"The Year Of Our Lord" isn't even a religious statement, it's telling you which calendar they were using.
Yes, but you do see dishonest or ignorant religionists claiming that the use of the term means the founders were establishing a Christian nation. Which makes about as much sense as claiming that swearing via blasphemy makes one a believer.
That's what "competitiveness" is all about. Wages decline until they're just above survival level. This eliminates most discretionary consumer spending, and the economy stabilizes at a low level. That's the "free market" applied to labor. Your life will just barely work, forever. Deal with it.
There's a reason economics is the "dismal science". This is just an application to the individual of the maxim that marginal profit under perfect competition is zero.
It's simple really. Many on/. are car geeks. They are proud of the fact that while other people go to Jiffy Lube for their oil changes, they are part of the privileged class who know how to change their own oil. It makes them very angry that those skills will become essentially worthless in the future because of EVs.
At least, that's what I see as the epitome of the hate.
Which just proves that you're not too observant. And have no friends, because friends don't let friends go to Jiffy Lube for oil changes. Try going somewhere that they actually will reliably replace drain plug, filler cap, and filter before sending you on your way.
Volkswagen's solutions fixes the symptoms, but not the cause. Besides, when you _do_ need to send a message outside working hours, how are you supposed to do that?
Call them. The Blackberry still works as a phone.
If the "push" is turned off, can a Blackberry user still do a manual "pull"? I'm not familiar with Blackberry.
While you are free to do whatever you want, you need to get the story right before making a decision. 1. He was not actually there to hunt elephant. He was hunting other animals, his license just happened to cover elephant so it was a legal shoot. 2. The reason he shot the elephant was that a village there asked him to because said elephant was destroying their only form of income, their crops. 3. The people there also ate off that elephant for several weeks, some walking long distances to get some of it.
Sure. None of that excuses his support for SOPA, though. That just gives elephant-hunters a bad name.
Then why isn't this used in every notebook on the market already, when it would increase the charge from ~5h to one week?
For the same reason it isn't used NOW, despite that Apple has a patent for it. Nobody has come up with a practical way to do it. So not only is this patent non-novel and obvious, it fails to teach how to make the invention. So it's a total patent fail; way to go, patent office.
I suspect that someone will come up with a practical way to do it, and it will be by improving fuel cells. The improved fuel cell probably will deserve a patent. Connecting such an improved fuel cell to a laptop no more deserves a patent than connected a lithium polymer battery to a laptop deserved a patent. Yes, one can substitute one power source for another; that's OBVIOUS.
Ah, guys, this isn't legal anywhere. Can't you tell a whoosh when you hear it going over your head?
Homeowners associations are like creationists in that they follow Poe's Law. There's no silly rule you can attribute to them that some percentage of reasonable people won't take seriously.
No, the Republicans are against the wasteful spending due to highly inefficient government programs, which lend themselves to fraud and abuse, that are supposed to help the poor and needy get out of being poor and needy, but do exactly the opposite and keep them poor and needy.
Unfortunately they're for the wasteful spending due to highly efficient government programs which are designed to keep certain fatcats on top.
And then there's Bush and Obama, who are for both sorts of programs.
Once we have fully robotic soldiers that can fuel themselves from local energy sources, and repair themselves and nano-fab their own bullets using local materials, these will be museum pieces.
Only if the robots like museums. Otherwise they'll just be raw materials sources.
The big antitrust issue is Google's preference for its own services in search results. Search for "new movies" with Google. Everything on the screen is a Google ad or service. No organic search results appear above the fold. The same thing happens for "DVD player", where everything is either an ad or Google Shopping.
And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts.
That's because there's a law, the Federal Arbitration Act, specifically allowing that. The idea is to reduce the courts' workloads so the judges could spend more time admiring themselves in their robes and less time actually doing their job.
I'm sure there's a particular detail that means that it is not valid as prior art. Of course, the other way around, Apple's patent will in fact cover that device and any other device. Especially Android ones.
Right. Prior art is interpreted narrowly; any minor difference is enough to invalidate it. Claims, on the other hand, are interpreted broadly; any way of shoehorning the proposed infringing device into the scope of the patent claim is accepted. So it's easy to get a patent that covers things done in exactly the same way as the prior art.
Not anymore. Several court cases completely shot this down. Some cops in isolated areas might not have gotten the message yet. About a half dozen people have been "charged" with it, but no one that I know was convicted.
They get the message, they just don't care. They'll arrest you, take your stuff, let you spend time in jail, and then maybe you'll be found not guilty. Nothing will happen to the cop. Until such deliberate abuse of laws is punished by the cop being taken out back of the courthouse and hanged on the spot, they will continue.
The whole point of civil disobedience is that you are WILLING to take the punishment of breaking the law, because you are so opposed to the law that you are willing to take the punishment as a demonstration.
