked" is no more a defense, from an ethics point of view, than "I was just following orders."
It's because of the attitude of people like you that there's less pressure to fix non-standards-compliant systems. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Maybe one day, when we finally get the question of liability sorted out once and for all in the software field, such attitudes will be seen for what they are - reckless, negligent, unprofessional, and lazy.
If Microsoft (remember the image buffer overflow bug a while back that affected ALL versions of IE and was remotely exploitable?) and the DoD can come out and say "Don't use IE", why not?
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Repentance:
1. The act or process of repenting.
2. Remorse or contrition for past conduct or sin
Just because it passed the "spillingckucker" doesn't make it correct.
But if you want, I can even remove the symbol:
"Shorter, less crap." 3 words.
Look, this whole MIT essay thing is not a valid method of weeding out candidates who have made it into the short list (the top 10%). Not if it's only going to be a couple of hundred words. And especially since you KNOW that there's a lot of apple-polishing and "writing to the test". Because it's not valid, it's inherently unfair, and too open to manipulation and evaluator bias. Better to contact the teachers, and ask for examples of submitted work that weren't written with MIT in mind, no?
That's NOT the reason. Talk about missing the point.
Then there's the whole ethics question. Just as a car mechanic (car analogy time, folks) is prohibited by law from taking an unsafe vehicle, and "patching it" so that you can continue to operate it in an unsafe manner, we have a similar responsibility wrt IE6. I discussed this with a mechanical engineer last night, and when he was doing rail transportation safety, it was SOP that rail cars were not to leave the yards if both the car AND the load were not certified safe. If there was a question, they'd do a crash test. In one case the customer specified a certain type of car because it would be cheaper for them, but he refused to certify, because he believed the load would not be stable, despite being tied down. Sure enough. because this was a big order, and the customer was the government, he insisted on a crash test. The load arrived at the test site with the tie-downs already having worked themselves loose. The customer was told "you're not getting the cars you want, because our tests show it's not safe."
We already know that IE6 is a mess. We have a similar ethical responsibility to not continue to enable a bad situation. If their IT department doesn't want to do their jobs properly and ensure the use of better browsers, that's their problem, not yours.
We whine and bitch about software liability, and how the vendors don't even pay lip service to it. I'm in favour of software liability - at ALL levels. That includes both the big boys and independent devs and everyone in between. Why should this be the only industry where everyone shirks responsibility>
That sort of attitude is neither ethical, nor professional.
A few short counter-examples to prove you really don't get it:
People are usually mistaken about what is "obvious", the truthfulness of it, as well as to whether it's actually all that obvious to others:
When diagnosing a problem, do you check the obvious? It's funny to hear how production was shut down for several hours because they called an electrician to "fix" the machine - and all he had to do was turn the big yellow knob from "Off" to "On" (last month).
Or people who - TWICE - have their car towed to replace a supposedly defective fuel pump - and both times it turns out they were just out of gas. (There's a reason why we call him "Bubba").
Or to be called upon to drive 1400km because the software I wrote prints fine on the mainframe, but not on the local computer and the VPs are going to be looking at it at 10 am so PLEASE come and fix it ... and the printer isn't plugged into the pc. (And this is AFTER their tech support ... a multi-billion-dollar corporation).
NEVER overlook the obvious. Especially if you're writing end-user documentation, or (in a manufacturing or production process) writing out procedures manuals. What's blindingly obvious to you might be completely opaque to someone else.
Speaking of overlooking the obvious, just look at how many people DON'T do the obvious, and wash their hands after using the toilet. Obviously disgusting when you think of it, but people willfully overlook the obvious.
Again, it bears repeating - NEVER overlook the obvious. Just ask the patient who have had the wrong leg amputated - EVEN AFTER WRITING "NOT THIS LEG" IN MARKER ON THEIR LEG. they never thought that the doctor might only see "THIS LEG" because of the coverings in place. To them, it was OBVIOUS the doctor would see everything they wrote. And to the doctor, it was OBVIOUS that "THIS LEG" meant "THIS LEG" - but they were both wrong, and as you know, two
Please learn to read in context ... the context was "leaders of tomorrow." What do many of the leaders of today have in common? The very things I enumerated.
So if the essay is supposed to help select the leaders of tomorrow (as the poster further up in the thread posited), it should, based on current practice, select for amoral drunken thieving lying coke-heads and other scoundrels.
I *hope* english isn't your first language ...
Of course, they're probably not, just comparing the hash values of $usr_pw" and "12345", but that is also the most common password on voice email boxes.
One guy up here was convicted - TWICE - for "hacking" into police detectives' voicemail by just randomly dialing extensions, and entering "12345". You'd think after the first conviction, the cops would, you knw, CHANGE THEIR FRIGGING PASSWORDS. Even 38258 (FUCK U) would have been better.
On a side note, try dialing numbers like 1-800-FUCK-OFF. Last time we checked (party, late at night) they were assigned.
