I agree. Tivo is not a patent troll. They invented something new and unique.
And just what did they invent? A digital video recorder. Only thing is, once all the pieces were there, the digital video recorder was inevitable. They just managed to be first to market. The first two patents broadly cover the DVR. The last patent covers correcting overshoot when fast forwarding and rewinding; the first claim is broad enough to encompass all the obvious techniques of doing so.
We cannot question if the owner is who they say they are. If the takedown exists, we have to take it down. Assuming they actually got the takedown, Flickr isn't the bad guy here.
No, you don't. Nothing compels you to respond to a DMCA notice; you're simply giving up your safe harbor if you do so. If you get a DMCA notice from someone who isn't the copyright owner, you're not giving up much by rejecting it.
But lately, I have succumbed to levels of anxiety that are wholly unfamiliar to me. It seems that the only way to reverse the anxiety (besides Xanax) is to revert to a more depressed state.
if you are better at solving your problems when you are depressed, how come depressed people commit suicide when they are faced with problems?
Perhaps that's what happens when they fail despite being depression. Note that in many cases, lifting the depression (with antidepressants) without lifting the problems results in suicide.
The non-depressed, of course, don't believe the problems exist or think they're easy and no big deal. But when challenged by the depressed person, they'll never provide a workable solution to the problems faced by the depressed person; they'll either say "only you can solve your problems", or they'll present a "just do it" "solution" which provides no actual information (e.g. problem: "My job sucks" solution: "Just find another one"), or at best they'll suggest something which has been tried and failed.
Look at words that commonly get linked to genius: evil, mad, tortured, insanity (as in "There is a fine line between...". Ever see "happy genius"? "Well adjusted genius"? Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's the exception.
The only happy and well-adjusted well-known genius I can think of is Einstein.
nothing else will fix it. sorry to say that but the system is beyond repair. we're watching it fully melt down in front of our eyes. I expect a revolution (or collapse) in the next 10-20 years, if it even takes that long.
You're an optimist; you've forgotten a major point of _1984_ -- "A boot stomping on a human face, forever".
Most people don't _want_ liberty. There's no powerful politicians out there advocating for liberty. Liberty has neither constituency nor champion. So, because the US Constitution is a document meant to preserve liberty, the courts have to interpret it out of existence, and the people are fine with that, accepting the flimsiest rationalizations as if they're obviously true.
The article and warning deals with commercial banks which in this context means a bank that does business with other banks. The contracts that deal with bank->bank communications are exponentially more complex than your customer->bank transactions.
No, it doesn't. The article deals with ordinary banking customers which are businesses (other than banks). It is not referring to inter-bank communications at all.
That's simply not true. You are conflating "prevailing scientific theory" with "consensus". The former is simply "the best guess we have at this point", while the latter is substantially stronger. Any qualified physicist should tell you that the universe's expansion rate has not ever and still is not considered "consensus".
A consensus is simply a general agreement among a group of people, in this case scientists. There's no consensus on the exact rate of the universe's expansion now, but there is a consensus that it IS expanding and that the rate of expansion is _increasing_. Before this was discovered, there was no consensus on the rate of expansion but there was a consensus that the rate of expansion was _decreasing_.
Nope. Deadlines are often unreasonable. Welcome to the real world. But as a good software developer, you should be able to cope with that too, and without last-minute hide-the-problem hacks.
Wait, you were serious? Does your hair come to points on the side of your head, by any chance?
If I could cope with unreasonable deadlines without some sort of nasty compromise, I wouldn't be developing software. I'd be turning water into wine, holding back the tide, etc. "Good software developer" doesn't mean "miracle worker". If the time isn't there before the deadline to solve the problem correctly, either the deadline will be missed or the problem will be unsolved or poorly solved. That's close to a tautology; it's implicit in the term "unreasonable".
When coding state machines in C, I don't see too many ways around gotos but I'd be curious to hear them.
Almost every state machine I've coded in C has had the general structure
while (state != endstate) {
switch (state)
{
case state1:....
state= someotherstate;
break;
case state2:....
state = adifferentstate;
break;
default:
error("You broke the state machine");
} }
No need for goto, though occasionally it comes in handy.
A judge might not be the best person to rule on scientific evidence. Specially when the science is complex. The consensus should do. Some orgs endorsing AGW:
Relying on consensus and endorsements is no more (or less) scientific than a legal trial. At one time, fairly recently, there was consensus that the universe's rate of expansion was decreasing; the only question is whether it would decrease asymptically to zero, decrease less than that, or decrease beyond zero. Now there's consensus that the universe's rate of expansion is increasing. The difference is no one pilloried and ostracized those who publicized the data which contradicted the old consensus.