Civil disobedience is for suckers. Few will hear about it, almost none will care, and anyone who does will be mad at you for using it for anything less than Jim Crow. Furthermore, penalties nowadays are higher; you won't be spending 30-60-90 days in jail, you'll be spending years in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, and when you get out your life is over thanks to your felony conviction.
Except for work, my email is pretty darn non-interesting to anyone. Well except the ones that contain steganographic payloads, but they don't look encrypted of course:-).
For internal work email, my employer owns the email system and I connect to it via encrypted connection. Aside from in my browser it never leaves their system. No need for additional encryption.
Additionally, I disagree that most of the changes over the past 30 have been in hardware. My network keeps getting faster and faster even though I'm still using the same Cat 5 cables.
Really? 10BaseT only goes back 22 years. Cat 5 cable only 21 years. The modulation schemes that allow 100BaseTX and 1000BaseT date to 1995 and 1998. And that's just the endpoints; router hardware has improved as well.
That disclosure encourages innovation, because the CREATORS don't constantly have to re-invent the same thing. If I come up with a novel sorting algorithm and keep it secret, you have to waste time re-inventing the same thing if you want to more efficiently sort stuff. If I publish, you can now spend your time working on the next innovation.
Except software patents don't work that way. It's easier in the software world to reinvent than to license. Especially when the license-holder isn't interested in making money from licenses, but rather wants to "destroy" you as Steve Jobs said he wanted to do to Android. But you can't safely re-invent either, because so many common techniques are patented by overbroad patents. A patent you might never have heard of on some common technique invented and re-invented 100 times can bite you in the ass.
No duh. Opening up your desktop firewall to the world and setting up your C drive as a share writable by Everyone is not a better way for your team to share data.
Of course it isn't. But when the IT-blessed process to do it takes 12 weeks and results in shared space with a 10MB quota and a network connection with dialup speed and satellite latency, people are going to take shortcuts.
Go through proper channels, make your case logically. Worst case scenario, get your boss to talk to my boss.
If even the simplest things are a struggle to accomplish and anything slightly complicated requires escalation (which always looks bad in the eyes of the manager -- escalating means you couldn't figure out how to do your job), IT IS the problem
IT is often the "prevention of information services department". User figures out a better way to do something, IT blocks it. Prescribed methods of doing things don't work well; user goes around them, IT blocks or complains to management. User wants something done, IT demands business justification and signatures from at least two executive VPs. User does it himself, IT finds out and makes him stop.
I wonder if there would be resistance from power companies if people were able to put cheap solar panels on their houses, or if they would buy up all the patents so you had to buy your panels from them.
They'd just institute daylight-based pricing. Use of electricity during the day = $0.05/kWh. Use of electricity an night = $0.50/kWh. Now you've got to solve the battery problem AND the solar panel problem.
Yes. They don't need to make sure if the actual content is infringing or not, DMCA is very clear on the procedure. If the original uploader think it violates others copyrights, then he can submit counter-notice and get it back.
Sure, the uploader can say "Sue me". That's what a DMCA counter-notice is, an invitation to be sued. Would you invite an RIAA lawyer to sue you? That's the price of being able to upload content nowadays, to literally invite lawsuits from entities far more powerful than you.
But it's worse than that. Once they've told the service provider they are going to sue your worthless ass into the ground, the content gets taken down until the outcome is decided. Guess how long that will take? So they win even before they win. It's suppression of speech on a massive scale.
It can't work like that because then all the copyright infringing person could do is not reply to the notice.
Then they can leave it up until the copyright owner obtains an injunction. That's the minimum of what it should take to get the content taken down, an actual adversarial proceeding.
DMCA already also has penalties for fake notices.
No, it does not. The only penalty is for representing oneself as the owner of work one does not own. I could write a DMCA takedown notice against every video on Youtube saying it violates the copyright on this post I am writing right now, and I would not be subject the the penalties the DMCA sets out.
DMCA itself is good. DMCA allows website owners protection against liability if some user of the service spreads copyright infringing content.
Liability which wasn't there pre-DMCA, see RTC v. Netcom
The DMCA was a case of copyright owners giving up what they never had in order to get something they wanted, namely the takedown process. When the takedown process proved insufficient, they just grabbed more (automated content filtering, and now SOPA and PROTECT-IP)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you do see dishonest or ignorant religionists claiming that the use of the term means the founders were establishing a Christian nation. Which makes about as much sense as claiming that swearing via blasphemy makes one a believer.
There's a reason economics is the "dismal science". This is just an application to the individual of the maxim that marginal profit under perfect competition is zero.
Which just proves that you're not too observant. And have no friends, because friends don't let friends go to Jiffy Lube for oil changes. Try going somewhere that they actually will reliably replace drain plug, filler cap, and filter before sending you on your way.
Call them. The Blackberry still works as a phone.
If the "push" is turned off, can a Blackberry user still do a manual "pull"? I'm not familiar with Blackberry.
Sure. None of that excuses his support for SOPA, though. That just gives elephant-hunters a bad name.
