You don't have to assume that, it's handed to you on a silver platter at the very beginning of the first movie. Right after Trinity gets out through the phone booth that Smith destroyed with the garbage truck, the 3 agents (Smith, Jones, and Brown [interesting trick - do a Google search on those 3 names and add the words "Alien Accountant"]) stand around discussing what just happened. It goes something to the effect of, "She got out," "It doesn't matter," and most importantly, "It's happening exactly as before."
No, you're confusing the two movies. When Trinity gets out in the first movie, the exchange goes like this:
Agent Brown : She got out.
Agent Smith : It doesn't matter.
Agent Jones : The informant is real.
Agent Smith : Yes...
Agent Jones : We have the name of their next target..
Agent Brown : The name is Neo...
Agent Smith : We'll need a search running..
Agent Jones : It has already begun.
The scene you're thinking of is in Reloaded, when Smith is talking to another Smith and it goes something like this:
Smith1: It's happening eactly as before.
Smith2: Well, not exactly
So, given that, all we know is that by the beginning of Reloaded, Smith has become aware of the iterating Matrix business. We don't know that he and the other agents were aware of it all along.
it wouldn't be the first time microsoft stole a feature... i hear longhorn is gonna have virtual desktops...linux has had it for years... a lot of their interface is...shall we say...Mac Inspired (ex. the trash can)...
And the part that isn't Mac inspired is OS/2 inspired (right-click context menu, anyone?)
Why would he want that if he knew (having been through several reboots of the matrix) Zion was going to be overrun by squids anyways?
Aaah, but we don't know that Smith *has* been through the cycle 5 previous times. Assuming you basically accept what you know (from the Oracle and the Architect) at the end of M2, as true... then the same basic scenario has happened all those other times... presumably including Neo destroying Smith. So, it could be that the Smith program in each iteration of the Matrix, actually has no connection to the previous Smith's, because that program was deleted, and a new one created for the next iteration.
Otherwise though, I agree with your point. If you assume Smith knows about the iterating Matrix, then the things he says in M1 don't really make sense. If he knows he's going to loop back through again, then getting the Zion mainframe codes isn't going to get him out of the Matrix, and he knows it...
Congratulations, that was one of the most brilliant pieces of flamebait I've ever seen or read. It had everything:
1) blatant factual inaccuracies:
> We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding > standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE > and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something > that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and > few people do anyway.
I don't know of a single open-source / free software project that doesn't use version control. In fact, what might easily be the most popular version control system in the world, CVS, is itself an open source project.
Coding Standards? True, not every open-source project has written guidelines for that. However, many do ( The Jakarta sub-project group at the ASF comes to mind, as does the Mozilla project) and all are subject to the most rigorous coding standard of all... review and inspection by an unlimited number of peers, at any time of day or night, 24 x 7, 365 days a year. Let a snippet of bad code get checked into the repository (see above) for a large open source project with numerous active committers, and see how long it takes for it to get rolled-back, and the author mercilessly flamed.
Quality Control? Maybe you've heard the expression "all bugs are shallow, given enough eyeballs?" Open Source by it's very nature has the ultimate form of quality control... and unlike closed source proprietary software, the end user generally has relatively easy access to the engineers working on the code, to report defects, whether it be via Bugzilla, Sourceforge, e-mail, newsgroups or what have you.
Support? JBoss Corp. provides support for the JBoss application server, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and many others provide supported distributions of Linux, and Mozilla.org provides support for Mozilla. And that's just paid support I'm referring to. Never mind the aforementioned channels of e-mail, newsgroups, forums, etc., for interacting directly with the authors (and fellow users) of the code.
As for modifying code being dangerous... that's just ignorant. Cutting towards yourself with a sharp knife is dangerous... crossing a busy highway without looking is dangerous... modifying source code is about as NON dangerous an activity as you could dream up.
2) unwarranted and inaccurate personal attacks
> These folks are some of the same great people > who are supposed to be working for you anyway, > plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work > at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a > menagerie of others with whom you will feel > great pride in entrusting your IT > infrastructure.
