In general, I'm pretty happy with most of VeriSign's services, even if they are a bit pricey.
What really upsets me is that they're not just using deceptive renewal notices to trick other provider's customers, but they're also sending them out to their current users.
I get e-mail/mail from VeriSign all the time warning me that I need to respond by a certain date or I'll lose my services. Nowhere in the notice does it have the actual date that the account expires. Looking at my own records or checking my account, I find out that the actual required date is weeks or even months after their "important notice" warns me to respond. I've become so accustomed to ignoring their mail, I've almost missed renewing a couple of (non-critical) domains.
What's troubling is that they don't seem to realize just how stupid their strategy is -- it might be the only way an upstart provider could gain customers -- but they *are* the brand name in registrars. They should be so ahead of everyone else and be trying to capitalize on what's left of their legitimacy to build on trust and user loyalty, rather than acting like some fly-by-night spammer operating out of a rented basement apartment.
Asinine stunts like this are destroying the only competitive advantage they really have. They should send someone to take a first year general business course, maybe that will help them get a clue.
Re:Why China?
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You know that somewhere over at Sun, they are brainstorming about their future and somebody's asking "what do we need to do to say we have the World's (or Asia's, or Who-ever's) most popular office suite?"
They've gotta be trying to position themselves with a product they can call number one in certain market niches, preferably pretty large ones. Trying to create a de facto standard in China seems like a great way to do it. They might not make any money at first, but the beauty of software is that it doesn't really have any marginal cost until they develop upgrades or offer full support.
If they successfully penetrate the Asian markets, they can leverage this sort of credibility in their marketing to paying customers around the world.
Also, if it works but MS makes MSOffice formats harder to read, MS could end up stabbing themselves in the foot - Don't use MS, you can't talk to 3 Billion potential customers/suppliers/partners with it. Pretty good FUD if you ask me. Maybe US businesses would start using both MS (for the West) and Star/OpenOffice (for the East) together for Global compatibility until enough people do that that they can eventually drop the more expensive solution (MSOffice).
Lots of maybes, but if StarOffice has a chance to break the MSOffice gridlock, this is exactly the kind of bold ambition they need to shot for and exactly the kind of motivation that is probably behind this strategy.
there's also a good page on how ship tracks [nasa.gov] affect climate
The ship tracks refered to above are those from a steam stack. Similarly, I've thought it interesting just how large the wake of a large boat can be - a different kind of "ship track".
Flying over the greats lakes I've seen large tankers (I presume) with wakes that seem to extend half way across the water, dwarfing the size of cities on the shore (downtown Toronto for example).
I doubt such wakes have much of a material impact on large weather systems (perhaps more than a butterfly though). But could they have local effects or an impact on erosion?
At the very least, they are interesting as very large and temporary man-made "structures" that certainly (if only visually) impact on our environment.
...as well as the usual meaning of course, which is exactly the kind of co-ordinated campaign that needs to launched.
Of course, it may be tough to get the acknowledged experts in the field (Billy G. and Stevie B.) to get on board...I doubt they have the personal experience of putting a FUD into an iMac... Although they *are* partial owners now so you never know...
The fact that at least one of the patents has been invalidated by the courts probably helps the case for fraud/extortion. On that basis it seems pretty clear that they know what they're doing is blatently wrong.
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-1168. html
From that decision:
"The court further held the '355 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) on the ground that its claims were anticipated by the '359 patent. The '355 patent issued from a chain of applications originating with the application that issued as the '359 patent. The district court held that the '355 patent is not entitled to the filing date of the original parent application and thus concluded that the '359 patent is anticipating prior art."
This is for U.S. Patent 5,309,355. It has only one independent claim, so I would assume that it being found invalid in this instance pretty much invalidates it for any instance. The other two patents in this case were not invalidated outright but were interpreted to have very restricted application.
I'm not 100% sure if any of these are precisely the patent's at issue, but the other patents mentioned in some of the posts are directly related to these and seem to have similar limitations as well.
Who designed your Website? Provided you the software? Supports you in any way? Is it a large vendor with deep pockets and a strong vested interest in keeping customers such as your own firm? If you are using products or services from one of the "big guys" and have a friendly sales or marketing support rep, give them a call, explain the situation, and ask them to find out if anyone else like you has suffered like this. You need to find someone bigger than these bullies to beat some sense into them.
It would be great to get someone like Yahoo! or even Microsoft on board. Not only do they use shopping cart systems etc. they also supply them to their vendors.
Even if none of the defendant's are currently using an "off-the-shelf" solution (such as a Yahoo! shopping cart/e-commerce site) it would be interesting to see what would happened if they switched their site over to branded solution that offered all of the same functionality and features as the ones they are being sued for. Would PanIP drop the lawsuit?
If they did, it would show that they were only interested in picking on the little guy and really make their case look frivolous.
