A chemical compound should be treated like a firearm. Which is to say, in a free country, available without government restriction.
Except DHMO. DHMO is exceedingly dangerous and should be restricted. But that's the only exception.
It does have a "torture prisoners" mission. An Army spokesperson defended its inclusion by pointing out that "While it exists on the game CD, it can only be accessed by means of a third-party tool which the Army does not provide".
The laws say very little about how obviousness works. If you want to know, you have to wade through patent office rulings and court rulings. And you still won't know, because they aren't consistent nor will they necessarily be applies to the next patent application or case to go down the line.
If there's only one way to do playlists, and it has been done, then doing playlists that way "on a portable music device" is obvious.
Sounds like you need the book. Seriously, real NTP does more that synchronize the clock periodically; it also determines the difference between the client clock frequency and the reference clock frequency, and the first derivative of the client clock frequency (wander), and uses those values to both determine how often to poll the reference sources, and to keep the clock well-synchronized between polls.
Calling someone "monkey butt" isn't slander; it's simply an insult. You can insult someone all day long without defaming them.
Accusing someone of extortion, though, could be libel.
If you see someone building a prison (or ghetto) that they're intending to throw you in to, it is bad strategy to hold off your response until the walls are built.
It's not so hard, but it does take time. You've got to change the specs in all the documentation and change the quality control criteria. And you've got to get your manufacturer (in China) to change the step-by-step instructions for the people on the line.
And that's not even counting step one -- figuring out what the proper amount of paste was supposed to be in the first place.
The "Pentagon Papers" case had nothing to do with protection of sources (though the newspapers did not reveal their sources). It was about the right to publish at all. The Supreme Court determined that the US government could NOT prevent publication of the papers merely because they were classified; why the Slashdot anti-free-speech brigade seems to think the label "Apple Confidential" can legitimately provide stronger protection is something I don't understand.
Apple doesn't pay for product placement. Apple does pay marketing and advertising companies, and if some of the money Apple pays them ultimately ends up paying for product placement.... well, that's another story, isn't it?
Of course, truckloads of free product probably have some effect. But I noticed that on the last Veronica Mars, the logo on her laptop was covered up... it isn't usually. Did someone stop paying?
You keep posting that link, but the systems aren't identical. The Inspiron 6400 has integrated Intel graphics; the MacBook Pro has a mobility Radeon X1600. The Inspiron has a smaller or larger screen depending on which options you picked. The Inspiron starts at 2.8kg (and increasing battery and screen sizes make it heavier), the Apple at 2.54. The Apple has DVI out, including dual-link DVI. The Dell has VGA out.
I'm not in Texas or Canada; I can call myself a software engineer all I want. The supposed lawsuit won by NSPE in 48 states appears to be a Wikipedia fever dream.
The major problem with proving your programs mathematically is that the proof is at least as complex and error-prone as the program.
Further, to get code to live up to rigorous mathematical analysis, you'd first need a formal mathematical description of what the code is supposed to do. Good luck with that. And once you've gotten the code proven, it may STILL not work (even if your proof was correct) because your mathematical model of the program didn't take into account limitations of the real program, such as decimal precision.
Engineering existed before the government and engineering guilds came up with all those hoops to jump through before an engineer can call himself an engineer.
Obviously, Professional Engineers (who ALWAYS use the capitals) and those trying to become Professional Engineers get a wee bit upset when people who haven't passed the guild initiation call themselves engineers. But that's just because they want to keep their club exclusive.
You misunderstand; yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional; there's nothing in the constitution barring it. A law barring yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional either, but that's not obvious at all.
Incidentally, both Schenck v. US (the original "fire in a theatre" case) and your reasoning demonstrate why the so-called slippery slope fallacy has validity if not rigor. You go from accepting restrictions on (falsely) "yelling fire in a crowded theatre", where the cry creates a clear and present danger of imminent bodily harm to those who hear the utterance, to accepting them on speech which merely arguably harms someone else economically.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is obviously not unconstitutional. The opinion which claimed such as an example of unprotected speech was a disgusting piece of law; it was a ruling that distributing pamphlets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional was not protected by the constitution.
Anyway, the reason the law is unconsitutional as applied to publication is pretty simple; it's a law directly restricting freedom of the press. Remember "Congress shall make no law..."?
18 USC 1832(a)(2) does make it illegal to publish a trade secret. It's obviously unconstitutional at least as applied to publication if not on its face, but you'll never get the Robed 9 to agree.
1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will , injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
True. Instead, it requires a trial judge, an appellate panel of three judges, an appeals court of approximately a dozen judges (presumably eBay requested a rehearing en banc), and the entire eBay legal team to fail to show/rule that the patent is invalid. What are the odds that not one of these people had an EE/comp sci degree?
Better than average.
These are honest questions.
No, they aren't; they're an attempt to stifle dissent. They boil down to "trust the system or you're an arrogant ass". The system's broken. It apparently takes a law degree NOT to see that.
I seem to recall playing around with an Apple IIe program when I was a kid that taught you how to use a mouse. I swear there was some double-clicking involved.
But Microsoft's patents are different. They only apply to a limited-resource computing device. An Apple IIe with 64K of main memory, 64K of auxiliary memory, and 32K of ROM just doesn't fit the bill... err, wait a minute...
The human body is nowhere near 100% efficient. Aerobic respiration is only about 40% efficient, anaerobic respiration a miserable 2%. I'm not sure about digestion. The muscles themselves are 80% efficient, but that's once you've gotten the ATP to them in the first place.
