You don't have to "prove" anything to file a lawsuit, and Monsanto launches many civil lawsuits based on "raids" (i.e. blatant trespassing) and anonymous tips. Remember these are civil cases, and the cost of defending civil actions can be more than even a large farm can bear.
Read about Pilot Grove for a good example. The suit was settled last year.
The judge's decision has nothing to do with food safety. This case is about a GM food crop, patented by an extremely aggressive company, whose potential for unwanted cross-pollination was not investigated nearly well enough.
This judgement has nothing to do with food safety. It addresses the threat of unwanted cross-pollination by a patented food crop. Monsanto has no problem with suing farmers who are the victims of unwanted cross-pollination or seed drift.
Google Monsanto for a little background on the topic.
So what do you suggest, using 30-bit RGB? This isn't really a bandwidth issue. It is an encoding issue. From TFA:
The ITU 601 standard, which governs today's displays, allows only 60 to 80 percent of the available colors, even if the display can support more, Chard said. "The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."
So in other words, it is necessary to move up to the higher bit depths in order to completely cover the range of colors that the eye can see, but there is necessarily some overkill involved if we don't want to commit to some funky encodings. It may be that something like 10 bits per channel would more closely match the eye's sensitivity, but it's rather more convenient to encode on byte-boundaries.
I won't buy anywhere else if I can help it. I even bought a rice cooker out of NewEgg's Home Appliances section. Out of maybe 20 different orders now, every single one of them has arrived at my door early.
I am also a registered republican, fiscally conservative and somewhat libertarian socially, and my vote for Kerry was an easy choice last year. And that's not because I like Kerry.
Yes, this is just what this discussion needed: a simple-mided post drawing a connection between SCO and AMD. Did you read the complaint? Did you RTF, or any of AMD's statements? Do you make a habit of commenting without knowing anything about the topic at hand?
"I thought AMD was gainng market share and making a comeback."
Great point! So, because AMD is occasionally making a profit, we can conclude that this lawsuit is baseless. Brilliant!
"There may have been a time this case had merit, but everyone except Dell (and Apple) is shipping AMD systems."
Another great point! The fact that companies are trying to sell AMD's system PROVES that they aren't being pressured or threatened by Intel. And obviously it doesn't matter the executives of some of these companies are plainly stating that Intel has been plying them for years with threats, kickbacks, and payoffs!
"Sounds like AMD is worried about slipping in the near future so they want to cement their gains by using these unsavory tactics."
Yes, your analysis has really cleared up this messy little situation for us. You should email your thoughts to Forbes and the tech journals, in case they haven't thought of the "AMD is just trying to hedge against future uncertainty" angle.
You'd be wise to hold you criticism until you know for sure that this was not a real threat. It could very well be that the immediate response to the EFF's action alert kept anyone from proposing the ammendment.
I'm not finding the amendment anywhere in the proceedings. Maybe I'm missing it, or maybe I'm missunderstanding what you're saying, Mr. Coward. Would you be so kind as to elaborate, and perhaps provide a link?
I think you misunderstand; the problem is not that they (LA Times) would like to live in a world without assholes. I'm sure most of us would like to live in a world without assholes. What makes the Times look so pathetic is that they act as though they EXPECT the world to be devoid of assholes (by erecting a hastily-shod forum), and then complaining bitterly that the assholes have ruined it. See the difference?
I don't know why exactly, but I do. Whoever it was at the LA times that was reponsible for the wiki's implementation clearly had no idea what they were doing. It may be that the Slashdot community is absolutely the last group on earth to whom you would want to expose a poorly protected website, both because of our technical savy and particular sense of humour. But really, what the hell do they expect. This would definitley, 100% for sure happened without slashdot's help, it just might not have happened so quickly and brutally.
I laughed harder than I have in weeks when I read that there was a bunch goatse on their wiki. It's priceless. Priceless!
As many others have pointed out, they COULD do this right; Slashdot.org has been dealing with slashdotters for a long time. The Times acts surprised that their bare unprotected forum was flooded with pr0n, but it's hard for me to imagine that they have NOBODY capable of dealing with this situation like an adult.
My guess is that they get shamed into wiping away their tears and trying again.
This post is a joke, right? You didn't even attempt to refute any of the arguments against using PHP for enterprise-level work, you simply stated your opinion, branded the parent as an elitist, and stomped away.
Try this: If you really are using PHP for application programming, and if these applications are anything more than trivial in size, then you are almost certainly using the wrong language.
Convincing a manager to bless PHP for a project can be made very difficult if said manager has been previously traumatized by a poor application of PHP. So do us all a favor, and please use it in an appropriate way.
Slashdot Mirror
> "Due to global warming, the sun is only available, on average, half the day"
Are you drunk?
Thanks, I was about to say the exact same thing.
You don't have to "prove" anything to file a lawsuit, and Monsanto launches many civil lawsuits based on "raids" (i.e. blatant trespassing) and anonymous tips. Remember these are civil cases, and the cost of defending civil actions can be more than even a large farm can bear.
Read about Pilot Grove for a good example. The suit was settled last year.
"What about when the neighboring farms spread their unwanted "Natural" pollen to the GE farms?"
The obvious difference is that if the pollen comes from a plant patented by Monsanto, you're at risk of getting sued.
"Pollen only affects seed production. Not root crops."