Wow, you just managed to insult the entire open source community in one drop of the hat... a community which happens to include many professional software engineers, working for respected firms such as IBM, Red Hat, SGI, Novell, Mandrakesoft, Sun Microsystems, etc.
I suppose you believe Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox to be "others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure," eh?
Oh, and you make look around the Princeton campus sometime... I'm pretty sure you'll find quite a number of members of the open source community there, both students and faculty / staff members.
3) red herrings and unrelated rambling galore...
no quote necessary... this bullet basically summarizes your entire article.
In short, you sir, are either a flaming idiot, or the first Slashdot troll to get hired by Princeton and allowed to publish obvious flamebait in Syllabus. If this was an intentional troll, I must say, it was a masterful one. If you actually meant any of that drivel however, I would suggest you leave the IT industry and take up something you are competent at.
But the mail client is good enough that I've tried to give Ximian some money, only to be told that they don't have a program for donations. They suggested I buy some t-shirts, but I don't WANT the bloody T-shirts, and I don't WANT the bloody Red Carpet thing, I just want to give them $25 or $30 for the mail client I use. No way to do that
Buy the T-shirts, and then give them away as X-Mas presents, or give them to homeless folks, or something.
Bullshit. This whole (under 18 | over 18), (child |adult ), (no rights | rights) thought process is a load of crap. U.S. law may define a difference between being an "adult" and a "child", but to say that children have no rights is just wrong.
If certain rights truly are "god given" and "inalienable" then they're pretty much "god given" and "inalienable" for everybody.
There are probably legitimate reasons to restrict certain aspects of what children are allowed to do, and not... but to suggest that children have no right is just brain-dead, IMHO.
And FWIW, I would not send my children (if I had children!) to a school that tracks their every movement using RFID tags.
Ummmm, I get your point, but... if they're planning to start offering the test in November, I'd think they should be well past the point in designing the curriculum, tests, etc., where they'd be asking/. for help...
Anyway, I did miss the focus of the original post a little... I read it as being from the perspective of a Novell partner / reseller / consultant / whatever... not realizing it was from Novell themselves.
So mod my original post -1 Foot In Mouth, I guess.
Yeah, and cops should just give up. Seriously... they aren't gonna stop rapists and murderers.
They don't even really try. Police exist to create a (mild) deterrent effect, and to respond AFTER a crime, and take a report. Trust me, I used to work as a 911 dispatcher... police simply do NOT stop crime "in progress" on any kind of regular basis, and when they do it's dumb, blind luck.
My big question is, how do you deal with structural failure in the burning section?
That's a HUGE question facing the fire service, whether you use PPV or not. There are really three basic techniques to handle that issue.
1. size-up, and make a determination if an aggressive interior attack is feasible in the first place. If there are signs of imminent structural collapse, go defensive mode, "surround and drown."
2. If you initiate an interior attack, allow a certain amount of time (varies from dept. to dept, but for example, let's say 10 minutes) from the time interior attack is commenced... if the fire isn't contained in that amount of time, pull-out, and switch to defensive mode.
3. teach firefighters and officers to recognize certain signs of impending collapse. This is why one of the courses required for FF certification is something called "Building Construction." Firefighters are taught in a fair amount of detail how buildings are put together, and how the stress of a fire works against the building's construction. This helps them to recognize warning signs. It's also part of the size-up process I mentioned in 1 above. Recognizing balloon-frame construction as opposed to heavy timber construction for example, is a factor in determining the likelihood of a collapse. Another example would be recognizing the presence of pre-fabricated trusses, which are considered by many in the fire service to be one of the greatest dangers around.
Oh, and pre-planning also comes into play. Can't forget that. Fire Departments usually visit most commercial buildings in their districts on some regular basis (annual, for example) and one of the things they may note down for reference, are details about the building construction (plus things like where the fire department connection for the sprinkler system is, the closest fire hydrant, etc.)
