There are 73 trademarks with the term "Tiger" in them in the "software" category.
Tigerdirect's claim forTigerdirectwas filed on Nov 14 2001. Apple's claim forTiger was filed on July 2, 2003.
While it is obvious that Apple could not license the name from a football team in order to help their case because they are not the same "Goods and Services" section, [IANAL] I don't think they could license the name from one of the other people in the software section either. The whole point of trademarks is to avoid confusion in the market, and Tigerdirect is claiming confusion with their trademark and apples, not some third party's trademark.
Everytime you want to do a submission to Slashdot, post an MLP story to Kuro5hin.org. This way, you get your chance to "break" the story first, and there is no cabal of editors to shut you down. If you put in some effort and do full story, you can even be the article that Slashdot itself links to, like the ID story posted the other day.
You know what? I'm getting tired of all these stories about lawsuits and legalese. I come here for "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." To me this means discussion of things that are intellectually too demanding for the regular news. I expect more links to Nature. Or even New Scientist. And less to Groklaw. In fact, I actually want ZERO stories about law. Zero stories about corporations. And a lot less helpless whining.
People with good memories for the book might find the movie funny because their minds fill in the missing dialogue. But as Ebert says, to someone who doesn't already know the book, its not funny. Whats interesting is that the movie does have some of the funniest scenes from the book, but those scenes just don't work. Partly because the persectives are different. Being inside the head of a newly born whale as it plummets to earth is funny, but watching a graphic of it hit the ground isn't funny.
Other things were just poorly done, for example, the babble fish. They actually do cut to the Guide to explain what a babblefish does, but totally skip the part about God disappearing in a puff of logic. So the scene is not funny at all save maybe a little slapstick about putting a fish in Authur's ear.
Sadly, this movie is exactly what you expect from Hollywood doing a foriegn movie, dumbed down to the point of irrelevance.
Most compilers replace memcpy inline with a perfectly optimized memory move instruction. Actually linking to object code from a library hasn't been done for a decade now.
Why is everyone trying to contradict the ultimate conclusion of this study:
the lowest mortality risk is found in the 'overweight' category
This means that overweight people are healthier than normal people and all the abuse they have taken over the years amounts to a fad.
Face reality: all that eating rabbit food and taking high priced vitamins and buying high priced exercise machines has been a waste of money and effort.
The first PC's were expensive too. Some of us early adopters are not price sensitive. Cutting edge designers and engineers can make millions by anticipating and driving the next trend in computing.
Very soon now computers will be so small and cheap the form factor of the CPU will be irrelevant; think sewn into clothing or even disposable. Combined with wireless broadband and increased battery life wearable computers are going to transform the industry. What sort of new uses will computers be put to when this happens? How will lifestyles change? What things need to be done to make it happen?
For example, one big thing that needs to happen is a new type of mobile display technology that allows a high resolution display to float hands free in front of the user. A prototype computer that allows you to easily play with this idea is quite compelling.
Why did so many slashdotters fall for this obvious hoax? This story right here, for everyone who believed it for even a second should be a wakeup call to how disconnected from reality they have become. How many other bogus misrepresentations about Microsoft or other entities have you been suckered into believing?
The definition of a bit has nothing to do with probability. What a bit represents might not actually be digital, but the bit itself is. It doesn't even make sense to say a 1 bit has an equal probability of being a 0 bit. You spent to much time thinking about compression and qubits I think.
For me, its not science if it doesn't involve the methods of empiricism. Observation, hypothesis, repeat.
The only time this really happens with computers is troubleshooting. Programmers may think in a logical or analytical way, but thats not science. And its a good thing to. If programmers weren't allowed to make stuff up as they went along but instead had to use scientific method for everything they did not many progams would be completed.
My setup is a Sony u750p and with a bluetooth cf-card and a cellphone. Since its bluetooth, the cellphone stays in my pocket (unless it rings!) and the computer fits in my jacket pocket when not in use. This way I get broadband not just within range of my car, but anywhere I go.
Their site has some videos of the thing flying, but they never get more than a few feet up. This is a shady demo because the craft never get out of ground effect. Maybe it cant?
Cingular's wireless EDGE network recompresses all images. Quite a bit of savings depending on the web site. On my handheld I dont even notice the difference since the screen is small, although its pretty noticeable when hooked up to a bigger screen.
Recently I was in a remote location with a computer that came with the building. I reformatted and reinstalled windows. I needed to register it, get a new video driver from nvidia, and then go to windows update to get patches and then SP2. I was on a wireless dialup connection. Sometime into downloading the first patches from windows update, the machine started to act oddly. Down to a crawl. Somehow during that time a worm had taken over and installed 30 or so different malware programs. Screwed! There seems to be no way to get that computer secure on the internet without either buying 3rd party firewall or SP2 cd which was not an option at the remote location.
This is a classic error of assuming expertise in one field implies authority in another. He is an expert in one field (neuroscience), but he is prognosticating about another (physics).