If any of those beets goes to seed, which is common, then next year you'll have Monsanto's IP growing in your field. Again, lawsuit time.
You appear not to have read the article.
The judge's decision has nothing to do with food safety. This case is about a GM food crop, patented by an extremely aggressive company, whose potential for unwanted cross-pollination was not investigated nearly well enough.
This judgement has nothing to do with food safety. It addresses the threat of unwanted cross-pollination by a patented food crop. Monsanto has no problem with suing farmers who are the victims of unwanted cross-pollination or seed drift.
Google Monsanto for a little background on the topic.
-"New Scientist points out that if such a launch ring were built, it would instantly become one of the most important targets on the planet."
Yeah, it's true, and that f***ing sucks. That statement right there sums up everything that is wrong with humanity.
So what do you suggest, using 30-bit RGB? This isn't really a bandwidth issue. It is an encoding issue. From TFA:
The ITU 601 standard, which governs today's displays, allows only 60 to 80 percent of the available colors, even if the display can support more, Chard said. "The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."
So in other words, it is necessary to move up to the higher bit depths in order to completely cover the range of colors that the eye can see, but there is necessarily some overkill involved if we don't want to commit to some funky encodings. It may be that something like 10 bits per channel would more closely match the eye's sensitivity, but it's rather more convenient to encode on byte-boundaries.
I won't buy anywhere else if I can help it. I even bought a rice cooker out of NewEgg's Home Appliances section. Out of maybe 20 different orders now, every single one of them has arrived at my door early.
"The court fees will probably be more than the settlement!"
RTFA dude. She said that money is not the point.
"Gov't contractors are NOT corrupt."
You mean contractors like Haliburton and MZM? Are you daft, or simply biased?
I am also a registered republican, fiscally conservative and somewhat libertarian socially, and my vote for Kerry was an easy choice last year. And that's not because I like Kerry.
I thought you were gone. Did you not, just a few weeks ago, say that you were never going to visit slashdot again?
Yes, this is just what this discussion needed: a simple-mided post drawing a connection between SCO and AMD. Did you read the complaint? Did you RTF, or any of AMD's statements? Do you make a habit of commenting without knowing anything about the topic at hand?
"I thought AMD was gainng market share and making a comeback."
Great point! So, because AMD is occasionally making a profit, we can conclude that this lawsuit is baseless. Brilliant!
"There may have been a time this case had merit, but everyone except Dell (and Apple) is shipping AMD systems."
Another great point! The fact that companies are trying to sell AMD's system PROVES that they aren't being pressured or threatened by Intel. And obviously it doesn't matter the executives of some of these companies are plainly stating that Intel has been plying them for years with threats, kickbacks, and payoffs!
"Sounds like AMD is worried about slipping in the near future so they want to cement their gains by using these unsavory tactics."
Yes, your analysis has really cleared up this messy little situation for us. You should email your thoughts to Forbes and the tech journals, in case they haven't thought of the "AMD is just trying to hedge against future uncertainty" angle.
You'd be wise to hold you criticism until you know for sure that this was not a real threat. It could very well be that the immediate response to the EFF's action alert kept anyone from proposing the ammendment.
I'm not finding the amendment anywhere in the proceedings. Maybe I'm missing it, or maybe I'm missunderstanding what you're saying, Mr. Coward. Would you be so kind as to elaborate, and perhaps provide a link?
I think you misunderstand; the problem is not that they (LA Times) would like to live in a world without assholes. I'm sure most of us would like to live in a world without assholes. What makes the Times look so pathetic is that they act as though they EXPECT the world to be devoid of assholes (by erecting a hastily-shod forum), and then complaining bitterly that the assholes have ruined it. See the difference?
I don't know why exactly, but I do. Whoever it was at the LA times that was reponsible for the wiki's implementation clearly had no idea what they were doing. It may be that the Slashdot community is absolutely the last group on earth to whom you would want to expose a poorly protected website, both because of our technical savy and particular sense of humour. But really, what the hell do they expect. This would definitley, 100% for sure happened without slashdot's help, it just might not have happened so quickly and brutally.
I laughed harder than I have in weeks when I read that there was a bunch goatse on their wiki. It's priceless. Priceless!
As many others have pointed out, they COULD do this right; Slashdot.org has been dealing with slashdotters for a long time. The Times acts surprised that their bare unprotected forum was flooded with pr0n, but it's hard for me to imagine that they have NOBODY capable of dealing with this situation like an adult.
My guess is that they get shamed into wiping away their tears and trying again.
This post is a joke, right? You didn't even attempt to refute any of the arguments against using PHP for enterprise-level work, you simply stated your opinion, branded the parent as an elitist, and stomped away.
Try this: If you really are using PHP for application programming, and if these applications are anything more than trivial in size, then you are almost certainly using the wrong language.
Convincing a manager to bless PHP for a project can be made very difficult if said manager has been previously traumatized by a poor application of PHP. So do us all a favor, and please use it in an appropriate way.
If your post was a joke, then I apologize.
Hey shithead - Slashdot discussions answer plenty of questions like this. YOUR answer is entirely useless, and poorly worded to boot.
"read errors and the like" - Brilliant, thanks. Why don't you post under your member name so I can come kick your ass.
are Tech Report and the OCP. It's a comfort to me every time these site get crosswise with the companies whose products they review.