It would seem pushing fresh air into a burning section would help consume more fuel (i.e. the wood holding the second floor from falling on your head).
Yes, there is something to that. PPV is not a magic bullet. It's use has to be taught, and firefighters and officers have to understand where , when and how to use it, and the ramifications of doing so. Used properly it can be a HUGE help in handling a structural fire. Used improperly, it can definitely help burn a house to the ground real fast. In fact, I would not be surprised if a fire department one day gets sued for negligence for misusing PPV and burning a house down. And for what it's worth, yes I have worked fires where PPV was mis-used and caused more harm than good. I think that usually happens in fire departments where they get their first PPV fan, are all gung-ho to use it, and haven't had the appropriate training yet to really understand it.
Oh yeah, I should probably also say that while PPV is a valid technique, and what I think one of the parent posts was referring to, it's NOT what the patent is referring to, as best as I can tell. The patent seems to clearly state that the idea is to suck the fire and gases OUT using a vacuum, which is the exact opposite of PPV.
My considered opinion is that the "inventor" of this particular device doesn't know much about firefighting, if he seriously intends to try to fight fire this way. Doing it this way, would most likely just make matters worse, as several people have pointed out.
Of course, he could turn it around, and he'd just have a truck-mounted PPV fan.
Then again, ventilation fans already exist for doing both positive and negative pressure ventilation, and I question whether simply truck-mounting it either way, is sufficiently different enough from existing practice to justify granting a patent anyway.
Oh, yeah, since this is Slashdot, I should probably point out that yes, IAAFFI (I Am A FireFighting Instructor), who has been certified to teach IFSAC accredited Firefighter I & II training courses, by the state of North Carolina.
Where have you seen this technique used? This will basically turn the house into a giant blow-torch.
That technique (Positive Pressure Ventilation) is widely used in the fire service, pretty much everywhere in the U.S. It is, as near as I can tell, pretty much ubiquitous. The training materials provided by IFSTA teach PPV, and PPV training materials and equipment are very much in demand in the fire service.
Your point about turning the home into a giant blow-torch does have some validity of course. PPV, when done wrong, CAN have negative consequences. Timing is crucial to do proper PPV. As one of the parent threads pointed out, the idea is to force the smoke and super-heated gases away, clearing a path for the fire crews to advance on the seat of the fire and extinquish it.
Another factor is where the PPV fans are placed. Firefighters are taught to always (when possible) attack a fire from the un-burnt side. What this means, is that when you "push" the fire, whether with PPV fans, or with the air pushing effect of hose-lines with fog nozzles, you push the fire back into territory it's already burned... this is part of the "locate, confine, extinguish" strategy.
If you did the opposite, attacking the fire from the already burned side, you would not want to try and use PPV, or you would indeed be helping to spread the fire into areas that were not yet damaged.
In my experience these fans are usually used to remove smoke from the house after the fire has been extinguished.
That's also a valid use of ventilation fans, although the fans used for negative / exhaust ventilation are usually smaller, electric fans, with less capacity in CFM.
Whether or not there is prior art to Microsoft or not, this is a patentable idea.
In theory, you can't patent "ideas", that is, you're supposed to have to *build* something to get a patent.
And anyway, this "invention" is so dirt obvious that a 2nd grader could have come up with it. Shit like this is a glaring example of how dysfunctional our patent "system" has become.
Never mind the fact that the entire idea of "software patents" is ridiculous in the first place.
When I was responsible for hiring people, a cert was a big strike against you.
Then you were doing yourself and your employer a disfavor. Certification certainly doesn't PROVE that you know what you're doing, and I'm sure there are plenty of "paper <insert certification>'s" out there, but there is another side to certifications.
Take a fairly difficult certification, like Sun Certified Java Programmer... you cannot take a 1 day seminar and pass the SCJP test. And it would be difficult to pass that test by doing nothing but reading an exam prep guide... I know, I just took the test, after having been a professional Java programmer for a hair over 3 years... and I had to study fairly damn hard to pass the test.