For the same reason it isn't used NOW, despite that Apple has a patent for it. Nobody has come up with a practical way to do it. So not only is this patent non-novel and obvious, it fails to teach how to make the invention. So it's a total patent fail; way to go, patent office.
I suspect that someone will come up with a practical way to do it, and it will be by improving fuel cells. The improved fuel cell probably will deserve a patent. Connecting such an improved fuel cell to a laptop no more deserves a patent than connected a lithium polymer battery to a laptop deserved a patent. Yes, one can substitute one power source for another; that's OBVIOUS.
Homeowners associations are like creationists in that they follow Poe's Law. There's no silly rule you can attribute to them that some percentage of reasonable people won't take seriously.
Unfortunately they're for the wasteful spending due to highly efficient government programs which are designed to keep certain fatcats on top.
And then there's Bush and Obama, who are for both sorts of programs.
Only if the robots like museums. Otherwise they'll just be raw materials sources.
Are you sure? (waves hand) I remember only two.
My screen lacks a "fold".
Wouldn't be worth the effort.
That's because there's a law, the Federal Arbitration Act, specifically allowing that. The idea is to reduce the courts' workloads so the judges could spend more time admiring themselves in their robes and less time actually doing their job.
Right. Prior art is interpreted narrowly; any minor difference is enough to invalidate it. Claims, on the other hand, are interpreted broadly; any way of shoehorning the proposed infringing device into the scope of the patent claim is accepted. So it's easy to get a patent that covers things done in exactly the same way as the prior art.
They get the message, they just don't care. They'll arrest you, take your stuff, let you spend time in jail, and then maybe you'll be found not guilty. Nothing will happen to the cop. Until such deliberate abuse of laws is punished by the cop being taken out back of the courthouse and hanged on the spot, they will continue.
Civil disobedience is for suckers. Few will hear about it, almost none will care, and anyone who does will be mad at you for using it for anything less than Jim Crow. Furthermore, penalties nowadays are higher; you won't be spending 30-60-90 days in jail, you'll be spending years in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, and when you get out your life is over thanks to your felony conviction.
Except for work, my email is pretty darn non-interesting to anyone. Well except the ones that contain steganographic payloads, but they don't look encrypted of course :-).
For internal work email, my employer owns the email system and I connect to it via encrypted connection. Aside from in my browser it never leaves their system. No need for additional encryption.
Really? 10BaseT only goes back 22 years. Cat 5 cable only 21 years. The modulation schemes that allow 100BaseTX and 1000BaseT date to 1995 and 1998. And that's just the endpoints; router hardware has improved as well.
Except software patents don't work that way. It's easier in the software world to reinvent than to license. Especially when the license-holder isn't interested in making money from licenses, but rather wants to "destroy" you as Steve Jobs said he wanted to do to Android. But you can't safely re-invent either, because so many common techniques are patented by overbroad patents. A patent you might never have heard of on some common technique invented and re-invented 100 times can bite you in the ass.
The judges who specialize in copyright generally are copyright absolutists.
Of course it isn't. But when the IT-blessed process to do it takes 12 weeks and results in shared space with a 10MB quota and a network connection with dialup speed and satellite latency, people are going to take shortcuts.
If even the simplest things are a struggle to accomplish and anything slightly complicated requires escalation (which always looks bad in the eyes of the manager -- escalating means you couldn't figure out how to do your job), IT IS the problem
IT is often the "prevention of information services department". User figures out a better way to do something, IT blocks it. Prescribed methods of doing things don't work well; user goes around them, IT blocks or complains to management. User wants something done, IT demands business justification and signatures from at least two executive VPs. User does it himself, IT finds out and makes him stop.
Because this article is a thinly-veiled plea to give all the spectrum to Verizon.
They'd just institute daylight-based pricing. Use of electricity during the day = $0.05/kWh. Use of electricity an night = $0.50/kWh. Now you've got to solve the battery problem AND the solar panel problem.
Sure, the uploader can say "Sue me". That's what a DMCA counter-notice is, an invitation to be sued. Would you invite an RIAA lawyer to sue you? That's the price of being able to upload content nowadays, to literally invite lawsuits from entities far more powerful than you.
But it's worse than that. Once they've told the service provider they are going to sue your worthless ass into the ground, the content gets taken down until the outcome is decided. Guess how long that will take? So they win even before they win. It's suppression of speech on a massive scale.
Then they can leave it up until the copyright owner obtains an injunction. That's the minimum of what it should take to get the content taken down, an actual adversarial proceeding.
No, it does not. The only penalty is for representing oneself as the owner of work one does not own. I could write a DMCA takedown notice against every video on Youtube saying it violates the copyright on this post I am writing right now, and I would not be subject the the penalties the DMCA sets out.
Liability which wasn't there pre-DMCA, see RTC v. Netcom
The DMCA was a case of copyright owners giving up what they never had in order to get something they wanted, namely the takedown process. When the takedown process proved insufficient, they just grabbed more (automated content filtering, and now SOPA and PROTECT-IP)