If they didn't, then it would be that much easier to get someone like Yahoo! on board. Because not only would PanIP be suing you for something that everybody does *approximately* the same (e-commerce, shopping carts, etc.), they would be suing you for *exactly* what someone else does - hopefully compelling Yahoo! (or the provider of what ever solution chosen) to get involved because not only would their legal rights be threatened, but from a business perspective every one of their other customers would now know that they could potentially be sued for using their product/service.
Judging by the number of posts in this submission, I'd say that most people don't care for this kind of news.
Too bad, it probably should have been filed under the humor category, or at least described better in the post. I think more people would have found it funny/interesting and probably would have a bunch of similar stories to share.
I hope nobody gets the axe or a major reprimand just because they used a funny message (intended for internal use only) and then some yahoo is quoted in the article as saying it's "unprofessional" to do this kind of thing.
Besides IT, funny error messages like this seem to be pretty popular with TV stations, and even some relatively large networks when they're having A/V problems (pictures of broken Televisions or someone asleep at the production booth, etc.). And those things are actually meant to be broadcast to the public.
I can understand the special concern regarding computer networks...but "unprofessional" - lighten up, buddy - even government and military systems often use a bit of humor with their systems.
Comic book physics is more than meets the eye
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Perhaps the inhabitants of Krypton enjoy similar laws of physics as those of Cybertron.
According to the Transformers FAQ the commonly accepted answer to the question "Where does [Optimus] Prime's trailer go when he transforms?" is that each Transformer has access to a personal "subspace" in another dimension that they can use for storage and teleport objects from. The subspace is also used to store weapons and the changes in mass that occur when massive robots change size and weight, into tiny cassette tapes for instance.
So, true believer, perhaps there is some universal consistency in Comic Book Physics - even across different comic book universes (DC vs. Marvel).
Finally, someone who isn't stating point blank that either "they own it" or "you own it". While there may be legal defaults one way or another, it really depends on what you and the client agree to (terms and money). Don't assume it has to be one way or another and that you need to debate your point of view. Most clients will have experience with both work to hire arrangements and with buying customized products. Determine what they are looking for, decide what you would prefer to offer and position your service accordingly.
If you don't want to offer future support, maybe being a "hired hand" is the best way to go - they own everything, you're just punching the clock. If you feel strongly about OSS then suggest this approach and politely decline the job if they are not interested. This is probably the way they'll go if the software offers a special competitive advantage or if they intend to sell it.
If you chose to walk in offering a product where you own the source, they will expect you to support it or will likely pay you much less for an unsupported product, especially if they are paying the full development costs of a custom app. At the very least they will want some ability to change the source code - open source is one way to do this.
Just remember that by providing an unsupported and open sourced product, you could really shoot yourself in the foot. Your client will likely pay you less up front and you've also reduced future revenue streams for yourself (either selling the support or selling the app as a product).
Now if you open sourced AND you offer support, both parties could get the best of both worlds. They get the peace of mind of being able to choose between (and not having to exclusively depend on) you, the open source community, and/or other developers. You have a potential future revenue stream because even if the software is actively developed, they won't get all the features they want for free, can't wait for the next open source release, or will need someone to install and configure the latest options.
But as the box office receipts demonstrate, the writers at Marvel comics have held their own when it comes to myth-making. Sometimes, simpler is better.
While the article makes some good (although hardly original) points, this closing is off base.
Strong opening box office receipts are hardly an indicator of good myth-making, only good publicity, and to a lesser degree, good (popular) film making.
Most popular movies hardly far into the "myth" category. While both the new Star Wars and Spider-Man are/will be popular movies with mythicly inspired stories lines, this alone hardly qualifies them as popular myths. For instance, Titanic was very popular not really for its myth-making, just effective (in a popular sense) story telling. The Star Wars (movies and spin-offs) and Spider-Man (comic book, cartoon) franchises are good examples of myth-making that have had various degrees of pervasive influence in modern culture.
Whether Spider-Man (the new movie) contributes to the comic's existing legacy is yet to be seen and cannot be determined by its opening box-office receipts alone. Often the best modern "myth" has been only seen as such after the fact and often despite poor commercial success or critical acclaim.
Also, Spider-Man (the movie) is just a retelling of an existing and fairly well-know story - its "myth" has already been made. The new Star Wars contributes a wholly new part to an existing and evolving myth, a much better example of "myth-making".
Finally, with respect to Katz' last sentence: sometimes simplicity can help (either the story, its popularity, or its mythic characteristics), but sometimes effective myth is also very complex. I hardly see this as a determinant of effective myth-making.
Well, I created a new account to read this. Username is something like sdkfgdkfs and password is something like pwejorowebn. (email is sdkufgsdf@ksfsdf.com)
Maybe this is how "nadine"@honet.com really started (although in that case I think they offered actual personal info as well).
Of course, I'm not judging you, I do the same thing all the time either because I don't want to be spammed or I can't remember whether I've signed up before, can't remember my password, and don't want to be in some database anymore than I need to be. Although I think if you're going use a fake one, the "slashdotuser" type logins at least have the potential to give the NYT an idea of where their traffic was coming from so that they might decide there's enough interest to print more Star Wars articles or editorials on Napster and Linux etc.
