You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think". Go read the wikipedia page for Kyllo v. U.S. Then go read the full opinion and come back when you know a tiny sliver about the law instead of the Pavlovian emotional responses that are bred into you by your blogging "friends".
Good then you of course will produce all those wonderful references showing the state of technology in the mid 1990's. Note that this patent is NOT covering sending VoIP data over the Internet, rather it is covering interoperability of VoIP with a PSTN. Since unlike you I actually know what SS7 means, I can tell you that this was NOT some widely known technology in the mid 1990's. Sure, the telcos had digital backends for long-haul communications, but they were all circuit-switched backends. Packet-switched systems were NOT in vogue for voice communication and interworking was a problem that was still under active development for years after 1995.
You seem to be suffering from the problem that many people here have, which is that a patent must be "obvious" because 15 years after it is filed the technology in the patent has gotten popular and is in every cellphone. That's why evidence from BEFORE the filing date is needed to prove obviousness, not the arrogant assertions Slashdot posters who can come to conclusions without the need of pesky things like "evidence".
1. A method of routing a full duplex telephone call between a first telephone set and a second telephone set using a public computer network as at least part of a communication link connecting said first and second telephone sets, comprising the steps of:
receiving at a first computer network access port a first telephone call from a central office placed from said fist[sic] telephone set initiating said full duplex telephone call, said first telephone call specifying a telephone number of said second telephone set, without specifying additional telephone destinations;
converting data received from the central office to an Intenet protocol;
establishing a communication link over said public computer network between said first computer network access port and a remote second computer network access port;
placing a second telephone call from said second computer network access port to said second telephone set using a PSTN;
converting data received from the public computer network from Intenet protocol to a PSTN protocol; and
connecting said first telephone call, said communication link and said second telephone call to thereby establish a telephone call between said first telephone set and said second telephone set.
A little broad, but then again it was filed in 1995 which is over a year before H.323 was even published. Note the requirement of a PSTN: If you are just making a VoIP call over Skype this patent does not cover that since there is no PSTN. In fact, and Pure VoIP call is outside the scope of this patent. I wonder if the EFF had been around in the 1870's if they would have been accusing Alexander Graham Bell of "stifling free speech" with the original telephone....
That doesn't really answer my question though. First what does "standalone" mean? Any CPU that can access memory and run a process could be called "standalone". Second.. you mentioned power draw which is nice, but also not the important factor. The important factor is ENERGY efficiency. As an example: A 100 watt power draw from a CPU that takes 1 second to finish a task is more energy efficient than a 10 watt power drawn that takes 12 seconds to finish the same task. In the case of the faster ARM cores, if they can get a task done quickly and then drop back into standby, they could very well be more energy efficient than this "standalone" processor.
I can take a guess since the article doesn't say, but this "standalone" processor might actually be some sort of DSP that is doing things the normal ARM cores really can't do effectively, and the power savings come from using the DSP for the specialized tasks it is more efficient at... otherwise I think it's jut Marvell trying to move silicon that didn't bin too well.
Why can't it just shut down one of the two normal cores, and run the other core at a highly reduced rate to get the same power savings? Additionally, I've seen plenty of benchmarks where a higher-power draw chip that can get done with a task quickly and drop back to low-power idle mode is actually more energy efficient than a lower-power chip that takes longer to get the task done. What sort of tasks is the third core intended to do that it would be so much more efficient than a regular ARM core?
Only on Slashdot can Powerpoint slides of what AMD's chips will be doing in the second half of 2011 be called "rock solid" and get modded interesting in 2010.....
1. Bulldozer will NOT have GPGPU until 2012 at the earliest unless you think AMD is lying.
2. When it comes to GPGPU ATI is nowhere near NVIDIA. Oh don't get me wrong, when it comes to making a good graphics card that plays games (which is what 98+% of the market actually wants) ATI is definitely ahead of NVIDIA. When it comes to GPGPU that the HPC sector wants, NVIDIA is still way ahead not only on hardware but also on software. I know all about the hype around OpenCL, I also know people who do this stuff for a living and CUDA is simply better and while Fermi sucks for playing games, it shreds anything ATI has for GPGPU.
