The courts can't possibly handle all the petty vandalism cases. Perhaps we should allow all the people that have ever had their fences painted go after the perpetrators themselves, and break their hands so they can't tag anymore.
Revenge is exactly contrary to what a law of any kind should propose. Making anrachy legal is almost an oxymoron, but that is exactly what this, and the DMCA (with its clause forcing ISP's to enforce the law as interpreted by the complaintant or risk the same punishment as the actual thief) are trying to do.
We can't expect corporations to do the right thing in their normal business. Corporations have no ethics. The stock holders hide behind the board, the board hides behind the stockholders. No one will be held accountable except for fines assesed. Is this the mindless, ethical-less entity you want doling out your punishments?
This is slightly offtopic, slightly on, but it looked like a good place to put it.
Does anyone know of an easy to use journaling tool set for the web. I have a friend that will be hiking around the country, and was wanting to be able to stop in at internet cafes or what not, and update all his friends on his progress. What I'd like to be able to give him is a web site that he doesn't need to know much, but able to upload pictures, and make journal entries quickly, and with little technical savvy.
If he would have focused less on the half ass love story, just alluded to it, and spent less time on tracking down the bounty hunter.
It is such a huge expanse of time with a lot of stuff that we already know had to have happened. The question is, what do we want to see, what is important to actually experience, more than just knowing something happened?
I feel he could have elluded to the love affair in the beginning of this movie, and moved closer, if not right into the fall of Anakin right at the end. The over all fact that he was in love in the princess and cast away his Jedi Knighthood for her isn't what I would call an necesary part of the story, especially with as much time that was spent on such a bad example of a love story. I wasn't drawn into the love story, and every scene was painful to watch, a waste of movie footage (bytes, as it were) if you ask me.
The listening post is an art exhbit that more or less lives. It monitors certain chat rooms, and posts messages from those chat rooms to a wall of small lcd displays.
I can't think of any of the details, so if anyone has them, please post links. There is an art exhibit talked about in the latest issue of Linux Journal that describes an art exhibit that is a wall of tiny little lcd displays.
This wall changes often. The LCD's have messages culled from the internet in real time. I haven't seen the exhibit, just the picture on the cover of the magazine, but it seems like an interesting endeavor that is slightly akin to the artcile.
I have exceptionally good credit with only a mortgage that I have never been late on, and 1 credit card that never has a balance on.
Does that mean that I am a better employee?
I don't want people to know how much I have in the bank, or what kind of balances I owe. If they know that, and I demand a better salary, because they aren't paying me shit, then they would be less likely.
This could seriously affect your bargaining position later. Probably the other way. If you have a lot of bills, or slightly bad credit your employer has you over a barrel, knowing you will probably not quit if they don't give you a raise.
It isn't hiding somthing, it is keeping private information private. My financial health is not their right to know.
What about the episode, a haloween ep I think, where Homer is traveling through alternate universes.
He lands in one, everything is perfect except no one has ever heard of doughnuts, so Homer flees. Moments after he leaves, it starts rainging outside. The rain is what Homer would have identified as doughnuts.
Before you start looking for prior art you need to know when the patent was applied for.
Like the infamous one click shopping of Amazon, the reason they could enforce it was they applied for the patent before everyone started doing it. If the application date is before the prior art, the art isn't prior.
I don't know the particulars, but keep that in mind when searching for prior art. And did they purchase the patent from someone else?
You can't be garunteed anonymity that needs to exist in the voting process.
You can't be garunteed that your vote gets anywhere, or is even counted.
Sure voting from home would be a lot easier, but it is fraught with so many problems.
And, yes, I realize that there are no real garuntees with the current system as to whether they actually count your vote, or they use stuffed ballot boxes. Having a bunch of people watching the boxes, and checking the people as they filter in is more anonymous, more trustworthy, and less likely to be widely abused. On the other hand, it is significantly less efficient.
Remember, someone has a list of all those numbers that they sent by post. Spoofing everyone that hadn't voted yet right before the end of the polls wouldn't be that far out of the question.
No, what I am suggesting is, if you believe information should be free, then all information should be free.
If you believe that I think that once you donate something to Open Source, you believe all things should be open source, then it would be idiotic. You can donate to open source without believing that all information should be free.
