I have a 64 processor machine chugging along for years on end, I have a reasonably good chance of seeing a failure. (Particularly when chips come from a bad batch.)
So source bricks from the same batch and source multi-brick systems from different batches. If you have to toss the whole brick at once, it's best to keep the stuff that's more likely to fail on that brick.
However, the "field" is generally recognized to be rather broad, for example, "software".
Isn't there at least a division between application software and OS software?
If some company decided to call its telephony software suite "Nero Burning ROM", Ahead could still stop them
That falls into your 'made up' exemption - the telephony company could name its software Nero without any problems, but Nero Burning ROM is a coined phrase.
Or maybe they need to realize that it's okay to have a Fedora Linux project and a Fedora (something else) project. Trademarks are only valid for a limited set of things - you can't TM a word and claim domain over all uses of it.
Setting up more agencies to 'regulate' an industry that has yet to prove commercial viability is insane. Unless there is a breakthrough of major proportions, for-profit space missions are going to be sparse at best.
The only regulation I can see is restricting flightpaths from crossing over large cities. Nascent or no, a flaming pile of wreckage that can ruin your whole day.
Would you like to 'regulate' WiFi as well? Infant industries need space to play, not regulations to follow.
Hello, McFly, WiFi is a network technology set up in a band that is specifically declared as unregulated. How are you going to regulate that?
Maybe this will be the final push thats needed to get Nasa the funding it needs.
God, I hope not. NASA is a bloated, inept bureaucracy that needs to die. Kill them and set up something akin to the FAA to regulate takeoffs and landings.
What will probably me left will be a "ruling council" made up of a bunch of weak-minded pro-US fools.
Already tried that. As I recall, the locals forced them out and now the US is trying to organize a locally seeded governemnt. Let's see if they get it right this time...
save generations of Iraqis, and stop a tyrannical ruler.
Is this the same country we're talking about? We have either swapped Saddam for an Islamic caliphate, created anarchy, or we've shown our inability to remove a single dictator by force (if he manages to resurface). When we leave, we'll have put the Iraqis in a worse position, killed lots of people on both sides, and spent a ton of cash to do it.
If you're a writer for a newspaper, it may prevent you from starting your own newspaper.
Possibly, but the idea of starting a paper while working at another job is patently ridiculous - you wouldn't have time to sleep!
If you're a telemarketer, it may prevent you from creating some super-whamodyne call-making machine to sell on your own.
You know, those things are mostly illegal. I think only charities and political campaign workers are allowed to dial you and play a message automatically
You're right, a judge would agree with you, because the examples you cite are much broader than the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that the individual appears to be a programmer for Apple. Thus, Apple may have a legitimate claim to programs that he develops that run under an Apple OS.
That doesn't really make sense - it would mean that if an Apple employee write a photo retoucher or a recipe database, or anything that ran on a Mac, Apple would own it. You have to be more specific, such as relating it to a specific product that Appple produces, such as iTunes or system extensions.
But with current worries over the legality of Linux and validity of Open-Source licensing, it's not an empty off, at least from a PR perspective.
I hope you don't mean the current issue with SCO. To date, they haven't even alleged specific infringements in Linux. All that's happened is a bunch bunch of hot air. Also, OS licensing is quite a bit simpler and more equitable than the licneses I've seen from the likes of Microsoft and Adobe.
Come again? If I buy a CD, I own it. I can do all sorts of things with it, including sell it to someone else. The only thing I can't do is distribute copies (this being the US).
A world where music companies are afraid to release music, or have to increase prices because their executives feel they're losing sales, is a world that's equally negative for consumers. Independent labels are NOT the answer -- if all labels were poorly distributed independents, we'd have less incentive for distribution companies or record stores to sell music, which would result in even lower sales, even higher prices. I don't want to see music pushed over the $20 mark by perceived piracy and some idyllic crusade to preserve the "right" of pure digital manipulation.
Sounds like you've bought the industry's piracy line. If the executives raise the price too much, people won't buy the CDs at all, or they will do so in very small numbers. People want stuff that they can own, and DRM isn't it. No amount of technology will change this.
I just want to be able to pay for music, listen to it, and know that the money went to the artist being able to EAT FOOD so maybe they'll be alive to make more music.
So, you're buying MP3s off of the artist's website? Because if you think that the money from that CD you bought is going to the artist, you're wrong. Some 99% of all artists who sign with a record label lose money on the deal.
The premise is just what you describe, a society set up so that the crummy jobs that no one wants "pay" more, so there's more incentive to do them.
Don't we have this already? If the job sucks, then you have to pay more to get people to do them. The only counter to this is a large supply of labor (like immigrants, legal and otherwise), which depresses the wage. I expect that, if we stopped importing the third world, our lifestyle would get a lot more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 64 processor machine chugging along for years on end, I have a reasonably good chance of seeing a failure. (Particularly when chips come from a bad batch.)
So source bricks from the same batch and source multi-brick systems from different batches. If you have to toss the whole brick at once, it's best to keep the stuff that's more likely to fail on that brick.
I'd like to see you go startup the Oracle Web Browser project and see just how quickly you're nuts get roasted by their legal team.
Well, I could start a search engine and call it Oracle, or The Oracle, or perhaps Oracle at Delphi, and be fairly safe.
However, the "field" is generally recognized to be rather broad, for example, "software".
Isn't there at least a division between application software and OS software?
If some company decided to call its telephony software suite "Nero Burning ROM", Ahead could still stop them
That falls into your 'made up' exemption - the telephony company could name its software Nero without any problems, but Nero Burning ROM is a coined phrase.