So, if somebody comes in to interview with you, and they have a SCJP, you know the following: They know the fundamentals of how to write a Java program, at an at least moderate skill level. They have the determination, focus, and drive to motivate themselves to study and learn, in order to pass the certification. They are probably very driven and goal-oriented, and will dedicate themselves to being successful.
Again, just having the cert doesn't mean you're necessarily a great programmer, or even a desirable employee. But, IMHO, it does demonstrate several things which, at least for me, would be positive factors in evaluating a prospective employee. At a minimum, I can't see how you could consider it a strike *against* the candidate.
I have to state that in my experience, knowing how to learn doesn't amount to a hill of beans in an interview. Most of the interviews that I've been through can be summed up as, I don't care if you can learn, if you don't already have the skills to complete this required task within X amount of time so that I can then dispose of you, you are waisting my time.
That may be true in some (maybe even most) cases, but as they say, the exception makes the rule... In my own case, when I was hired for my present job, I had no professional programming experience, and was still 3 classes shy of finishing my A.S. in Computer Programming from the local community college. I got the job anyway, and later on the manager that hired me made a point of say something like:
"The reason I hired you was because it was obvious that you were a self-starter and a motivated learner."
What gave him that idea? Probably the fact that I answer half his questions (Do you know COM? What about Rexx? What about ADO? What about Linux? OS/2?, etc....) with "I'm not an expert, but I have a couple of books on the subject, and I've been learning it in my spare time" or something to that effect. And no, I wasn't lying either...:-)
Anyway, the point is, some manager ARE more interested in hiring somebody they feel can learn on the job, and will be impressed by qualities like "self-starter" and "motivated learner."
Of course, in my case I was being hired for an entry-level position, and it would probably be different if they were specifically trying to hire somebody who *did* already have all the requisite skills... And I was hired in 2000, back in the days when any yo-yo who could turn a computer on could get a programming job...:-)
If I were laid off, the last thing I'd want to do is make a scene that would look like I was throwing a hissy fit. And quite frankly, unless you are willing to do that, you'll end up compliyng with the company's request that you leave inmediatly and make an appointment to retrieve your belongings.
Why wouldn't you want to make a scene over that? I damn sure wouldn't mind... if there's stuff in my office that **belongs to me** you can damn sure believe it's leaving with me, when I leave... I don't care if I have to throw a hissy fit, call the cops, call the Coast Guard, summon Cthulu, or whatever... Fuck 'em, I figure if they fire me, what the hell do I care at that point?????
If you ever find the answer to this, mail it to me on the back of a $50 bill
And when he does, please transcribe the answer onto the back of a one hundred dollar bill and forward it to me....
And now this company is suing others for copyright violations. It becomes more and more clear that SCO will have a hard time documenting where the code lines in question originated, that they actually have and has always held the copyright on them.
Exactly... I'll bet the current SCO/Caldera management has NO idea what's in the Unix code base that they "own." At the very least, that statement by RL makes it clear that there is considerable code that, while IN unix, SCO/Caldera does NOT own the copyright too.
After all, if it's so encumbered by other companies code that they couldn't open source it if they wanted too, that code base has to be a gigantic fucking mess from a copyright standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to assume that, it's handed to you on a silver platter at the very beginning of the first movie. Right after Trinity gets out through the phone booth that Smith destroyed with the garbage truck, the 3 agents (Smith, Jones, and Brown [interesting trick - do a Google search on those 3 names and add the words "Alien Accountant"]) stand around discussing what just happened. It goes something to the effect of, "She got out," "It doesn't matter," and most importantly, "It's happening exactly as before."
No, you're confusing the two movies. When Trinity gets out in the first movie, the exchange goes like this:
Agent Brown : She got out.
Agent Smith : It doesn't matter.
Agent Jones : The informant is real.
Agent Smith : Yes...
Agent Jones : We have the name of their next target..
Agent Brown : The name is Neo...
Agent Smith : We'll need a search running..
Agent Jones : It has already begun.