If you would believe RMS's rhetoric, it would be too difficult to diferentiate between the information that wanted to be free, and the information that didn't want to be free.
It is easy to say that the name and address stuff shouldn't be. Where does it stop? I don't want my music published, but you want to share it with your friends. I want my music published, but I don't want just anyone sharing it.
What I was trying to say is, if you believe all information should be free, then your personal problems that you shared with one person are immediately fodder for everyone. Whether that be a personal note, a piece of music, a book, or a piece of code, as soon as you express that idea, then it wants to be free (according to some). Where is the line? Who decides what is personal, and what is truly "wanting to be free information"? My understanding of your personal problem might be quite lucrative. It might benefit me, say if you were pining for my girlfriend, or just dumped your girlfriend that I was pining for.
Donating to open source is not the same as believing that all information wants to be free. If you believe you have the choice to decide what items that you already put out into the wind should not be spread hither and yon, then you do not believe that all information wants to be free. If you don't believe all information wants to be free, and I don't trust you the be the authority on what does and doesn't want to be free, then you can't really tell me that any information wants to be free.
And, according to certain pundits, if you don't believe all information wants to be free, then you are a morally repugnant person, or something to that effect.
The old addage of "You can't have your cake and eat it too." really applies to this and other discussions on this board.
If all information wants to be free, then you need to include all information. That has the requisite implication that your personal information is public domain, and privacy statements are irrelevant. If you believe all information wants to be free, then as soon as you put your name, address, or any other personal informatin into the wind, you should expect anyone has it.
If, however, you believe that you have some inherent right to privacy, and that your name, address, sexual preference, etc. are not, and should not be public domain, then nothing you produce should be public domain. If you have the right to decide who should know your address, then you should be able to decide who reads your thoughts, who can copy your thoughts, and who can listen to the musical implimentation of those thoughts. If you want your best friend to hear your music, but no one else, then that should be your right. If you only want people that pay you for the emotional energy you put into that music, book, or code, that should be your right.
You can't have it both ways. All information is free, or no information is free.
I installed Ximian Desktop, just becaue I used Gnome for a long time, and thought I would buy the CD.
I hadn't used Red Carpet before, but realized their channel system had a channel for my distribution. Now I can watch my distribution channel for security updates, click on them, and walk away.
That is a tool to be applauded.
Are there any similar GUI's for apt-get, that analyze the system, and tell you what needs/should be upgraded?
This would be even better news if it related to the smaller hard drives. I would love to be able to spend $10 for a 10 gig drive, or $40 for a 40 gig drive.
I have no use for super huge drives, but super cheap drives would always come in handy.
This is a fundamental problem with freedom. If you want freedom, your neighbor has to expect that same freedom, even if he is a bigger criminal than you.
Of course, everyone is a felon. Most people just haven't pissed off the correct person yet.
I cna't see why you'd really want your chilton (car repair mauals) in your kitchen. And even if you did, you'd want to put it back where it belonged. With the HFS, you have that ability. If you are writing a recipe, and want to add an anectdote, or metaphore relating to cars, you just have to grab it from where ever it is supposed to reside.
This new idea actually obfuscates that. Someone else has mentioned that one piece of metadata is easier to remember than several. If you organize your directories with good layout and names, this becomes quite trivial.
Now, in the above example, if your mother always made you "her" famous cholocate chip bar cookies, and you can't find the recipe, and then stumble across it in the Betty Crocker Cookie Book, you can just add a link to the heirloom directory also.
Should you have to? I don't know. But you'd have to do a very similar task in his scheme also.
I normally argue against hierarchical databases, knowing they have their place, but most cases call for a relational one. This is a case where the hierarchical works best, IMHO. Mainly because you aren't creating a relational environment. You are just trying to use a bunch of pointers after the fact to relate similar items.
Hierarchical file systems are as close to intuitive as you get. Everything you do in the real world, as pertains to dealing with information, mimics a hierarchical file system. Your chilton manuals are in the garage, your cookbooks and recipe boxes are in the kitchen or dining room, your computer books are by your computer. You don't look in the computer manual for how to change your oil. When you are trying to bake a cake, you don't walk out into the garage for inspiration. Having information organized into different places, and then having those places subdivided into different boxes is intuitive, and is how most organized people think.