A consensus of all the scientific minds in the world doesn't invalidate a single contrary datum.
1. You are engaging in a straw man fallacy, because no model of man made climate changes predicts an increase in global temperatures every single year; there will be fluctuations
So if these models don't make testable predictions, why should anyone accept them. If they do make testable predictions and those predictions are not borne out, why should anyone accept them?
This article specifically deals with COMMERCIAL banks, and identifies them as such.
In the US, a regular bank which accepts deposits is called a "commercial" bank. The other type is an "investment bank"; I'm not sure if any currently exist which are not also commercial banks.
The article concerns itself with commercial (business) CUSTOMERS, but the banks are mostly the same ones which individuals deal with.
"Next time you dont understand something, learn about it before speaking about it."
Women running marathons and other endurance sports would regularly find themselves competing favourably against many men, reaching good positions, but certainly they will rarely win.
I stand by my previous position. There would be no women at the top levels of competition in most sports. That includes marathons, as a look at the Boston Marathon results shows. Over 50 men placed ahead of the first woman.
Git is better at everything else, ever. Seriously -- 99% of projects that are hosted on SVN would make more sense on Git.
When I first looked at git, it wasn't even clear how simple revision control tasks could be done, e.g. simply checking in a file, or reverting changes to it. Looked like you had to deal with bizarre syntax and long hex numbers for the simplest things (and it's not just because it's distributed, as mercurial was much more straightforward). I assume that's changed as people aside from Linus actually use the thing, but it was very off-putting in the beginning.
Multitasking in humans is a myth. You might be able to rapidly switch between tasks, but processing more than one thing simultaneously can't be done.
Glad to hear you've got the human brain all figured out, because no one else does. I think you might have some errors there, though, because there are any number of tasks humans can definitely do at the same time
1) I can see and hear at the same time. Both these tasks are very processing-intensive, and go on during most of my waking hours, along with other tasks I may be accomplishing.
2) I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Pretty much anyone can, except Gerald Ford.
3) I can't do this, but some humans can use their sight to calculate the trajectory of a falling object, correcting for perturbations, all the while running towards an intercept position, and avoiding collisions with other persons doing the same, sometimes verbally warning them off.
When I multitask, I can feel the lack of attention that I'm devoting to certain things.
I would conjecture that those who feel they are good at multitasking do _not_ feel this -- and that's both why they feel they are good at multitasking, and why they are actually bad at it.
More like: someone was giving you 25 grams for free last month, and now they give you 30. Why are you complaining?
Comparing this to rationing is absurd.
Not to mention the fact that SCO might not survive long enough to persue the case against Novell. They're in Chapter 11 already and McBride & co have been kicked out in favor of a bankruptcy trustee who is likely to move SCO into Chapter 7.
The trustee has a duty to continue with this case, though; if SCO still owns the Unix copyright, the bankruptcy estate is far more valuable.
Have a program on it hit a server on your site for instructions, automatically. If it's ever stolen, report it stolen, then instruct it to hit known FBI child porn honeypots after erasing the program which contacts your own website. You won't get the gadget back, but you'll get to know the thief got punished way out of proportion to his crime.
Here I was expecting something about how license problems impeded the development of the server mentioned in the summary, and instead I just get the latest round in the BSD v. GPL controversy. Yawn.
Slashdot Mirror
And just what did they invent? A digital video recorder. Only thing is, once all the pieces were there, the digital video recorder was inevitable. They just managed to be first to market. The first two patents broadly cover the DVR. The last patent covers correcting overshoot when fast forwarding and rewinding; the first claim is broad enough to encompass all the obvious techniques of doing so.
No, you don't. Nothing compels you to respond to a DMCA notice; you're simply giving up your safe harbor if you do so. If you get a DMCA notice from someone who isn't the copyright owner, you're not giving up much by rejecting it.
They have a pill for that too.
Perhaps that's what happens when they fail despite being depression. Note that in many cases, lifting the depression (with antidepressants) without lifting the problems results in suicide.
The non-depressed, of course, don't believe the problems exist or think they're easy and no big deal. But when challenged by the depressed person, they'll never provide a workable solution to the problems faced by the depressed person; they'll either say "only you can solve your problems", or they'll present a "just do it" "solution" which provides no actual information (e.g. problem: "My job sucks" solution: "Just find another one"), or at best they'll suggest something which has been tried and failed.
The only happy and well-adjusted well-known genius I can think of is Einstein.