On a side note, there are a lot of developers who think the FSF is a bit stuck-up/control freakazoids/whatever because they insist on copyright assignment as a precondition for inclusion in the gnu toolchain.
As for proprietary vs gpl works:
Everyone is free to dual-license their own code, just as they're free to put it under a bsd license. Or pd. Or their own ... but often, licensing is just as much or more abut recognition than about anything else. Recognition that "hey, I wrote this and if you use it and want to take a few seconds to send a thank-you email, that would be nice." Recognition that your work meets a certain acceptable standard by other people's criteria. Recognition, in the case of gpl works, that sharing benefits everyone. All these are more social than economic, but then again, it's to be expected - software is an expressive art form, after all.
I was intentionally referring to it in both ways ... not just because it's an intentional warping of the original sense of the phrase, but also because let's face it, who you can tap for info is based on who you know, or who those around you know. And for a lot of information, that is based on your social environment.
Curiosity and a willingness to dig away at things until enlightenment happens (so that learning isn't "work") are what they really should be looking for (and they CAN test for that if they put their minds to it), not a pretty meaningless dork essay. 125 words, 500 words ... it's all pitifully contrived, on both sides.
Heck, better to give them a situation and see how many jokes they can come up with in 2 minutes - you'll see if they are creative, can think fast on their feet, make connections between seemingly disparate objects and events, and know how to communicate with others.
Speaking of which:
Q: Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, and a Catholic priest are in an airplane when it crashes. Who's saved?
A: The CHIDREN!
For someone who claims that shorter is better, your answer is 50% filler.
Contrast with: "Shorter = less crap.", 1 symbol, 3 words, vs your 1 number, 7 words.
Irony: Your original response in praise of brevity, and against the article (I believe you said "purple prose") was 163 words. Couldn't do it in 125 the first time?
Also, your claim:
Look, words are how we communicate - sometimes less is more, sometimes less is less. Just as sometimes a cigar is a phallic symbol, and sometimes it's just a smelly cancer-causing pacifier for insecure men.
But back to your point - that you believe that 125 words should be sufficient. You cannot tell every shaggy dog story in 125 words. You cannot explain every complex subject in 125 words. And sometimes, brevity would lose the essence.
For example, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways ..." is a lot better than a simple "yes."
You might also want to consider the social advantages of not being quite so brief the next time a woman asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" A simple "Yes" will condemn you. A "No", without any other words of reassurance, likewise is a major faux pas. Just as bad is that briefest of responses - silence. Too much of that, and you're going to hear those 4 words everyone dreads. No, not "Is it in yet?" - those OTHER 4 words - "We need to talk." Best be prepared to wax loquacious unless you like sleeping in the doghouse.
Could I have "dumbed it down" with fewer words? Sure - but it would not have conveyed the same nuances in the same fashion.
Since when do only politicians do all the things I enumerated? Only politicians lie? Only politicians do crack? Cheat on their spouses? Commit fraud? Skim over the "executive summary" because they can't be arsed to read anything more than half a page long?
You're the one that brought up the "leader" thing ... and far too many "leaders" today are only there because they happened to be the ones that were there, not because of any merit. Just chance and having the right connections. they still lie, bankrupt the business after draining the employee pension funds dry, etc. Look how many people thought Alan Greenspan was such a good leader in the world of finance ... or examine just how many billions companies owned by Warren Buffet got in bail-out funds. Or the disaster known as Sarah Palin. Leaders? In many cases, only because people are too stupid to realize the truth. That "once a leader" doesn't mean "always a leader", and "you can fool some of the people some of the time" is good advice to take to heart, and that a dose of cynicism is a healthy antidote to a diet of bullshit.
I don't know where you're from, but up here we're pretty open about it. The "damaged goods" label no longer exists, because the victims ignore the court protection of their identities and speak out against their aggressors. Look at Davie Hilton's daughters ... they went on TV to talk about how their father sexually abused them. Nobody thinks badly of them - to the contrary, here they're seen as strong role models.
We now know that dealing openly with this sort of thing is the best thing for the victim. It shows that society not only doesn't consider them as "damaged goods", but that they have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. It's when we allow perps to get off easy "in the best interests of the child" that we fuck the kids over, by acting like its something they should be ashamed of. Nice way of making someone a victim a second time.
Society CAN change, but it requires that we deal with this sort of thing openly, not like a bunch of Victorian-age closed-minded prudes.
As for the judge - the judge has the right (and he even informed Polanski at the hearing before Polanski admitted guilt) that he was not obliged to accept the plea bargain, that he would review it first, as well as the submissions by both sides, but he also wasn't bound by law to accept the position of either side; judges are free in such cases to give as much or as little consideration to either sides' arguments as they feel the specifics of the case merit. Just because neither side asked for jail time doesn't mean the judge can't throw him in jail. Even joint recommendations can be tossed in the trash. Theres' nothing wrong about a judge deciding that a defendant deserves jail time even if both sides are asking otherwise.
Part of this is to prevent corruption (collusion or a "favour" or any sort of quid pro quo between the DA's office and the defendants' lawyers).