1. (a) "We don't need no stinking filesystem." The ideal palmesque OS would have the same idea just demonstrated differently. You aren't going to open up your notepad to see an address. The address file is in the address program (directory). The schedule file is in the calendar program(directory). The programs you use to open the files become your folders.
1. (b) "Saving/Opening files should be transparent" The only people that would think like this in the real world have been living with someone that picks up after them all the time. When you are working on some (paper and pencil) project, and just stand up and walk away, do you exepect it to be available at the office tomorrow? When you start working on several projects in succession on your desk, and have reams of loose paper, can you easily bore your way back down. No, reasonable, organized people pick up the porject they are working on, file it away in the file cabinet/brief case/wherever it is supposed to go. There are logical beginnings and endings to your working on a project that only you can decide on. A spreadsheet, for example, do you want it to save every time you make a change... No, by their design, you would normally set up all your formulas, save that, and then every day/month/year open up the spreadsheet, plug the numbers, get the results, and save the specific results to a different file, or just look at the values produced. Not to mention, when you sit down at your desk in the morning, do you expect your desktop to know what project you want to work on? No, and you don't expect your computer to know what project you are working on either. Opening/Saving files shouldn't be and can't be transparent to the user.
I used to use a lot of floppies when growing up. I appropriated a lot of disks from other places. I used the "grab the black disk with the couple of remnant label pieces... no the other black disk... No, the one with the two small pieces of adhesive... Ooops, the one with the three pieces..." Now, I have to search all the disks everytime I want anything off of them, because I never labeled them. Saving things in well defined locations, for well defined tasks is reasonable, intuitive, and necesary task to saddle a user of any system/technology/information with.
2. I don't really need to address this point specifically, since the answer is inherent in the points above. The overly large filesystems are part of a whole system that the user doesn't really need to know about. That is why the "Desktop/..." paradigm of Windows came about, and is so useful. People working on your word processor have a reason to put the font files in one directory, the plugins in another, and the preferences in a third. The user couldn't care less. If you start the user in a directory tree just for them, then they won't be stuck in a huge file system, and can still work in a fashion that has made sense for litteraly thousands of years.
The filesystem paradigm has been around for a long time, again litterally thousands of years, because it works, it is easy, and it is how people think.
G:\Netowkrfilesystem\ Accounting\AccountsReciev able\Yesterday\Tomorrow\A WeekAgoToday might be confusing, but the filesystem paradigm isn't.
Ask a truck driver. In the state I live in, there is a significantly higher gasoline tax than a lot of other states, especially those around us.
A lot of trucking companies have taken great pains to plot exactly how far out of their way they can go to still be profitable. In other words paying a truck driver extra milage for almost an extra half a day can be cost effective.
This works the same way when the destination is in my state. They plot the gas fill ups so that they have to get as little gas, definitely not proportional to their road use, in the state.
But there needs to be some sort of punitive damages assesed against ridiculous patents. Make it a civil tort to file unenforcable patents: overly broad, prior art, or obvious.
The burden of searching for prior art should be on the applicant. We wouldn't simply take their word for it, but hold them accountable. If the prior art was easy enough to find, make it a punitive civil matter. And this is a perfect place for a jury, since John Q. Basementinventor has a little less resources to investigate prior art than someone like Amazon.
Obviously this is fraught with more problems than the actual USPTO, but the idea is there. Somthing (like money, or the fear of losing it) to keep people from filing all these frivilous patents.
Essentially they make little machines that take some sort of dry product, and kick out ozone.
The ozone permiates everything and takes the smell out nicely.
But I will reiterate what someone above said: Hire a professional. There are people that organize this whole process. You will use several different services, but there are people that know what services those will be needed.
Some laundries specialize in the clothes and linens aspect, for instance.
I remember back when I was in school. No one but academics and a few others had ever really heard of the internet.
Then I remember reading an article about some BBSes that were offering internet access via some sort of gateway technology. At first I thought this was a grand idea, and wanted in on it, mainly because I was no longer at school, and wanted to be able to email friends still in school and use usenet and gopher.
Mosaic had just hit the emerged as a fledgling proof of concept, and as I read more about the internet in even the trade press, I started to get that quezzy feeling that you get everytime something good comes to an end.