3. Note the "98%" figure I gave above about what the market cares about. For all the hype on Slashdot, the number of applications that can actually take advantage of GPGPU is vanishingly small and inside of that small subset the biggest niche that exists is for video transcoding. Guess what? Using 3 square millimeters of silicon Intel's Sandy Bridge (that will be out at least half a year before Bulldozer) already does this. Also when it comes to normal Floating point performance, an equivalently clocked Sandy Bridge with 4 cores will have TWICE the AVX computing power of an EIGHT core Bulldozer... yes you heard me right 4 cores Intel vs. 8 cores AMD, due to AMD only including 1 full AVX unit in each "module" that contains 2 "cores" in Bulldozer. This is true unless AMD is intentionally lying about Bulldozer to make it sound worse than what the actual architecture will be. Oh.. and before you say that nobody will ever use AVX just remember that you called openCL "rock solid" a few minutes ago. GCC is already able to emit AVX instructions that existing code can be tweaked for RIGHT NOW while OpenCL is stil a pipe dream in many ways.
How about when AMD was the first of the two to do on-die memory controllers?
You mean AMD invented the 486 before Intel? Despite what you read on your AMD fanboy websites, on-die memory controllers weren't invented by AMD.
Or maybe when they were the first of the two to have a quality high-end graphics division?
Oh yeah.. that whole $5.4 Billion buyout of another company that already did graphics. Also for all the buzzwords AMD's "fusion" parts will still make it to market later Intel's own stuff and Intel will be the first to admit that they suck at graphics to boot! Talk about massive "innovation" there, but in case Intel ever does buy Nvidia I'm sure you'll be the first to loudly proclaim that buying out another company to get technology is perfectly fine....
I know that ZoneAlarm is obnoxious but on a desktop the best "firewall" isn't a port & address based filter, but instead an application layer firewall that can say "Hey, the officially installed web browser can go out on port 80, but not some random malware you just downloaded" While this doesn't protect you from everything (like the browser itself being hijacked) it can make a big difference in stopping any old program that wants to go to a random website. One of my biggest issues with Linux is that this type of security isn't even possible short of using some of the more arcane features in SELinux that normal desktop users are never going to configure.
I just did exactly what you said and I didn't even need to use a wacky macro. This is using OpenOffice 3.2 so maybe it didn't work in an older version. Quick version: Add a text box, then go to insert->field and add in both the page number and the page count.
I know flash gets much hate around here, but the old 64 bit version actually wokrs pretty well, and I must confess that I didn't uninstall in spite of the security holes. Now I can get an up to date version... rock. I will say that trying to use the 32 bit version using nspluginwrapper is like drilling a hole in your head, and I wonder how many complaints are really based around that rather than flash itself.
Because 'simple' systems are really easy to abuse? And planned economies tend to be more stable and have better long term growth then completely laissez-faire ones?
Answers to your questions: 1. No --> and if it is really that difficult for you to understand how it's about a million times easier to abuse a tax system full of loopholes and ambiguities, I feel sorry for you. 2. No:
With your "planned" economy, you can either get a fun-filled central planner who gets rid of all those "evil" companies at the butt-end of a rifle... or you can get the current implementation of planned economies that we have in the US (and especially in California) where multiple interests compete to outlaw one another by hijacking an oversized and overpowered bureaucracy. Either way is bad news, and convoluted tax laws are a powerful club to use in micromanaging other people's lives.
One major problem with Bit Torrent is that you only get easy access to what is "popular" at any given time. I've gotten some TV show episodes (not available in the US) downloaded in a reasonable amount of time when I start the download within 24 hours of the original show being aired... but try to get the same episode 30 days later and availability drops in a hurry. Despite all the pro-P2P propaganda about how it "democratizes" data, it's really more a mob-rule popularity contest for grabbing the shiniest download.
Preface: I'm firmly in the camp that believes that Bush wasn't as bad as we were all told and that Obama is nowhere as great as we've been all told but, Obama got the idea of privatizing LEO work 100% right. I'm getting tired of the rest of the weasels (in both parties) trying to shove even more pork into NASA instead of letting it do its job.. Hell I think the whole "foremost mission of NASA is to make Muslims feel like they are smart" is something that proves that the characters in Atlas Shrugged actually do exist in the real world, but if it means that NASA actually stops actually sabotaging private companies getting into orbit faster & better, I'm all for it! It would be a bonus if NASA actually kept doing the really out-there stuff that's way beyond Earth, but right now I'm not asking for much.
I suppose any excuse to beat up on "evil industry" will always fly on Slashdot.
Yeah.. and while I was going to say that only a sensationalist troll like KDawson would post this, I didn't want to since I hadn't checked the byline before the last post... then I went and checked it... You see kids, sometimes prejudice is just a more efficient way of arriving at the same conclusion that carefully deliberation would lead to, and it's more fun!