Making a claim about "the laws of physics" preventing the possibility of this machine working is not something an expert physicist would likely say. Although I am not myself an expert in physics, I do have some training in the field. Im going to say that it is easily within the 'laws of physics' to create a device that, for example, stimulates exactly one point within the skull at least as small as the wavelength using a broadcast technique without causing stimulation to surrounding areas. Granted, this would be some very advanced technology, but it would be theoretically possible to use the interference and cancellation properties of waves to construct a standing wave in an apparently spacially separated location. Applying this sort of technique with enough smarts, it just might be possible to manipulate sufficiently small parts of the brain to achieve their claims.
I am in the process of creating an airline, and I have never seen any regulation which requires that people have ID. I'm pretty sure the poster just pulled this out of his ass.
However, given the nature of this story, there might just be a secret law that isn't published.
Quicksort has a worst case run time of N^2. A largish list can occasionally take *days* to compute, even though the average time is a millisecond. Heapsort or mergesort is what should be used in any critical service.
A quantum register does not actually represent all possible inputs. It represents a superposition of all possible inputs; this is a very important distinction.
When the register is 'read' after a computation, it contains exactly one result representing the results of one random possible input. Using a classical algorithm with the register would be exactly like a normal computer with a random setting as the input.
Getting anything special from a calculation from a qubit register is extremely tricky. Shor's algorithm does a special quantum fourier transform on the register to get the most common possible output [this is a metaphor] and only works because the values of the qbits are not independent (and thus do not represent all possibilites). The algorithm must be run several times to even get a statistically meaningful result.
All you need to do is look at the code that is produced by the compiler to know if optimizations of these sorts are important. I think you will find that the commercial compilers will make efficient code in almost all cases, especially on simple cases like the ones listed in the article. Once upon a time I was a crack assembly programmer optimizing clock cycles and memory hits, but at some point in the 90's, the compilers started to write better code than I could without significant effort. Compilers now know all about cache efficiency and pipelining and never forget to use that special code sequence to save a memory cycle.
The upshot is, you should trust the compiler and code for clarity.
Wouldn't straw bale walls block wireless signals worse than normal walls? They are thick and are stuffed with organic material wrapped with chicken wire. This sounds like a recipe for bad reception...
Slashdot Mirror
There are 73 trademarks with the term "Tiger" in them in the "software" category.
Tigerdirect's claim forTigerdirectwas filed on Nov 14 2001.
Apple's claim forTiger was filed on July 2, 2003.
While it is obvious that Apple could not license the name from a football team in order to help their case because they are not the same "Goods and Services" section, [IANAL] I don't think they could license the name from one of the other people in the software section either. The whole point of trademarks is to avoid confusion in the market, and Tigerdirect is claiming confusion with their trademark and apples, not some third party's trademark.
Everytime you want to do a submission to Slashdot, post an MLP story to Kuro5hin.org.
This way, you get your chance to "break" the story first, and there is no cabal of editors to shut you down. If you put in some effort and do full story, you can even be the article that Slashdot itself links to, like the ID story posted the other day.
RTFA: The plant will be in NJ because they have a cheap electricity source.
You know what? I'm getting tired of all these stories about lawsuits and legalese. I come here for "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." To me this means discussion of things that are intellectually too demanding for the regular news. I expect more links to Nature. Or even New Scientist. And less to Groklaw. In fact, I actually want ZERO stories about law. Zero stories about corporations. And a lot less helpless whining.
People with good memories for the book might find the movie funny because their minds fill in the missing dialogue. But as Ebert says, to someone who doesn't already know the book, its not funny.
Whats interesting is that the movie does have some of the funniest scenes from the book, but those scenes just don't work. Partly because the persectives are different. Being inside the head of a newly born whale as it plummets to earth is funny, but watching a graphic of it hit the ground isn't funny.
Other things were just poorly done, for example, the babble fish. They actually do cut to the Guide to explain what a babblefish does, but totally skip the part about God disappearing in a puff of logic. So the scene is not funny at all save maybe a little slapstick about putting a fish in Authur's ear.
Sadly, this movie is exactly what you expect from Hollywood doing a foriegn movie, dumbed down to the point of irrelevance.
Most compilers replace memcpy inline with a perfectly optimized memory move instruction. Actually linking to object code from a library hasn't been done for a decade now.
Clearly you are not a very experienced coder!
Windows NT *is* the start-from-scratch operating system. Mac's OS is based on unix, and I think linux is older than NT too.
The skydivers experience is consistent with Galilean relativity, Einstein's special relativity wouldnt have much of an effect in this situation.
Why is everyone trying to contradict the ultimate conclusion of this study:
the lowest mortality risk is found in the 'overweight' category
This means that overweight people are healthier than normal people and all the abuse they have taken over the years amounts to a fad.
Face reality: all that eating rabbit food and taking high priced vitamins and buying high priced exercise machines has been a waste of money and effort.