I knew it was all over for the internet when my roommate came home and told me all about this great new technology called the internet, and how it was the latest craze.
I wasn't around for the dawn of the internet, but I wonder when it started to suck, the first real indication it was going to become some commercialized, overused, underutilized resource for the masses.
I also, coincidently, remember the first person to show me mosaic, that barely stayed running (early, early version). He was sitting in my dorm room, so excited, telling me how he was going to make money designing these sites. "How is this any better than Gopher?" was my foolish question.
A company I used to work for had a pretty good record of treating women poorly, and long time employees poorly. They were an insurance company.
A lady who had been there for over 30 years decided it was time to quit. She walked in one day, without any real notice, and tendered her resignation. She gave a month, to be fair, but no one new she was planning this before hand.
She was a licensed (certified) actuary, and the entire actuarial department at this life insurace company. An insurance company without an actuary is like an accounting firm without an accountant, just bookkeepers.
She worked her month, took a long (about two month vacation), and came back. The first I knew she had quit was when I over heard one of the gossips back in my department (IS) griping about what she was making. The gossip in question handled the printing of checks.
The actuary came back billing $350 an hour, because they needed her services.
They kept her on like that for the rest of the time I was working there (about another year at least). They couldn't find anyone to take her place.
Slashdot Mirror
The courts can't possibly handle all the petty vandalism cases. Perhaps we should allow all the people that have ever had their fences painted go after the perpetrators themselves, and break their hands so they can't tag anymore.
Revenge is exactly contrary to what a law of any kind should propose. Making anrachy legal is almost an oxymoron, but that is exactly what this, and the DMCA (with its clause forcing ISP's to enforce the law as interpreted by the complaintant or risk the same punishment as the actual thief) are trying to do.
We can't expect corporations to do the right thing in their normal business. Corporations have no ethics. The stock holders hide behind the board, the board hides behind the stockholders. No one will be held accountable except for fines assesed. Is this the mindless, ethical-less entity you want doling out your punishments?
This is slightly offtopic, slightly on, but it looked like a good place to put it.
Does anyone know of an easy to use journaling tool set for the web. I have a friend that will be hiking around the country, and was wanting to be able to stop in at internet cafes or what not, and update all his friends on his progress. What I'd like to be able to give him is a web site that he doesn't need to know much, but able to upload pictures, and make journal entries quickly, and with little technical savvy.
If he would have focused less on the half ass love story, just alluded to it, and spent less time on tracking down the bounty hunter.
It is such a huge expanse of time with a lot of stuff that we already know had to have happened. The question is, what do we want to see, what is important to actually experience, more than just knowing something happened?
I feel he could have elluded to the love affair in the beginning of this movie, and moved closer, if not right into the fall of Anakin right at the end. The over all fact that he was in love in the princess and cast away his Jedi Knighthood for her isn't what I would call an necesary part of the story, especially with as much time that was spent on such a bad example of a love story. I wasn't drawn into the love story, and every scene was painful to watch, a waste of movie footage (bytes, as it were) if you ask me.
Found it, after some digging over my lunch hour.
The listening post is an art exhbit that more or less lives. It monitors certain chat rooms, and posts messages from those chat rooms to a wall of small lcd displays.
I can't think of any of the details, so if anyone has them, please post links. There is an art exhibit talked about in the latest issue of Linux Journal that describes an art exhibit that is a wall of tiny little lcd displays.
This wall changes often. The LCD's have messages culled from the internet in real time. I haven't seen the exhibit, just the picture on the cover of the magazine, but it seems like an interesting endeavor that is slightly akin to the artcile.
I have exceptionally good credit with only a mortgage that I have never been late on, and 1 credit card that never has a balance on.
Does that mean that I am a better employee?
I don't want people to know how much I have in the bank, or what kind of balances I owe. If they know that, and I demand a better salary, because they aren't paying me shit, then they would be less likely.
This could seriously affect your bargaining position later. Probably the other way. If you have a lot of bills, or slightly bad credit your employer has you over a barrel, knowing you will probably not quit if they don't give you a raise.
It isn't hiding somthing, it is keeping private information private. My financial health is not their right to know.