Not only is a DoS such a dumb idea for the above mentioned reasons, just having this page up does much more of a disservice to his opinions than taking it down would in a million years. There's good reason Slashdot linked to this in the Funny category and not under Apple.
It's hard to imagine (although I do know they're unfortunately out there) anyone taking this seriously. This page is only dangerous to those who already stubornly agree with its point of view. Anyone with a half a wit should realize that it doesn't exactly help his case to have such mindless ramblings posted, even if you happened to believe in creationism.
If its not a parody, its still really funny, but its also pretty sad that people exist who can so thoroughly and unknowingly butcher their own arguments by overzealously trying to make their point.
Unfortunately, I think the only mastermind was the attorney who wrote this up and submitted it as a joke. It may gotten through as an accident, as a statement, or through a sense of humour on the part of the examiner, but based on a bit of additional research I'm guessing that the attorney knew that he would have a pretty good shot at landing this patent without any extra help from the inside.
Based on USPTO web site searches, the primary examiner listed on the patent appears to focus on toys, amusement devices (and methods), and decorative items such as jewellery. With increasing frequency (50 since October), he has been the primary examiner on nearly 700 patents over the past 5 or so years, and assistant examiner on about 300 prior to that. Seems pretty busy - anyone know how that compares to the average rate?
Going through these search results gives a quick review of the patents in this area and to anyone over 6 years old or not otherwise "skilled in the art" of toys, many of these patents seems pretty funny. I'll leave it to someone else to pull out their favourites, but while I'm sure many of these are very legitimate for this particular area, a lot of these "amusement" or "ornamental" patents seem suspect from the get-go.
I wouldn't be surprised if the attorney was aware of the types and numbers of patents in this area in particular and choose an amusement method not only because it would be silly, but also because he thought it would have a real chance to get through, based on the current practise and the workload of the examiners.
While I wouldn't place the examiner as the likely mastermind behind this, I don't mean to single him out either. The attorney doesn't appear to have any past history with this examiner, and I bet it could have gotten past any number of others working in the same category.
While I think this is really funny and "mostly harmless" (until someone references the scope of this one in their next patent), I think we can probably legitimately chalk up this patent as another symptom of an overworked and poorly designed patent system, and not simply the outcome of an inside joker or an office activist.
I just want to be the first to predict that this story will one day be referenced as a duplicate...on a day other than April Fools. I wonder how much of this is really a floater by Taco et. al. to see how people react before seriously looking into this type of thing.
Actually, minus the no AC's etc. I'd be impressed by any company that would put itself, an idea, or a promotion up for a no-holds barred review by the Slashdot community. As long as it was clearly identified as being paid for, I would actually prefer it to many other advertising means. It would be very interesting to see how well moderation would work for a commercial story.
Quine-McCluskey optimization method
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 1
...You may remember me from such algorithmic steps as "Expand my MinTerms and Don't Cares", "Group by Ones", "Compare the Pairs and Cover the Set", and "Find the Prime Implicants".
...oh wait that's the Troy-McClure method...
Guess my prof didn't pronounce it quite right (or I wasn't quite listening).
Great for minimizing the number of logic gates in a circuit, but we had to do it by hand for electrical engineering exams - so tedious! Certainly gave proof to why we now use computers for such mindless monkey-work.
The only thing that legally matters in a patent are its claims. The rest is merely illustrative.
For the most part, I agree, but when claims are made in this "means...function" manner, without identifying the means within the claim, I understand that legal precedent has used the specification to interpret the "means". Yes the claims are all that really matters, but I believe that the "illustrative" specifications can be (and have been) used by judges to interpret and define the claims. Also, the author hopes that the independent claims will be interpreted in the broadest fashion, but falls back on the other claims (independent and dependent) if the broader claim is invalidated by prior art etc.
I believe the intrepretation of the "means...function" approach is why David Pressman and other patent attorney's recommend including a separate claim describing the invention as a process (which this one does, and does so with greater limitations than the first claim). Obviously IANAL, but just interested in this area.
I know this is kinda a dupe - but a pretty good one for a more focused discussion. When I saw this in the paper today, I thought "finally, maybe somebody legitimately patented something of interest to Slashdot readers". Siemens appears to have at least one, fairly broad patent on the device/process.
"Method and device for detecting an object in an area radiated by waves in the invisible spectral range"
The first claim is as follows:
"1. A system for detection of an object in an area irradiated by waves in an invisible spectral range, the system comprising:
a projector configured such that a video image is projectable onto the area;
a device for emitting waves in the invisible spectral range configured such that the area is substantially illuminated;
a reception device configured such that the reception device registers the irradiated area, the reception device being specifically balanced for an invisible spectral range corresponding to the waves; and
a computer configured with a recognition algorithm, whereby the object irradiated by the emitted waves is detected using the recognition algorithm."