I'm not sure about the input end, but I'm sure that's much less than 100% as well, unless you're taking in glucose.
I think in the fitness world, the numbers are already adjusted for this. That is, if an activity is deemed to use some number of kcal, that includes the generation of waste heat as well as the muscular motion.
Slashdot Mirror
Or does this article stink like a press release?
A chemical compound should be treated like a firearm. Which is to say, in a free country, available without government restriction. Except DHMO. DHMO is exceedingly dangerous and should be restricted. But that's the only exception.
It does have a "torture prisoners" mission. An Army spokesperson defended its inclusion by pointing out that "While it exists on the game CD, it can only be accessed by means of a third-party tool which the Army does not provide".
The laws say very little about how obviousness works. If you want to know, you have to wade through patent office rulings and court rulings. And you still won't know, because they aren't consistent nor will they necessarily be applies to the next patent application or case to go down the line. If there's only one way to do playlists, and it has been done, then doing playlists that way "on a portable music device" is obvious.
Sounds like you need the book. Seriously, real NTP does more that synchronize the clock periodically; it also determines the difference between the client clock frequency and the reference clock frequency, and the first derivative of the client clock frequency (wander), and uses those values to both determine how often to poll the reference sources, and to keep the clock well-synchronized between polls.
Calling someone "monkey butt" isn't slander; it's simply an insult. You can insult someone all day long without defaming them. Accusing someone of extortion, though, could be libel.
If you see someone building a prison (or ghetto) that they're intending to throw you in to, it is bad strategy to hold off your response until the walls are built.
It's not so hard, but it does take time. You've got to change the specs in all the documentation and change the quality control criteria. And you've got to get your manufacturer (in China) to change the step-by-step instructions for the people on the line. And that's not even counting step one -- figuring out what the proper amount of paste was supposed to be in the first place.
"Ten times" is probably exactly right. Someone slipped a decimal somewhere early on and the error simply got propagated.
Not only do you never get rid of the Dane, you attract more of them.
The "Pentagon Papers" case had nothing to do with protection of sources (though the newspapers did not reveal their sources). It was about the right to publish at all. The Supreme Court determined that the US government could NOT prevent publication of the papers merely because they were classified; why the Slashdot anti-free-speech brigade seems to think the label "Apple Confidential" can legitimately provide stronger protection is something I don't understand.
Apple doesn't pay for product placement. Apple does pay marketing and advertising companies, and if some of the money Apple pays them ultimately ends up paying for product placement.... well, that's another story, isn't it?
Of course, truckloads of free product probably have some effect. But I noticed that on the last Veronica Mars, the logo on her laptop was covered up... it isn't usually. Did someone stop paying?
You keep posting that link, but the systems aren't identical. The Inspiron 6400 has integrated Intel graphics; the MacBook Pro has a mobility Radeon X1600. The Inspiron has a smaller or larger screen depending on which options you picked. The Inspiron starts at 2.8kg (and increasing battery and screen sizes make it heavier), the Apple at 2.54. The Apple has DVI out, including dual-link DVI. The Dell has VGA out.
Fortunately low self esteem comes with the territory, so there's lots of non-self-respecting geeks around for Best Buy to hire.
I'm not in Texas or Canada; I can call myself a software engineer all I want. The supposed lawsuit won by NSPE in 48 states appears to be a Wikipedia fever dream.
The major problem with proving your programs mathematically is that the proof is at least as complex and error-prone as the program.
Further, to get code to live up to rigorous mathematical analysis, you'd first need a formal mathematical description of what the code is supposed to do. Good luck with that. And once you've gotten the code proven, it may STILL not work (even if your proof was correct) because your mathematical model of the program didn't take into account limitations of the real program, such as decimal precision.
Engineering existed before the government and engineering guilds came up with all those hoops to jump through before an engineer can call himself an engineer. Obviously, Professional Engineers (who ALWAYS use the capitals) and those trying to become Professional Engineers get a wee bit upset when people who haven't passed the guild initiation call themselves engineers. But that's just because they want to keep their club exclusive.
You misunderstand; yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional; there's nothing in the constitution barring it. A law barring yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional either, but that's not obvious at all. Incidentally, both Schenck v. US (the original "fire in a theatre" case) and your reasoning demonstrate why the so-called slippery slope fallacy has validity if not rigor. You go from accepting restrictions on (falsely) "yelling fire in a crowded theatre", where the cry creates a clear and present danger of imminent bodily harm to those who hear the utterance, to accepting them on speech which merely arguably harms someone else economically.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is obviously not unconstitutional. The opinion which claimed such as an example of unprotected speech was a disgusting piece of law; it was a ruling that distributing pamphlets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional was not protected by the constitution.
Anyway, the reason the law is unconsitutional as applied to publication is pretty simple; it's a law directly restricting freedom of the press. Remember "Congress shall make no law..."?That's only two #2s -- Al Queda and Al Queda in Iraq are two different (though presumably related) organizations.
You could get rid of the return spring if you set up the actuators in opposing pairs, the way many human muscles are.
The human body is nowhere near 100% efficient. Aerobic respiration is only about 40% efficient, anaerobic respiration a miserable 2%. I'm not sure about digestion. The muscles themselves are 80% efficient, but that's once you've gotten the ATP to them in the first place.
I'm not sure about the input end, but I'm sure that's much less than 100% as well, unless you're taking in glucose.
I think in the fitness world, the numbers are already adjusted for this. That is, if an activity is deemed to use some number of kcal, that includes the generation of waste heat as well as the muscular motion.