The first PC's were expensive too. Some of us early adopters are not price sensitive. Cutting edge designers and engineers can make millions by anticipating and driving the next trend in computing.
Very soon now computers will be so small and cheap the form factor of the CPU will be irrelevant; think sewn into clothing or even disposable. Combined with wireless broadband and increased battery life wearable computers are going to transform the industry. What sort of new uses will computers be put to when this happens? How will lifestyles change? What things need to be done to make it happen?
For example, one big thing that needs to happen is a new type of mobile display technology that allows a high resolution display to float hands free in front of the user. A prototype computer that allows you to easily play with this idea is quite compelling.
Why did so many slashdotters fall for this obvious hoax? This story right here, for everyone who believed it for even a second should be a wakeup call to how disconnected from reality they have become. How many other bogus misrepresentations about Microsoft or other entities have you been suckered into believing?
The definition of a bit has nothing to do with probability. What a bit represents might not actually be digital, but the bit itself is.
It doesn't even make sense to say a 1 bit has an equal probability of being a 0 bit.
You spent to much time thinking about compression and qubits I think.
For me, its not science if it doesn't involve the methods of empiricism. Observation, hypothesis, repeat.
The only time this really happens with computers is troubleshooting.
Programmers may think in a logical or analytical way, but thats not science. And its a good thing to. If programmers weren't allowed to make stuff up as they went along but instead had to use scientific method for everything they did not many progams would be completed.
jinx!
My setup is a Sony u750p and with a bluetooth cf-card and a cellphone.
Since its bluetooth, the cellphone stays in my pocket (unless it rings!) and the computer fits in my jacket pocket when not in use. This way I get broadband not just within range of my car, but anywhere I go.
Their site has some videos of the thing flying, but they never get more than a few feet up. This is a shady demo because the craft never get out of ground effect. Maybe it cant?
Cingular's wireless EDGE network recompresses all images. Quite a bit of savings depending on the web site. On my handheld I dont even notice the difference since the screen is small, although its pretty noticeable when hooked up to a bigger screen.
Recently I was in a remote location with a computer that came with the building. I reformatted and reinstalled windows. I needed to register it, get a new video driver from nvidia, and then go to windows update to get patches and then SP2. I was on a wireless dialup connection.
Sometime into downloading the first patches from windows update, the machine started to act oddly. Down to a crawl. Somehow during that time a worm had taken over and installed 30 or so different malware programs.
Screwed!
There seems to be no way to get that computer secure on the internet without either buying 3rd party firewall or SP2 cd which was not an option at the remote location.
This is a classic error of assuming expertise in one field implies authority in another.
He is an expert in one field (neuroscience), but he is prognosticating about another (physics).
Making a claim about "the laws of physics" preventing the possibility of this machine working is not something an expert physicist would likely say.
Although I am not myself an expert in physics, I do have some training in the field. Im going to say that it is easily within the 'laws of physics' to create a device that, for example, stimulates exactly one point within the skull at least as small as the wavelength using a broadcast technique without causing stimulation to surrounding areas. Granted, this would be some very advanced technology, but it would be theoretically possible to use the interference and cancellation properties of waves to construct a standing wave in an apparently spacially separated location. Applying this sort of technique with enough smarts, it just might be possible to manipulate sufficiently small parts of the brain to achieve their claims.
I am in the process of creating an airline, and I have never seen any regulation which requires that people have ID. I'm pretty sure the poster just pulled this out of his ass.
However, given the nature of this story, there might just be a secret law that isn't published.
there is no quantum algorithm to speed up np complete problems. this whole post is just not right
Quicksort has a worst case run time of N^2. A largish list can occasionally take *days* to compute, even though the average time is a millisecond.
Heapsort or mergesort is what should be used in any critical service.
A quantum register does not actually represent all possible inputs. It represents a superposition of all possible inputs; this is a very important distinction.
When the register is 'read' after a computation, it contains exactly one result representing the results of one random possible input. Using a classical algorithm with the register would be exactly like a normal computer with a random setting as the input.
Getting anything special from a calculation from a qubit register is extremely tricky. Shor's algorithm does a special quantum fourier transform on the register to get the most common possible output [this is a metaphor] and only works because the values of the qbits are not independent (and thus do not represent all possibilites). The algorithm must be run several times to even get a statistically meaningful result.
All you need to do is look at the code that is produced by the compiler to know if optimizations of these sorts are important. I think you will find that the commercial compilers will make efficient code in almost all cases, especially on simple cases like the ones listed in the article.
Once upon a time I was a crack assembly programmer optimizing clock cycles and memory hits, but at some point in the 90's, the compilers started to write better code than I could without significant effort. Compilers now know all about cache efficiency and pipelining and never forget to use that special code sequence to save a memory cycle.
The upshot is, you should trust the compiler and code for clarity.
Wouldn't straw bale walls block wireless signals worse than normal walls? They are thick and are stuffed with organic material wrapped with chicken wire. This sounds like a recipe for bad reception...