The patent seems pretty broad in that it uses phrases like "a reception device..." and "a recognition algorithm" to cover the process, but reading the specification makes it clear that the focus is on "virtual" keyboards, mousepads, and presentation pointing, and it is a bit more specific about the actual means of detection etc.
All and all, without being an expert in the prior art or patent law, I think this one actually seems like a pretty good patent (If you believe in patents at all, of course). Also a pretty cool invention. Obviously it will have to be improved and smallified before being really useful (and integratable into my cell phone, watch, ring, etc.), but they seem to be off to a great start!
He claims not to have received the registered letter. The judge then made a default judgement against him since the court only heard one side of the case.
Although I'm not exactly sure about the legal implications, I hope that he is telling the truth that he did not receive the notice (rather than just ignoring it). I would imagine (and hope!) there would be some really good recourse to appeal in this case.
If not (if there is little recourse, or if he lied and should have responded), and the judgement is not overturned, I hope that it can't be used a a precedent (since it was won by default, not on the facts). Any lawyers in the room (I'm obviously not one)?
Actually, I think the best advice is to do what you think you'll do best at - which is often whatever you find the most interesting. I imagine you'll want to eventually do something that you can excel at and have a good time at. If you want to get there as fast as you can then try to figure out the best career match for your interests and strengths and work backwards to figure out the most applicable degree(s).
Don't worry too much about finding an exact match, as long as you push yourself to learn whatever you choose, develop so-called "transferable skills", and can demonstrate your potential (inside and outside of the classroom). If you excel in EE and then want to become a banker, remember that many future employers are going to think more highly of someone who's top of their class in engineering and active in outside activities, than someone who's middle of the pack in business or economics with no distinction inside or outside the classroom.
You CAN do just about anything starting from just about any background, but some paths are more direct than others so it depends how sure you are. If you have the time and want to develop broad skills then play around a bit in school, as well as learning whatever you can on your own. If you want the best job right out of school then choose what suits you best so you can learn most effectively and get the best marks.
That being said, you seem to have already narrowed it down to a few similar majors. Of them, EE probably gives you the most opportunity based on name alone, since engineering is generally more rigorous than CS and allows you to get a professional designation. For many jobs either degree will work if you have the right skills. As long as you're not bent on choosing a profession that specifically requires a particular degree (Meds, Law, Civil Eng.) then make your choice based on the specific courses you want to take since that's what you'll actually be learning, regardless of the program. For instance, engineers can often take many of the same courses as CS majors but not vice versa.
I agree that it's not just the act of delivering these ads that's so bothersome. While the X10 ads always bother me for the inconvenience of closing them, the content doesn't really bother me when I'm just at home surfing for entertainment...
... but when I'm using the net at the office (semi-open concept cube farm) and the "scantily-clad females" etc. pop-up it really makes me reconsider using that particular site. Not always an option with the proliferation of the ads on financial news sites and other resources with unique content.
I understand the need to make money and to employ "creative" techniques, but I think that Yahoo and others are running the risk of hurting their credibility with the key business user demographic by allowing racy pop-up/under ads that are inappropriate for most offices and that can slow down research efforts (and occasionally crash the browser or OS, especially when you've got multiple business aps open).
On top of that, if the ads were any worse, I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes it even further in this crazy Politically Correct world of ours and sues an employee/er for harrassment just for walking by the screen! I've heard of dumber things happenning...
Try this Google search for Anti-OSS
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
site:slashdot.org flamebait
Optionally, you could add terms like "open source", "GPL" or "linux", but you probably don't need to (although -goatse.cx might be a good idea, just to be safe).
The "evidence" they've used for their report is simply taken from one day's listing on gnutellameter.com - certainly not a very scientific approach. Looking at that site more carefully could easily lead to the opposite conclusions of those in their report.
If you visit the Gnutellameter site you'll find the top search terms to be an incredibly small fraction of total searches. Today's number one search term is "neuroticfish no instruments" with a "fraction" of 0.3975%. "Porn" is number 4 with a fraction of only 0.1760%. The terms towards the bottom of the top 30 have fractions of less than 0.08%. The real story is that people are searching for a wide range of specific searches, not generic ones like "porn" and that one or more people conducting even a relatively small number of searches for a particular item on any one day could skewer the results. This would include Senate "researchers" searching for porn related terms on the same day they use the top 30 data.
Even if they didn't try to skewer the data by their own searches, it would be fairly easy to do so, and at any rate they selectively choose data from a day that would support their hypothesis. If they had picked a day with an obscure set of terms as one of the top 5 searches it would have been more obvious how bad (and selective) their data and suggested conclusions really are.
From a quick look at gnutellameters' numbers, it seems (surprisingly to me) that P2P might actually be less porn ridden than the rest of the net (and certainly no worse than newsgroups), and that porn searches (at least generic ones - "porn", "sex", "pics" etc.) may be less common using P2P vs. many search engines.