Please KDawson, go back to parroting what the DailyKos tells you to think... while you are a drooling idiot, at least they hire some professionals to troll the right way!
How about... 5 fun things you can do with your baby's placenta!!?!?!?!?!? (from the same site as this "article"). I suppose any excuse to beat up on "evil industry" will always fly on Slashdot.
Next thing you know there'll be the usual litany of +5 insightfuls about how "big media" (led by Catie Couric) regularly pumps out pro-insecticide propaganda. No I'm not joking.. the regular scare pieces about anything that might be remotely toxic are the product of "big pesticide" to bore us to death with obviously untrue hysteria so that we accidentally let them get away with poisoning all of us!
In a sane world making such an admission in a legal filing would be grounds for voiding the patent since patent law requires dislosure of everything a person skilled in that field would need to know to implement the patented tech.
We do live in a sane world (well at least in this regard).. if Shazaam admits it did not disclose the "best mode" for practicing its invention, or that it did not disclose enough information in its patents to "enable" the "person having ordinary skill in the art" to practice the invention, then the patent(s) become invalid and are thrown out.
As for trade secrets, assuming this guy didn't actually steal the information from Shazaam or is in cahoots with someone who did steal it, he can't have misappropriated any trade secrets since he did the work all on his own.
While what you said is true, if this guy's blog post is only explaining how Shazaam works, without actually DOING what Shazaam does (e.g. offering source code), then he hasn't done any of the enumerated actions that a patentee can exclude others from doing. He does walk a fine line though... if he says: "Here's what Shazaam does, and here's my code to download that will do it for you" then he is coming very close to an "offer to sell" (giving it away for free is a little tenuous, but any monetary advantage he gets, even advertising revenue from page hits caused by people visiting & downloading the patented code.) He may also be open to indirect infringement charges. These often occur when Company A makes a product that, when used, infringes on a patent. Rather than suing the customers who bought & actually use the product (the direct infringers) the patentee will sue Company A for inducing all of its customers to infringe by using the devices.
One other thing: If he's in Europe where this program is not under patent protection, good luck establishing minimum contacts in the US unless he is intentionally directing business into the US, which he does not appear to be doing. Simply posting information on a website without an offer to sell in the US will likely fail, meaning there is no jurisdiction in the US. Plus, any infringement has to occur in the US somehow since the Supreme Court has limited the scope of US patents to US territory on many occasions. As long as he does not actively try to "import" the code into the US, especially trying to sell it, he shouldn't have too much trouble.
As is commonly cited here, everything NASA does screws up because stupid Americans don't use the metric system... if only the Japanese would use it they wouldn't have these prob...
[hushed whispering] Uh.. it has come to my attention that some people believe Japan uses the metric system. This cannot be possible for 2 reasons: 1. With the metric system there can't be any stupid screwups like what the Americans do. 2. Japanese always have the most badass robots and this is just a space robot, and therefore must work. I stand by my original statement.
Seriously, I can't imagine how dumb some people are... complaining about acronyms that can easily be looked up on Wikipedia!
I mean, a quick search obviously reveals that ETL stands for Express Toll Lanes. Any slashdotter should know that these lanes are used by the many cars generated by the numerous analogies dotting slashdot "discussions".
And as for Pentaho... let's just break this word down into parts shall we? Penta is the root word for the number 5... duh! Of course, Ho is an accurate description of the only type of woman who will talk to the average slashdotter... assuming the slashdotter has a sufficient Benjamin supply.
So let's put all of this together shall we? This book is obviously about how you can pick up 5 hoes on a highway quickly and efficiently. This is a life skill that I'm sure many slashdotters are keenly interested in acquiring. How the hell anyone could possibly complain that the reviewer didn't expressly spell out these stupidly obvious terms is frankly beyond me.
Fine, then I invite you to go out and be smug and self righteous with your own money to pay for all the healthcare some people claim to have a "right" to.
P.S. --> When you use the government to steal, you lose all rights to accuse those evil corporations of doing the same thing. Wrong is still wrong no matter what political boilerplate it's buried under.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think". Go read the wikipedia page for Kyllo v. U.S. Then go read the full opinion and come back when you know a tiny sliver about the law instead of the Pavlovian emotional responses that are bred into you by your blogging "friends".