The scene you're thinking of is in Reloaded, when Smith is talking to another Smith and it goes something like this:
Smith1: It's happening eactly as before.
Smith2: Well, not exactly
So, given that, all we know is that by the beginning of Reloaded, Smith has become aware of the iterating Matrix business. We don't know that he and the other agents were aware of it all along.
What if they do the DNA tests and it turns out that Billy the Kid isn't in either of those graves?
An even better question is... what if he turns out to be in BOTH graves???
it wouldn't be the first time microsoft stole a feature... i hear longhorn is gonna have virtual desktops...linux has had it for years... a lot of their interface is...shall we say...Mac Inspired (ex. the trash can)...
And the part that isn't Mac inspired is OS/2 inspired (right-click context menu, anyone?)
and your posting on SlashDot. Your life sucks as much as mine.
:-)
that depends... which one (if either) of you is posting from work???
Why would he want that if he knew (having been through several reboots of the matrix) Zion was going to be overrun by squids anyways?
Aaah, but we don't know that Smith *has* been through the cycle 5 previous times. Assuming you basically accept what you know (from the Oracle and the Architect) at the end of M2, as true... then the same basic scenario has happened all those other times... presumably including Neo destroying Smith. So, it could be that the Smith program in each iteration of the Matrix, actually has no connection to the previous Smith's, because that program was deleted, and a new one created for the next iteration.
Otherwise though, I agree with your point. If you assume Smith knows about the iterating Matrix, then the things he says in M1 don't really make sense. If he knows he's going to loop back through again, then getting the Zion mainframe codes isn't going to get him out of the Matrix, and he knows it...
Congratulations, that was one of the most brilliant pieces of flamebait I've ever seen or read. It had everything:
1) blatant factual inaccuracies:
> We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding
> standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE > and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something
> that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and
> few people do anyway.
I don't know of a single open-source / free software project that doesn't use version control. In fact, what might easily be the
most popular version control system in the world, CVS, is itself
an open source project.
Coding Standards? True, not every open-source project has written guidelines for that. However, many do ( The Jakarta sub-project
group at the ASF comes to mind, as does the Mozilla project) and
all are subject to the most rigorous coding standard of all... review and inspection by an unlimited number of peers, at any time of day or night, 24 x 7, 365 days a year. Let a snippet of bad code get checked into the repository (see above) for a large open source project with
numerous active committers, and see how long it takes for it to get rolled-back, and the author mercilessly flamed.
Quality Control? Maybe you've heard the expression "all bugs are shallow, given enough eyeballs?" Open Source by it's very nature has
the ultimate form of quality control... and unlike closed source
proprietary software, the end user generally has relatively easy
access to the engineers working on the code, to report defects,
whether it be via Bugzilla, Sourceforge, e-mail, newsgroups or
what have you.
Support? JBoss Corp. provides support for the JBoss application server,
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and many others provide supported distributions of Linux, and Mozilla.org provides support for Mozilla. And that's just
paid support I'm referring to. Never mind the aforementioned channels of e-mail, newsgroups, forums, etc., for interacting directly with the authors (and fellow users) of the code.
As for modifying code being dangerous... that's just ignorant. Cutting towards yourself with a sharp knife is dangerous... crossing a busy highway without looking is dangerous... modifying source code is about as NON dangerous an activity as you could dream up.
2) unwarranted and inaccurate personal attacks
> These folks are some of the same great people
> who are supposed to be working for you anyway,
> plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work
> at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a
> menagerie of others with whom you will feel
> great pride in entrusting your IT
> infrastructure.
Wow, you just managed to insult the entire open source community in one
drop of the hat... a community which happens to include many professional software engineers, working for respected firms such as IBM, Red Hat, SGI, Novell, Mandrakesoft, Sun Microsystems, etc.
I suppose you believe Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox to be "others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure," eh?
Oh, and you make look around the Princeton campus sometime... I'm pretty sure you'll find quite a number of members of the open source community there, both students and faculty / staff members.