What about the episode, a haloween ep I think, where Homer is traveling through alternate universes.
He lands in one, everything is perfect except no one has ever heard of doughnuts, so Homer flees. Moments after he leaves, it starts rainging outside. The rain is what Homer would have identified as doughnuts.
Before you start looking for prior art you need to know when the patent was applied for.
Like the infamous one click shopping of Amazon, the reason they could enforce it was they applied for the patent before everyone started doing it. If the application date is before the prior art, the art isn't prior.
I don't know the particulars, but keep that in mind when searching for prior art. And did they purchase the patent from someone else?
It appears they have a program in place to cost effectivly move the Alpha customers to the new Itanium systems when they come out.
They are calling it their Customer Assurance Initiative
This is exactly the problem with internet voting.
You can't be garunteed anonymity that needs to exist in the voting process.
You can't be garunteed that your vote gets anywhere, or is even counted.
Sure voting from home would be a lot easier, but it is fraught with so many problems.
And, yes, I realize that there are no real garuntees with the current system as to whether they actually count your vote, or they use stuffed ballot boxes. Having a bunch of people watching the boxes, and checking the people as they filter in is more anonymous, more trustworthy, and less likely to be widely abused. On the other hand, it is significantly less efficient.
Remember, someone has a list of all those numbers that they sent by post. Spoofing everyone that hadn't voted yet right before the end of the polls wouldn't be that far out of the question.
No, what I am suggesting is, if you believe information should be free, then all information should be free.
If you believe that I think that once you donate something to Open Source, you believe all things should be open source, then it would be idiotic. You can donate to open source without believing that all information should be free.
If you would believe RMS's rhetoric, it would be too difficult to diferentiate between the information that wanted to be free, and the information that didn't want to be free.
It is easy to say that the name and address stuff shouldn't be. Where does it stop? I don't want my music published, but you want to share it with your friends. I want my music published, but I don't want just anyone sharing it.
What I was trying to say is, if you believe all information should be free, then your personal problems that you shared with one person are immediately fodder for everyone. Whether that be a personal note, a piece of music, a book, or a piece of code, as soon as you express that idea, then it wants to be free (according to some). Where is the line? Who decides what is personal, and what is truly "wanting to be free information"? My understanding of your personal problem might be quite lucrative. It might benefit me, say if you were pining for my girlfriend, or just dumped your girlfriend that I was pining for.
Donating to open source is not the same as believing that all information wants to be free. If you believe you have the choice to decide what items that you already put out into the wind should not be spread hither and yon, then you do not believe that all information wants to be free. If you don't believe all information wants to be free, and I don't trust you the be the authority on what does and doesn't want to be free, then you can't really tell me that any information wants to be free.
And, according to certain pundits, if you don't believe all information wants to be free, then you are a morally repugnant person, or something to that effect.
The old addage of "You can't have your cake and eat it too." really applies to this and other discussions on this board.
If all information wants to be free, then you need to include all information. That has the requisite implication that your personal information is public domain, and privacy statements are irrelevant. If you believe all information wants to be free, then as soon as you put your name, address, or any other personal informatin into the wind, you should expect anyone has it.
If, however, you believe that you have some inherent right to privacy, and that your name, address, sexual preference, etc. are not, and should not be public domain, then nothing you produce should be public domain. If you have the right to decide who should know your address, then you should be able to decide who reads your thoughts, who can copy your thoughts, and who can listen to the musical implimentation of those thoughts. If you want your best friend to hear your music, but no one else, then that should be your right. If you only want people that pay you for the emotional energy you put into that music, book, or code, that should be your right.
You can't have it both ways. All information is free, or no information is free.
I installed Ximian Desktop, just becaue I used Gnome for a long time, and thought I would buy the CD.
I hadn't used Red Carpet before, but realized their channel system had a channel for my distribution. Now I can watch my distribution channel for security updates, click on them, and walk away.
That is a tool to be applauded.
Are there any similar GUI's for apt-get, that analyze the system, and tell you what needs/should be upgraded?
This would be even better news if it related to the smaller hard drives. I would love to be able to spend $10 for a 10 gig drive, or $40 for a 40 gig drive.
I have no use for super huge drives, but super cheap drives would always come in handy.
The constitution protects criminals also.