Good then you of course will produce all those wonderful references showing the state of technology in the mid 1990's. Note that this patent is NOT covering sending VoIP data over the Internet, rather it is covering interoperability of VoIP with a PSTN. Since unlike you I actually know what SS7 means, I can tell you that this was NOT some widely known technology in the mid 1990's. Sure, the telcos had digital backends for long-haul communications, but they were all circuit-switched backends. Packet-switched systems were NOT in vogue for voice communication and interworking was a problem that was still under active development for years after 1995.
You seem to be suffering from the problem that many people here have, which is that a patent must be "obvious" because 15 years after it is filed the technology in the patent has gotten popular and is in every cellphone. That's why evidence from BEFORE the filing date is needed to prove obviousness, not the arrogant assertions Slashdot posters who can come to conclusions without the need of pesky things like "evidence".
Claim 1:
1. A method of routing a full duplex telephone call between a first telephone set and a second telephone set using a public computer network as at least part of a communication link connecting said first and second telephone sets, comprising the steps of:
receiving at a first computer network access port a first telephone call from a central office placed from said fist[sic] telephone set initiating said full duplex telephone call, said first telephone call specifying a telephone number of said second telephone set, without specifying additional telephone destinations;
converting data received from the central office to an Intenet protocol;
establishing a communication link over said public computer network between said first computer network access port and a remote second computer network access port;
placing a second telephone call from said second computer network access port to said second telephone set using a PSTN;
converting data received from the public computer network from Intenet protocol to a PSTN protocol; and
connecting said first telephone call, said communication link and said second telephone call to thereby establish a telephone call between said first telephone set and said second telephone set.
A little broad, but then again it was filed in 1995 which is over a year before H.323 was even published. Note the requirement of a PSTN: If you are just making a VoIP call over Skype this patent does not cover that since there is no PSTN. In fact, and Pure VoIP call is outside the scope of this patent. I wonder if the EFF had been around in the 1870's if they would have been accusing Alexander Graham Bell of "stifling free speech" with the original telephone....
That doesn't really answer my question though. First what does "standalone" mean? Any CPU that can access memory and run a process could be called "standalone". Second.. you mentioned power draw which is nice, but also not the important factor. The important factor is ENERGY efficiency. As an example: A 100 watt power draw from a CPU that takes 1 second to finish a task is more energy efficient than a 10 watt power drawn that takes 12 seconds to finish the same task. In the case of the faster ARM cores, if they can get a task done quickly and then drop back into standby, they could very well be more energy efficient than this "standalone" processor.
I can take a guess since the article doesn't say, but this "standalone" processor might actually be some sort of DSP that is doing things the normal ARM cores really can't do effectively, and the power savings come from using the DSP for the specialized tasks it is more efficient at... otherwise I think it's jut Marvell trying to move silicon that didn't bin too well.
Why can't it just shut down one of the two normal cores, and run the other core at a highly reduced rate to get the same power savings? Additionally, I've seen plenty of benchmarks where a higher-power draw chip that can get done with a task quickly and drop back to low-power idle mode is actually more energy efficient than a lower-power chip that takes longer to get the task done. What sort of tasks is the third core intended to do that it would be so much more efficient than a regular ARM core?
AMD's chips perform threaded tasks faster than Intel's
Please provide one shred of evidence that supports this claim.. and I don't mean a comparison of a 6 core AMD CPU to 2 core Intel chip from 2007.
Only on Slashdot can Powerpoint slides of what AMD's chips will be doing in the second half of 2011 be called "rock solid" and get modded interesting in 2010.....
1. Bulldozer will NOT have GPGPU until 2012 at the earliest unless you think AMD is lying.
2. When it comes to GPGPU ATI is nowhere near NVIDIA. Oh don't get me wrong, when it comes to making a good graphics card that plays games (which is what 98+% of the market actually wants) ATI is definitely ahead of NVIDIA. When it comes to GPGPU that the HPC sector wants, NVIDIA is still way ahead not only on hardware but also on software. I know all about the hype around OpenCL, I also know people who do this stuff for a living and CUDA is simply better and while Fermi sucks for playing games, it shreds anything ATI has for GPGPU.