You're an optimist; you've forgotten a major point of _1984_ -- "A boot stomping on a human face, forever".
Most people don't _want_ liberty. There's no powerful politicians out there advocating for liberty. Liberty has neither constituency nor champion. So, because the US Constitution is a document meant to preserve liberty, the courts have to interpret it out of existence, and the people are fine with that, accepting the flimsiest rationalizations as if they're obviously true.
It's not that you don't want to, it's that you figure out that it won't help and will harm beyond the very short term, so you don't do it.
No, it doesn't. The article deals with ordinary banking customers which are businesses (other than banks). It is not referring to inter-bank communications at all.
A consensus is simply a general agreement among a group of people, in this case scientists. There's no consensus on the exact rate of the universe's expansion now, but there is a consensus that it IS expanding and that the rate of expansion is _increasing_. Before this was discovered, there was no consensus on the rate of expansion but there was a consensus that the rate of expansion was _decreasing_.
Wait, you were serious? Does your hair come to points on the side of your head, by any chance?
If I could cope with unreasonable deadlines without some sort of nasty compromise, I wouldn't be developing software. I'd be turning water into wine, holding back the tide, etc. "Good software developer" doesn't mean "miracle worker". If the time isn't there before the deadline to solve the problem correctly, either the deadline will be missed or the problem will be unsolved or poorly solved. That's close to a tautology; it's implicit in the term "unreasonable".
Almost every state machine I've coded in C has had the general structure
while (state != endstate)
{
switch (state)
{
case state1:....
state= someotherstate;
break;
case state2:....
state = adifferentstate;
break;
default:
error("You broke the state machine");
}
}
No need for goto, though occasionally it comes in handy.
Yes. Any living being pollutes its environment, by converting substances it needs to live into wastes which it cannot use. It's unavoidable.
Relying on consensus and endorsements is no more (or less) scientific than a legal trial. At one time, fairly recently, there was consensus that the universe's rate of expansion was decreasing; the only question is whether it would decrease asymptically to zero, decrease less than that, or decrease beyond zero. Now there's consensus that the universe's rate of expansion is increasing. The difference is no one pilloried and ostracized those who publicized the data which contradicted the old consensus.
A consensus of all the scientific minds in the world doesn't invalidate a single contrary datum.
So if these models don't make testable predictions, why should anyone accept them. If they do make testable predictions and those predictions are not borne out, why should anyone accept them?
In the US, a regular bank which accepts deposits is called a "commercial" bank. The other type is an "investment bank"; I'm not sure if any currently exist which are not also commercial banks.
The article concerns itself with commercial (business) CUSTOMERS, but the banks are mostly the same ones which individuals deal with.
"Next time you dont understand something, learn about it before speaking about it."
I stand by my previous position. There would be no women at the top levels of competition in most sports. That includes marathons, as a look at the Boston Marathon results shows. Over 50 men placed ahead of the first woman.
When I first looked at git, it wasn't even clear how simple revision control tasks could be done, e.g. simply checking in a file, or reverting changes to it. Looked like you had to deal with bizarre syntax and long hex numbers for the simplest things (and it's not just because it's distributed, as mercurial was much more straightforward). I assume that's changed as people aside from Linus actually use the thing, but it was very off-putting in the beginning.
Which just amounts to a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Any counterexample you'll claim simply isn't "action planning".
Glad to hear you've got the human brain all figured out, because no one else does. I think you might have some errors there, though, because there are any number of tasks humans can definitely do at the same time
1) I can see and hear at the same time. Both these tasks are very processing-intensive, and go on during most of my waking hours, along with other tasks I may be accomplishing.
2) I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Pretty much anyone can, except Gerald Ford.
3) I can't do this, but some humans can use their sight to calculate the trajectory of a falling object, correcting for perturbations, all the while running towards an intercept position, and avoiding collisions with other persons doing the same, sometimes verbally warning them off.
etc.
I would conjecture that those who feel they are good at multitasking do _not_ feel this -- and that's both why they feel they are good at multitasking, and why they are actually bad at it.
WHOOSH!
The trustee has a duty to continue with this case, though; if SCO still owns the Unix copyright, the bankruptcy estate is far more valuable.
Have a program on it hit a server on your site for instructions, automatically. If it's ever stolen, report it stolen, then instruct it to hit known FBI child porn honeypots after erasing the program which contacts your own website. You won't get the gadget back, but you'll get to know the thief got punished way out of proportion to his crime.
Here I was expecting something about how license problems impeded the development of the server mentioned in the summary, and instead I just get the latest round in the BSD v. GPL controversy. Yawn.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt the Younger