Or maybe they need to realize that it's okay to have a Fedora Linux project and a Fedora (something else) project. Trademarks are only valid for a limited set of things - you can't TM a word and claim domain over all uses of it.
there is a moratorium on fuel reprocessing in the USA.
Because Carter was paranoid about terrorists/Russians acquiring nuclear material, right? Perhaps we should reexamine that ban.
Okay, who's submitting the stories from fark?
Setting up more agencies to 'regulate' an industry that has yet to prove commercial viability is insane. Unless there is a breakthrough of major proportions, for-profit space missions are going to be sparse at best.
The only regulation I can see is restricting flightpaths from crossing over large cities. Nascent or no, a flaming pile of wreckage that can ruin your whole day.
Would you like to 'regulate' WiFi as well? Infant industries need space to play, not regulations to follow.
Hello, McFly, WiFi is a network technology set up in a band that is specifically declared as unregulated. How are you going to regulate that?
Maybe this will be the final push thats needed to get Nasa the funding it needs.
God, I hope not. NASA is a bloated, inept bureaucracy that needs to die. Kill them and set up something akin to the FAA to regulate takeoffs and landings.
Yeah, right. Just how many phones does China have, anyway?
For instance, have the manufacturers considered the applications for which terrorists might use these?
Terrorists tend to use more secure methods, like meeting out in the middle of nowhere and talking face to face.
Wouldn't it be nice if technical journals held to the same standards as newspapers with regards to journalistic integrity?
Um, this is a newspaper, not a tech journal.
What will probably me left will be a "ruling council" made up of a bunch of weak-minded pro-US fools.
Already tried that. As I recall, the locals forced them out and now the US is trying to organize a locally seeded governemnt. Let's see if they get it right this time...
save generations of Iraqis, and stop a tyrannical ruler.
Is this the same country we're talking about? We have either swapped Saddam for an Islamic caliphate, created anarchy, or we've shown our inability to remove a single dictator by force (if he manages to resurface). When we leave, we'll have put the Iraqis in a worse position, killed lots of people on both sides, and spent a ton of cash to do it.
For that much money in the US we could do so much it is beyond most people's comprehension
For instance, we could wage a war of aggression against acountry that poses no threat to us.
Like how the hell you're supposed to carry [a 20" Powerbook]?
I've seen art students with 17" widescreen laptops - at 10 lbs, with a fullsize keyboard + keypad, it's not a laptop, it's a mobile desktop.
If you're a writer for a newspaper, it may prevent you from starting your own newspaper.
Possibly, but the idea of starting a paper while working at another job is patently ridiculous - you wouldn't have time to sleep!
If you're a telemarketer, it may prevent you from creating some super-whamodyne call-making machine to sell on your own.
You know, those things are mostly illegal. I think only charities and political campaign workers are allowed to dial you and play a message automatically
You're right, a judge would agree with you, because the examples you cite are much broader than the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that the individual appears to be a programmer for Apple. Thus, Apple may have a legitimate claim to programs that he develops that run under an Apple OS.
That doesn't really make sense - it would mean that if an Apple employee write a photo retoucher or a recipe database, or anything that ran on a Mac, Apple would own it. You have to be more specific, such as relating it to a specific product that Appple produces, such as iTunes or system extensions.
And we wonder why violence is more prevelant among younger children.
Because they haven't learned about consequences yet. Duh.
But with current worries over the legality of Linux and validity of Open-Source licensing, it's not an empty off, at least from a PR perspective.
I hope you don't mean the current issue with SCO. To date, they haven't even alleged specific infringements in Linux. All that's happened is a bunch bunch of hot air. Also, OS licensing is quite a bit simpler and more equitable than the licneses I've seen from the likes of Microsoft and Adobe.
You don't hear Bill Ford saying, "Ford is an alternative to Citroen" do you? Or Adobe saying, "Photoshop is an alternative to Gimp"? No!
When I read this sentence, the first thing I saw was Bill Gates selling Fords, and it actually made sense.
If the kids were mature, you wouldn't need any rules at all.
Hell, if kids were mature, they wouldn't be kids.
Is this why Osama released a tape shortly before we attacked Iraq encouraging the entire Islamic world to unite against the US and drive us out?
I fail to see your point. Saddam is not Muslim.
You're forgetting a couple of things:
Neither is buying a CD.
Come again? If I buy a CD, I own it. I can do all sorts of things with it, including sell it to someone else. The only thing I can't do is distribute copies (this being the US).
A world where music companies are afraid to release music, or have to increase prices because their executives feel they're losing sales, is a world that's equally negative for consumers. Independent labels are NOT the answer -- if all labels were poorly distributed independents, we'd have less incentive for distribution companies or record stores to sell music, which would result in even lower sales, even higher prices. I don't want to see music pushed over the $20 mark by perceived piracy and some idyllic crusade to preserve the "right" of pure digital manipulation.
Sounds like you've bought the industry's piracy line. If the executives raise the price too much, people won't buy the CDs at all, or they will do so in very small numbers. People want stuff that they can own, and DRM isn't it. No amount of technology will change this.
I just want to be able to pay for music, listen to it, and know that the money went to the artist being able to EAT FOOD so maybe they'll be alive to make more music.
So, you're buying MP3s off of the artist's website? Because if you think that the money from that CD you bought is going to the artist, you're wrong. Some 99% of all artists who sign with a record label lose money on the deal.
The premise is just what you describe, a society set up so that the crummy jobs that no one wants "pay" more, so there's more incentive to do them.
Don't we have this already? If the job sucks, then you have to pay more to get people to do them. The only counter to this is a large supply of labor (like immigrants, legal and otherwise), which depresses the wage. I expect that, if we stopped importing the third world, our lifestyle would get a lot more expensive.