3. Note the "98%" figure I gave above about what the market cares about. For all the hype on Slashdot, the number of applications that can actually take advantage of GPGPU is vanishingly small and inside of that small subset the biggest niche that exists is for video transcoding. Guess what? Using 3 square millimeters of silicon Intel's Sandy Bridge (that will be out at least half a year before Bulldozer) already does this. Also when it comes to normal Floating point performance, an equivalently clocked Sandy Bridge with 4 cores will have TWICE the AVX computing power of an EIGHT core Bulldozer... yes you heard me right 4 cores Intel vs. 8 cores AMD, due to AMD only including 1 full AVX unit in each "module" that contains 2 "cores" in Bulldozer. This is true unless AMD is intentionally lying about Bulldozer to make it sound worse than what the actual architecture will be. Oh.. and before you say that nobody will ever use AVX just remember that you called openCL "rock solid" a few minutes ago. GCC is already able to emit AVX instructions that existing code can be tweaked for RIGHT NOW while OpenCL is stil a pipe dream in many ways.
How about when AMD was the first of the two to do on-die memory controllers?
You mean AMD invented the 486 before Intel? Despite what you read on your AMD fanboy websites, on-die memory controllers weren't invented by AMD.
Or maybe when they were the first of the two to have a quality high-end graphics division?
Oh yeah.. that whole $5.4 Billion buyout of another company that already did graphics. Also for all the buzzwords AMD's "fusion" parts will still make it to market later Intel's own stuff and Intel will be the first to admit that they suck at graphics to boot! Talk about massive "innovation" there, but in case Intel ever does buy Nvidia I'm sure you'll be the first to loudly proclaim that buying out another company to get technology is perfectly fine....
I know that ZoneAlarm is obnoxious but on a desktop the best "firewall" isn't a port & address based filter, but instead an application layer firewall that can say "Hey, the officially installed web browser can go out on port 80, but not some random malware you just downloaded" While this doesn't protect you from everything (like the browser itself being hijacked) it can make a big difference in stopping any old program that wants to go to a random website. One of my biggest issues with Linux is that this type of security isn't even possible short of using some of the more arcane features in SELinux that normal desktop users are never going to configure.
I just did exactly what you said and I didn't even need to use a wacky macro. This is using OpenOffice 3.2 so maybe it didn't work in an older version. Quick version: Add a text box, then go to insert->field and add in both the page number and the page count.
I know flash gets much hate around here, but the old 64 bit version actually wokrs pretty well, and I must confess that I didn't uninstall in spite of the security holes. Now I can get an up to date version... rock. I will say that trying to use the 32 bit version using nspluginwrapper is like drilling a hole in your head, and I wonder how many complaints are really based around that rather than flash itself.
Because 'simple' systems are really easy to abuse? And planned economies tend to be more stable and have better long term growth then completely laissez-faire ones?
Answers to your questions:
1. No --> and if it is really that difficult for you to understand how it's about a million times easier to abuse a tax system full of loopholes and ambiguities, I feel sorry for you.
2. No:
With your "planned" economy, you can either get a fun-filled central planner who gets rid of all those "evil" companies at the butt-end of a rifle... or you can get the current implementation of planned economies that we have in the US (and especially in California) where multiple interests compete to outlaw one another by hijacking an oversized and overpowered bureaucracy. Either way is bad news, and convoluted tax laws are a powerful club to use in micromanaging other people's lives.
One major problem with Bit Torrent is that you only get easy access to what is "popular" at any given time. I've gotten some TV show episodes (not available in the US) downloaded in a reasonable amount of time when I start the download within 24 hours of the original show being aired... but try to get the same episode 30 days later and availability drops in a hurry. Despite all the pro-P2P propaganda about how it "democratizes" data, it's really more a mob-rule popularity contest for grabbing the shiniest download.
Offtopic mod... well it looks like some Slashdot mods have no sense of humor when dealing with satire of their God-Emperor... sheesh.
Wired has a behind the scenes look at how Inception's reality-distorting special effects sequences were shot
That's easy, the just shot the whole movie with an iPhone 4 and invited Steve Jobs to the set.. all the reality distortion you'll ever need!
Preface: I'm firmly in the camp that believes that Bush wasn't as bad as we were all told and that Obama is nowhere as great as we've been all told but, Obama got the idea of privatizing LEO work 100% right. I'm getting tired of the rest of the weasels (in both parties) trying to shove even more pork into NASA instead of letting it do its job..
Hell I think the whole "foremost mission of NASA is to make Muslims feel like they are smart" is something that proves that the characters in Atlas Shrugged actually do exist in the real world, but if it means that NASA actually stops actually sabotaging private companies getting into orbit faster & better, I'm all for it! It would be a bonus if NASA actually kept doing the really out-there stuff that's way beyond Earth, but right now I'm not asking for much.
I suppose any excuse to beat up on "evil industry" will always fly on Slashdot.