This seems to be another powerful person lashing out at something they don't understand and using bad and misleading data to back them up.
Slashdot Mirror
In general, I'm pretty happy with most of VeriSign's services, even if they are a bit pricey.
What really upsets me is that they're not just using deceptive renewal notices to trick other provider's customers, but they're also sending them out to their current users.
I get e-mail/mail from VeriSign all the time warning me that I need to respond by a certain date or I'll lose my services. Nowhere in the notice does it have the actual date that the account expires. Looking at my own records or checking my account, I find out that the actual required date is weeks or even months after their "important notice" warns me to respond. I've become so accustomed to ignoring their mail, I've almost missed renewing a couple of (non-critical) domains.
What's troubling is that they don't seem to realize just how stupid their strategy is -- it might be the only way an upstart provider could gain customers -- but they *are* the brand name in registrars. They should be so ahead of everyone else and be trying to capitalize on what's left of their legitimacy to build on trust and user loyalty, rather than acting like some fly-by-night spammer operating out of a rented basement apartment.
Asinine stunts like this are destroying the only competitive advantage they really have. They should send someone to take a first year general business course, maybe that will help them get a clue.
You know that somewhere over at Sun, they are brainstorming about their future and somebody's asking "what do we need to do to say we have the World's (or Asia's, or Who-ever's) most popular office suite?"
They've gotta be trying to position themselves with a product they can call number one in certain market niches, preferably pretty large ones. Trying to create a de facto standard in China seems like a great way to do it. They might not make any money at first, but the beauty of software is that it doesn't really have any marginal cost until they develop upgrades or offer full support.
If they successfully penetrate the Asian markets, they can leverage this sort of credibility in their marketing to paying customers around the world.
Also, if it works but MS makes MSOffice formats harder to read, MS could end up stabbing themselves in the foot - Don't use MS, you can't talk to 3 Billion potential customers/suppliers/partners with it. Pretty good FUD if you ask me. Maybe US businesses would start using both MS (for the West) and Star/OpenOffice (for the East) together for Global compatibility until enough people do that that they can eventually drop the more expensive solution (MSOffice).
Lots of maybes, but if StarOffice has a chance to break the MSOffice gridlock, this is exactly the kind of bold ambition they need to shot for and exactly the kind of motivation that is probably behind this strategy.
there's also a good page on how ship tracks [nasa.gov] affect climate
The ship tracks refered to above are those from a steam stack. Similarly, I've thought it interesting just how large the wake of a large boat can be - a different kind of "ship track".
Flying over the greats lakes I've seen large tankers (I presume) with wakes that seem to extend half way across the water, dwarfing the size of cities on the shore (downtown Toronto for example).
I doubt such wakes have much of a material impact on large weather systems (perhaps more than a butterfly though). But could they have local effects or an impact on erosion?
At the very least, they are interesting as very large and temporary man-made "structures" that certainly (if only visually) impact on our environment.
Obviously there's some confusion here...
I say we just call it a draw and declare the entire month of May to be Towel Month.
After all, anything as massively important as a towel deserves more than just a day...
Why not...
"FUD" for F#@ked Up Disk
...as well as the usual meaning of course, which is exactly the kind of co-ordinated campaign that needs to launched.
Of course, it may be tough to get the acknowledged experts in the field (Billy G. and Stevie B.) to get on board...I doubt they have the personal experience of putting a FUD into an iMac... Although they *are* partial owners now so you never know...
The fact that at least one of the patents has been invalidated by the courts probably helps the case for fraud/extortion. On that basis it seems pretty clear that they know what they're doing is blatently wrong.
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-1168. html
From that decision:
"The court further held the '355 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) on the ground that its claims were anticipated by the '359 patent. The '355 patent issued from a chain of applications originating with the application that issued as the '359 patent. The district court held that the '355 patent is not entitled to the filing date of the original parent application and thus concluded that the '359 patent is anticipating prior art."
This is for U.S. Patent 5,309,355. It has only one independent claim, so I would assume that it being found invalid in this instance pretty much invalidates it for any instance. The other two patents in this case were not invalidated outright but were interpreted to have very restricted application.
I'm not 100% sure if any of these are precisely the patent's at issue, but the other patents mentioned in some of the posts are directly related to these and seem to have similar limitations as well.
Who designed your Website? Provided you the software? Supports you in any way? Is it a large vendor with deep pockets and a strong vested interest in keeping customers such as your own firm? If you are using products or services from one of the "big guys" and have a friendly sales or marketing support rep, give them a call, explain the situation, and ask them to find out if anyone else like you has suffered like this. You need to find someone bigger than these bullies to beat some sense into them.
It would be great to get someone like Yahoo! or even Microsoft on board. Not only do they use shopping cart systems etc. they also supply them to their vendors.