This is a fundamental problem with freedom. If you want freedom, your neighbor has to expect that same freedom, even if he is a bigger criminal than you.
Of course, everyone is a felon. Most people just haven't pissed off the correct person yet.
I guess I don't see it that way.
o olsp /Kitchen/Recipes/Heirloom
To me you can't make it any easier than
Desktop/Garage/Powertools
Desktop/Garage/HandT
Desktop/Kitchen/Recipes/BettyCrocker
Deskto
Desktop/Kitchen/Pantry
I cna't see why you'd really want your chilton (car repair mauals) in your kitchen. And even if you did, you'd want to put it back where it belonged. With the HFS, you have that ability. If you are writing a recipe, and want to add an anectdote, or metaphore relating to cars, you just have to grab it from where ever it is supposed to reside.
This new idea actually obfuscates that. Someone else has mentioned that one piece of metadata is easier to remember than several. If you organize your directories with good layout and names, this becomes quite trivial.
Now, in the above example, if your mother always made you "her" famous cholocate chip bar cookies, and you can't find the recipe, and then stumble across it in the Betty Crocker Cookie Book, you can just add a link to the heirloom directory also.
Should you have to? I don't know. But you'd have to do a very similar task in his scheme also.
I normally argue against hierarchical databases, knowing they have their place, but most cases call for a relational one. This is a case where the hierarchical works best, IMHO. Mainly because you aren't creating a relational environment. You are just trying to use a bunch of pointers after the fact to relate similar items.
Hierarchical file systems are as close to intuitive as you get. Everything you do in the real world, as pertains to dealing with information, mimics a hierarchical file system. Your chilton manuals are in the garage, your cookbooks and recipe boxes are in the kitchen or dining room, your computer books are by your computer. You don't look in the computer manual for how to change your oil. When you are trying to bake a cake, you don't walk out into the garage for inspiration. Having information organized into different places, and then having those places subdivided into different boxes is intuitive, and is how most organized people think.
v able\Yesterday\Tomorrow\A WeekAgoToday might be confusing, but the filesystem paradigm isn't.
1. (a) "We don't need no stinking filesystem." The ideal palmesque OS would have the same idea just demonstrated differently. You aren't going to open up your notepad to see an address. The address file is in the address program (directory). The schedule file is in the calendar program(directory). The programs you use to open the files become your folders.
1. (b) "Saving/Opening files should be transparent" The only people that would think like this in the real world have been living with someone that picks up after them all the time. When you are working on some (paper and pencil) project, and just stand up and walk away, do you exepect it to be available at the office tomorrow? When you start working on several projects in succession on your desk, and have reams of loose paper, can you easily bore your way back down. No, reasonable, organized people pick up the porject they are working on, file it away in the file cabinet/brief case/wherever it is supposed to go. There are logical beginnings and endings to your working on a project that only you can decide on. A spreadsheet, for example, do you want it to save every time you make a change... No, by their design, you would normally set up all your formulas, save that, and then every day/month/year open up the spreadsheet, plug the numbers, get the results, and save the specific results to a different file, or just look at the values produced. Not to mention, when you sit down at your desk in the morning, do you expect your desktop to know what project you want to work on? No, and you don't expect your computer to know what project you are working on either. Opening/Saving files shouldn't be and can't be transparent to the user.
I used to use a lot of floppies when growing up. I appropriated a lot of disks from other places. I used the "grab the black disk with the couple of remnant label pieces... no the other black disk... No, the one with the two small pieces of adhesive... Ooops, the one with the three pieces..." Now, I have to search all the disks everytime I want anything off of them, because I never labeled them. Saving things in well defined locations, for well defined tasks is reasonable, intuitive, and necesary task to saddle a user of any system/technology/information with.
2. I don't really need to address this point specifically, since the answer is inherent in the points above. The overly large filesystems are part of a whole system that the user doesn't really need to know about. That is why the "Desktop/..." paradigm of Windows came about, and is so useful. People working on your word processor have a reason to put the font files in one directory, the plugins in another, and the preferences in a third. The user couldn't care less. If you start the user in a directory tree just for them, then they won't be stuck in a huge file system, and can still work in a fashion that has made sense for litteraly thousands of years.