Yeah.. and while I was going to say that only a sensationalist troll like KDawson would post this, I didn't want to since I hadn't checked the byline before the last post... then I went and checked it... You see kids, sometimes prejudice is just a more efficient way of arriving at the same conclusion that carefully deliberation would lead to, and it's more fun!
Please KDawson, go back to parroting what the DailyKos tells you to think... while you are a drooling idiot, at least they hire some professionals to troll the right way!
How about... 5 fun things you can do with your baby's placenta!!?!?!?!?!? (from the same site as this "article"). I suppose any excuse to beat up on "evil industry" will always fly on Slashdot.
Next thing you know there'll be the usual litany of +5 insightfuls about how "big media" (led by Catie Couric) regularly pumps out pro-insecticide propaganda. No I'm not joking.. the regular scare pieces about anything that might be remotely toxic are the product of "big pesticide" to bore us to death with obviously untrue hysteria so that we accidentally let them get away with poisoning all of us!
In a sane world making such an admission in a legal filing would be grounds for voiding the patent since patent law requires dislosure of everything a person skilled in that field would need to know to implement the patented tech.
We do live in a sane world (well at least in this regard).. if Shazaam admits it did not disclose the "best mode" for practicing its invention, or that it did not disclose enough information in its patents to "enable" the "person having ordinary skill in the art" to practice the invention, then the patent(s) become invalid and are thrown out.
As for trade secrets, assuming this guy didn't actually steal the information from Shazaam or is in cahoots with someone who did steal it, he can't have misappropriated any trade secrets since he did the work all on his own.
While what you said is true, if this guy's blog post is only explaining how Shazaam works, without actually DOING what Shazaam does (e.g. offering source code), then he hasn't done any of the enumerated actions that a patentee can exclude others from doing. He does walk a fine line though... if he says: "Here's what Shazaam does, and here's my code to download that will do it for you" then he is coming very close to an "offer to sell" (giving it away for free is a little tenuous, but any monetary advantage he gets, even advertising revenue from page hits caused by people visiting & downloading the patented code.) He may also be open to indirect infringement charges. These often occur when Company A makes a product that, when used, infringes on a patent. Rather than suing the customers who bought & actually use the product (the direct infringers) the patentee will sue Company A for inducing all of its customers to infringe by using the devices.
One other thing: If he's in Europe where this program is not under patent protection, good luck establishing minimum contacts in the US unless he is intentionally directing business into the US, which he does not appear to be doing. Simply posting information on a website without an offer to sell in the US will likely fail, meaning there is no jurisdiction in the US. Plus, any infringement has to occur in the US somehow since the Supreme Court has limited the scope of US patents to US territory on many occasions. As long as he does not actively try to "import" the code into the US, especially trying to sell it, he shouldn't have too much trouble.
As is commonly cited here, everything NASA does screws up because stupid Americans don't use the metric system... if only the Japanese would use it they wouldn't have these prob...
[hushed whispering] Uh.. it has come to my attention that some people believe Japan uses the metric system. This cannot be possible for 2 reasons: 1. With the metric system there can't be any stupid screwups like what the Americans do. 2. Japanese always have the most badass robots and this is just a space robot, and therefore must work. I stand by my original statement.
Seriously, I can't imagine how dumb some people are... complaining about acronyms that can easily be looked up on Wikipedia!
I mean, a quick search obviously reveals that ETL stands for Express Toll Lanes. Any slashdotter should know that these lanes are used by the many cars generated by the numerous analogies dotting slashdot "discussions".
And as for Pentaho... let's just break this word down into parts shall we? Penta is the root word for the number 5... duh! Of course, Ho is an accurate description of the only type of woman who will talk to the average slashdotter... assuming the slashdotter has a sufficient Benjamin supply.
So let's put all of this together shall we? This book is obviously about how you can pick up 5 hoes on a highway quickly and efficiently. This is a life skill that I'm sure many slashdotters are keenly interested in acquiring. How the hell anyone could possibly complain that the reviewer didn't expressly spell out these stupidly obvious terms is frankly beyond me.
Ahh... So Karl Rove works for Obama, and Pelosi, and Reid... check.
Fine, then I invite you to go out and be smug and self righteous with your own money to pay for all the healthcare some people claim to have a "right" to.
P.S. --> When you use the government to steal, you lose all rights to accuse those evil corporations of doing the same thing. Wrong is still wrong no matter what political boilerplate it's buried under.
Oh.. and "buzzword" was not an intentional pun there.....