Even if none of the defendant's are currently using an "off-the-shelf" solution (such as a Yahoo! shopping cart/e-commerce site) it would be interesting to see what would happened if they switched their site over to branded solution that offered all of the same functionality and features as the ones they are being sued for. Would PanIP drop the lawsuit?
If they did, it would show that they were only interested in picking on the little guy and really make their case look frivolous.
If they didn't, then it would be that much easier to get someone like Yahoo! on board. Because not only would PanIP be suing you for something that everybody does *approximately* the same (e-commerce, shopping carts, etc.), they would be suing you for *exactly* what someone else does - hopefully compelling Yahoo! (or the provider of what ever solution chosen) to get involved because not only would their legal rights be threatened, but from a business perspective every one of their other customers would now know that they could potentially be sued for using their product/service.
Judging by the number of posts in this submission, I'd say that most people don't care for this kind of news.
Too bad, it probably should have been filed under the humor category, or at least described better in the post. I think more people would have found it funny/interesting and probably would have a bunch of similar stories to share.
I hope nobody gets the axe or a major reprimand just because they used a funny message (intended for internal use only) and then some yahoo is quoted in the article as saying it's "unprofessional" to do this kind of thing.
Besides IT, funny error messages like this seem to be pretty popular with TV stations, and even some relatively large networks when they're having A/V problems (pictures of broken Televisions or someone asleep at the production booth, etc.). And those things are actually meant to be broadcast to the public.
I can understand the special concern regarding computer networks...but "unprofessional" - lighten up, buddy - even government and military systems often use a bit of humor with their systems.
Perhaps the inhabitants of Krypton enjoy similar laws of physics as those of Cybertron.
According to the Transformers FAQ the commonly accepted answer to the question "Where does [Optimus] Prime's trailer go when he transforms?" is that each Transformer has access to a personal "subspace" in another dimension that they can use for storage and teleport objects from. The subspace is also used to store weapons and the changes in mass that occur when massive robots change size and weight, into tiny cassette tapes for instance.
So, true believer, perhaps there is some universal consistency in Comic Book Physics - even across different comic book universes (DC vs. Marvel).
Finally, someone who isn't stating point blank that either "they own it" or "you own it". While there may be legal defaults one way or another, it really depends on what you and the client agree to (terms and money). Don't assume it has to be one way or another and that you need to debate your point of view. Most clients will have experience with both work to hire arrangements and with buying customized products. Determine what they are looking for, decide what you would prefer to offer and position your service accordingly.
If you don't want to offer future support, maybe being a "hired hand" is the best way to go - they own everything, you're just punching the clock. If you feel strongly about OSS then suggest this approach and politely decline the job if they are not interested. This is probably the way they'll go if the software offers a special competitive advantage or if they intend to sell it.
If you chose to walk in offering a product where you own the source, they will expect you to support it or will likely pay you much less for an unsupported product, especially if they are paying the full development costs of a custom app. At the very least they will want some ability to change the source code - open source is one way to do this.
Just remember that by providing an unsupported and open sourced product, you could really shoot yourself in the foot. Your client will likely pay you less up front and you've also reduced future revenue streams for yourself (either selling the support or selling the app as a product).
Now if you open sourced AND you offer support, both parties could get the best of both worlds. They get the peace of mind of being able to choose between (and not having to exclusively depend on) you, the open source community, and/or other developers. You have a potential future revenue stream because even if the software is actively developed, they won't get all the features they want for free, can't wait for the next open source release, or will need someone to install and configure the latest options.
But as the box office receipts demonstrate, the writers at Marvel comics have held their own when it comes to myth-making. Sometimes, simpler is better.
While the article makes some good (although hardly original) points, this closing is off base.
Strong opening box office receipts are hardly an indicator of good myth-making, only good publicity, and to a lesser degree, good (popular) film making.
Most popular movies hardly far into the "myth" category. While both the new Star Wars and Spider-Man are/will be popular movies with mythicly inspired stories lines, this alone hardly qualifies them as popular myths. For instance, Titanic was very popular not really for its myth-making, just effective (in a popular sense) story telling. The Star Wars (movies and spin-offs) and Spider-Man (comic book, cartoon) franchises are good examples of myth-making that have had various degrees of pervasive influence in modern culture.
Whether Spider-Man (the new movie) contributes to the comic's existing legacy is yet to be seen and cannot be determined by its opening box-office receipts alone. Often the best modern "myth" has been only seen as such after the fact and often despite poor commercial success or critical acclaim.
Also, Spider-Man (the movie) is just a retelling of an existing and fairly well-know story - its "myth" has already been made. The new Star Wars contributes a wholly new part to an existing and evolving myth, a much better example of "myth-making".
Finally, with respect to Katz' last sentence: sometimes simplicity can help (either the story, its popularity, or its mythic characteristics), but sometimes effective myth is also very complex. I hardly see this as a determinant of effective myth-making.
Well, I created a new account to read this. Username is something like sdkfgdkfs and password is something like pwejorowebn. (email is sdkufgsdf@ksfsdf.com)
Maybe this is how "nadine"@honet.com really started (although in that case I think they offered actual personal info as well).