The filesystem paradigm has been around for a long time, again litterally thousands of years, because it works, it is easy, and it is how people think.
G:\Netowkrfilesystem\
Accounting\AccountsRecie
There are ways around this.
Ask a truck driver. In the state I live in, there is a significantly higher gasoline tax than a lot of other states, especially those around us.
A lot of trucking companies have taken great pains to plot exactly how far out of their way they can go to still be profitable. In other words paying a truck driver extra milage for almost an extra half a day can be cost effective.
This works the same way when the destination is in my state. They plot the gas fill ups so that they have to get as little gas, definitely not proportional to their road use, in the state.
The point is, you can't work in a situation, or at least it is very limiting to your job prospects, to not be able to touch a computer at all.
Thikn of all the jobs in wide spread availability, and list the ones that you don't have to touch a network computer.
They can't compel him to testify, so why ask him to? It would have wasted everyones time to call him to the stand.
If he had something to say his lawyers would call him to the stand in rebuttal to the prosecution.
But there needs to be some sort of punitive damages assesed against ridiculous patents. Make it a civil tort to file unenforcable patents: overly broad, prior art, or obvious.
The burden of searching for prior art should be on the applicant. We wouldn't simply take their word for it, but hold them accountable. If the prior art was easy enough to find, make it a punitive civil matter. And this is a perfect place for a jury, since John Q. Basementinventor has a little less resources to investigate prior art than someone like Amazon.
Obviously this is fraught with more problems than the actual USPTO, but the idea is there. Somthing (like money, or the fear of losing it) to keep people from filing all these frivilous patents.
Essentially they make little machines that take some sort of dry product, and kick out ozone.
The ozone permiates everything and takes the smell out nicely.
But I will reiterate what someone above said: Hire a professional. There are people that organize this whole process. You will use several different services, but there are people that know what services those will be needed.
Some laundries specialize in the clothes and linens aspect, for instance.
This has been addressed in the near past here in a different light, maybe about salon going under, or something.
If you aren't paying me for my content, I don't care if you are happy.
I would rather have only 5 paying readers than 5 million non-paying readers.
Numbers don't matter unless they are paying you for your service.
Business doesn't get much simpler than this. The elusive 2nd step to profit, is selling something.
I don't understand how people can continue to think like this, and it is a common thought process:
"It isn't a good idea for company A to start charging all of us non-paying, never-gonna-pay users, because we may never become paying customers."
If they never start charging, you wouldn't become paying customers either, so they aren't out anything by pissing you off.
I remember back when I was in school. No one but academics and a few others had ever really heard of the internet.
Then I remember reading an article about some BBSes that were offering internet access via some sort of gateway technology. At first I thought this was a grand idea, and wanted in on it, mainly because I was no longer at school, and wanted to be able to email friends still in school and use usenet and gopher.
Mosaic had just hit the emerged as a fledgling proof of concept, and as I read more about the internet in even the trade press, I started to get that quezzy feeling that you get everytime something good comes to an end.
I knew it was all over for the internet when my roommate came home and told me all about this great new technology called the internet, and how it was the latest craze.
I wasn't around for the dawn of the internet, but I wonder when it started to suck, the first real indication it was going to become some commercialized, overused, underutilized resource for the masses.
I also, coincidently, remember the first person to show me mosaic, that barely stayed running (early, early version). He was sitting in my dorm room, so excited, telling me how he was going to make money designing these sites. "How is this any better than Gopher?" was my foolish question.
This story reminds me of another.
A company I used to work for had a pretty good record of treating women poorly, and long time employees poorly. They were an insurance company.
A lady who had been there for over 30 years decided it was time to quit. She walked in one day, without any real notice, and tendered her resignation. She gave a month, to be fair, but no one new she was planning this before hand.
She was a licensed (certified) actuary, and the entire actuarial department at this life insurace company. An insurance company without an actuary is like an accounting firm without an accountant, just bookkeepers.
She worked her month, took a long (about two month vacation), and came back. The first I knew she had quit was when I over heard one of the gossips back in my department (IS) griping about what she was making. The gossip in question handled the printing of checks.
The actuary came back billing $350 an hour, because they needed her services.
They kept her on like that for the rest of the time I was working there (about another year at least). They couldn't find anyone to take her place.