Of course, I'm not judging you, I do the same thing all the time either because I don't want to be spammed or I can't remember whether I've signed up before, can't remember my password, and don't want to be in some database anymore than I need to be. Although I think if you're going use a fake one, the "slashdotuser" type logins at least have the potential to give the NYT an idea of where their traffic was coming from so that they might decide there's enough interest to print more Star Wars articles or editorials on Napster and Linux etc.
Not only is a DoS such a dumb idea for the above mentioned reasons, just having this page up does much more of a disservice to his opinions than taking it down would in a million years. There's good reason Slashdot linked to this in the Funny category and not under Apple.
It's hard to imagine (although I do know they're unfortunately out there) anyone taking this seriously. This page is only dangerous to those who already stubornly agree with its point of view. Anyone with a half a wit should realize that it doesn't exactly help his case to have such mindless ramblings posted, even if you happened to believe in creationism.
If its not a parody, its still really funny, but its also pretty sad that people exist who can so thoroughly and unknowingly butcher their own arguments by overzealously trying to make their point.
Unfortunately, I think the only mastermind was the attorney who wrote this up and submitted it as a joke. It may gotten through as an accident, as a statement, or through a sense of humour on the part of the examiner, but based on a bit of additional research I'm guessing that the attorney knew that he would have a pretty good shot at landing this patent without any extra help from the inside.
Based on USPTO web site searches, the primary examiner listed on the patent appears to focus on toys, amusement devices (and methods), and decorative items such as jewellery. With increasing frequency (50 since October), he has been the primary examiner on nearly 700 patents over the past 5 or so years, and assistant examiner on about 300 prior to that. Seems pretty busy - anyone know how that compares to the average rate?
Going through these search results gives a quick review of the patents in this area and to anyone over 6 years old or not otherwise "skilled in the art" of toys, many of these patents seems pretty funny. I'll leave it to someone else to pull out their favourites, but while I'm sure many of these are very legitimate for this particular area, a lot of these "amusement" or "ornamental" patents seem suspect from the get-go.
I wouldn't be surprised if the attorney was aware of the types and numbers of patents in this area in particular and choose an amusement method not only because it would be silly, but also because he thought it would have a real chance to get through, based on the current practise and the workload of the examiners.
While I wouldn't place the examiner as the likely mastermind behind this, I don't mean to single him out either. The attorney doesn't appear to have any past history with this examiner, and I bet it could have gotten past any number of others working in the same category.
While I think this is really funny and "mostly harmless" (until someone references the scope of this one in their next patent), I think we can probably legitimately chalk up this patent as another symptom of an overworked and poorly designed patent system, and not simply the outcome of an inside joker or an office activist.
I just want to be the first to predict that this story will one day be referenced as a duplicate...on a day other than April Fools. I wonder how much of this is really a floater by Taco et. al. to see how people react before seriously looking into this type of thing.
Actually, minus the no AC's etc. I'd be impressed by any company that would put itself, an idea, or a promotion up for a no-holds barred review by the Slashdot community. As long as it was clearly identified as being paid for, I would actually prefer it to many other advertising means. It would be very interesting to see how well moderation would work for a commercial story.
...You may remember me from such algorithmic steps as "Expand my MinTerms and Don't Cares", "Group by Ones", "Compare the Pairs and Cover the Set", and "Find the Prime Implicants".
...oh wait that's the Troy-McClure method...
Guess my prof didn't pronounce it quite right (or I wasn't quite listening).
Great for minimizing the number of logic gates in a circuit, but we had to do it by hand for electrical engineering exams - so tedious! Certainly gave proof to why we now use computers for such mindless monkey-work.
I believe the intrepretation of the "means...function" approach is why David Pressman and other patent attorney's recommend including a separate claim describing the invention as a process (which this one does, and does so with greater limitations than the first claim). Obviously IANAL, but just interested in this area.
I know this is kinda a dupe - but a pretty good one for a more focused discussion. When I saw this in the paper today, I thought "finally, maybe somebody legitimately patented something of interest to Slashdot readers". Siemens appears to have at least one, fairly broad patent on the device/process.
Check out Patent #6,353,428 on the USPTO website:
"Method and device for detecting an object in an area radiated by waves in the invisible spectral range"
The first claim is as follows:
"1. A system for detection of an object in an area irradiated by waves in an invisible spectral range, the system comprising:
a projector configured such that a video image is projectable onto the area;
a device for emitting waves in the invisible spectral range configured such that the area is substantially illuminated;
a reception device configured such that the reception device registers the irradiated area, the reception device being specifically balanced for an invisible spectral range corresponding to the waves; and
a computer configured with a recognition algorithm, whereby the object irradiated by the emitted waves is detected using the recognition algorithm."
The patent seems pretty broad in that it uses phrases like "a reception device..." and "a recognition algorithm" to cover the process, but reading the specification makes it clear that the focus is on "virtual" keyboards, mousepads, and presentation pointing, and it is a bit more specific about the actual means of detection etc.
All and all, without being an expert in the prior art or patent law, I think this one actually seems like a pretty good patent (If you believe in patents at all, of course). Also a pretty cool invention. Obviously it will have to be improved and smallified before being really useful (and integratable into my cell phone, watch, ring, etc.), but they seem to be off to a great start!
He claims not to have received the registered letter. The judge then made a default judgement against him since the court only heard one side of the case.
Although I'm not exactly sure about the legal implications, I hope that he is telling the truth that he did not receive the notice (rather than just ignoring it). I would imagine (and hope!) there would be some really good recourse to appeal in this case.
If not (if there is little recourse, or if he lied and should have responded), and the judgement is not overturned, I hope that it can't be used a a precedent (since it was won by default, not on the facts). Any lawyers in the room (I'm obviously not one)?
Plastics.
A few more words:
Actually, I think the best advice is to do what you think you'll do best at - which is often whatever you find the most interesting. I imagine you'll want to eventually do something that you can excel at and have a good time at. If you want to get there as fast as you can then try to figure out the best career match for your interests and strengths and work backwards to figure out the most applicable degree(s).
Don't worry too much about finding an exact match, as long as you push yourself to learn whatever you choose, develop so-called "transferable skills", and can demonstrate your potential (inside and outside of the classroom). If you excel in EE and then want to become a banker, remember that many future employers are going to think more highly of someone who's top of their class in engineering and active in outside activities, than someone who's middle of the pack in business or economics with no distinction inside or outside the classroom.
You CAN do just about anything starting from just about any background, but some paths are more direct than others so it depends how sure you are. If you have the time and want to develop broad skills then play around a bit in school, as well as learning whatever you can on your own. If you want the best job right out of school then choose what suits you best so you can learn most effectively and get the best marks.
That being said, you seem to have already narrowed it down to a few similar majors. Of them, EE probably gives you the most opportunity based on name alone, since engineering is generally more rigorous than CS and allows you to get a professional designation. For many jobs either degree will work if you have the right skills. As long as you're not bent on choosing a profession that specifically requires a particular degree (Meds, Law, Civil Eng.) then make your choice based on the specific courses you want to take since that's what you'll actually be learning, regardless of the program. For instance, engineers can often take many of the same courses as CS majors but not vice versa.
Good luck.
I agree that it's not just the act of delivering these ads that's so bothersome. While the X10 ads always bother me for the inconvenience of closing them, the content doesn't really bother me when I'm just at home surfing for entertainment ...
... but when I'm using the net at the office (semi-open concept cube farm) and the "scantily-clad females" etc. pop-up it really makes me reconsider using that particular site. Not always an option with the proliferation of the ads on financial news sites and other resources with unique content.
I understand the need to make money and to employ "creative" techniques, but I think that Yahoo and others are running the risk of hurting their credibility with the key business user demographic by allowing racy pop-up/under ads that are inappropriate for most offices and that can slow down research efforts (and occasionally crash the browser or OS, especially when you've got multiple business aps open).
On top of that, if the ads were any worse, I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes it even further in this crazy Politically Correct world of ours and sues an employee/er for harrassment just for walking by the screen! I've heard of dumber things happenning...
site:slashdot.org flamebait
Optionally, you could add terms like "open source", "GPL" or "linux", but you probably don't need to (although -goatse.cx might be a good idea, just to be safe).
The "evidence" they've used for their report is simply taken from one day's listing on gnutellameter.com - certainly not a very scientific approach. Looking at that site more carefully could easily lead to the opposite conclusions of those in their report.
If you visit the Gnutellameter site you'll find the top search terms to be an incredibly small fraction of total searches. Today's number one search term is "neuroticfish no instruments" with a "fraction" of 0.3975%. "Porn" is number 4 with a fraction of only 0.1760%. The terms towards the bottom of the top 30 have fractions of less than 0.08%. The real story is that people are searching for a wide range of specific searches, not generic ones like "porn" and that one or more people conducting even a relatively small number of searches for a particular item on any one day could skewer the results. This would include Senate "researchers" searching for porn related terms on the same day they use the top 30 data.
Even if they didn't try to skewer the data by their own searches, it would be fairly easy to do so, and at any rate they selectively choose data from a day that would support their hypothesis. If they had picked a day with an obscure set of terms as one of the top 5 searches it would have been more obvious how bad (and selective) their data and suggested conclusions really are.
From a quick look at gnutellameters' numbers, it seems (surprisingly to me) that P2P might actually be less porn ridden than the rest of the net (and certainly no worse than newsgroups), and that porn searches (at least generic ones - "porn", "sex", "pics" etc.) may be less common using P2P vs. many search engines.
This seems to be another powerful person lashing out at something they don't understand and using bad and misleading data to back them up.
My first post - please be kind.