3) red herrings and unrelated rambling galore...
no quote necessary... this bullet basically summarizes your entire article.
In short, you sir, are either a flaming idiot, or the first Slashdot troll to get hired by Princeton and allowed to publish obvious flamebait in Syllabus. If this was an intentional troll, I must say, it was a masterful one. If you actually meant any of that drivel however, I would suggest you leave the IT industry and take up something you are competent at.
Mark my words, by the end of 2004, Java will be an orphan.
If your prediction comes true, I predict it will take about a nanosecond for IBM to "adopt" the orphaned Java.
But the mail client is good enough that I've tried to give Ximian some money, only to be told that they don't have a program for donations. They suggested I buy some t-shirts, but I don't WANT the bloody T-shirts, and I don't WANT the bloody Red Carpet thing, I just want to give them $25 or $30 for the mail client I use. No way to do that
Buy the T-shirts, and then give them away as X-Mas presents, or give them to homeless folks, or something.
I don't have mod point at the moment, so consider this a "virtual" +1 Insightful...
Well children basically have no rights.
Bullshit. This whole (under 18 | over 18), (child |adult ), (no rights | rights) thought process is a load of crap. U.S. law may define a difference between being an "adult" and a "child", but to say that children have no rights is just wrong.
If certain rights truly are "god given" and "inalienable" then they're pretty much "god given" and "inalienable" for everybody.
There are probably legitimate reasons to restrict certain aspects of what children are allowed to do, and not... but to suggest that children have no right is just brain-dead, IMHO.
And FWIW, I would not send my children (if I had children!) to a school that tracks their every movement using RFID tags.
I love my TI-86 also, but I'm probably going to buy a HP-49g+ when they hit the store shelves. Just because, ya know, it's the geeky thing to do! :-)
A: Nov. 2003
^from the pdf you linked to
Q: is it november yet?
A: no, that's why they're asking us for help
Ummmm, I get your point, but... if they're planning to start offering the test in November, I'd think they should be well past the point in designing the curriculum, tests, etc., where they'd be asking
Anyway, I did miss the focus of the original post a little... I read it as being from the perspective of a Novell partner / reseller / consultant / whatever... not realizing it was from Novell themselves.
So mod my original post -1 Foot In Mouth, I guess.
Go for the Novell Certified Linux Engineer certification.
Yeah, and cops should just give up. Seriously... they aren't gonna stop rapists and murderers.
They don't even really try. Police exist to create a (mild) deterrent effect, and to respond AFTER a crime, and take a report. Trust me, I used to work as a 911 dispatcher... police simply do NOT stop crime "in progress" on any kind of regular basis, and when they do it's dumb, blind luck.
My big question is, how do you deal with structural failure in the burning section?
That's a HUGE question facing the fire service, whether you use PPV or not. There are really three basic techniques to handle that issue.
1. size-up, and make a determination if an aggressive interior attack is feasible in the first place. If there are signs of imminent structural collapse, go defensive mode, "surround and drown."
2. If you initiate an interior attack, allow a certain amount of time (varies from dept. to dept, but for example, let's say 10 minutes) from the time interior attack is commenced... if the fire isn't contained in that amount of time, pull-out, and switch to defensive mode.
3. teach firefighters and officers to recognize certain signs of impending collapse. This is why one of the courses required for FF certification is something called "Building Construction." Firefighters are taught in a fair amount of detail how buildings are put together, and how the stress of a fire works against the building's construction. This helps them to recognize warning signs. It's also part of the size-up process I mentioned in 1 above. Recognizing balloon-frame construction as opposed to heavy timber construction for example, is a factor in determining the likelihood of a collapse. Another example would be recognizing the presence of pre-fabricated trusses, which are considered by many in the fire service to be one of the greatest dangers around.
Oh, and pre-planning also comes into play. Can't forget that. Fire Departments usually visit most commercial buildings in their districts on some regular basis (annual, for example) and one of the things they may note down for reference, are details about the building construction (plus things like where the fire department connection for the sprinkler system is, the closest fire hydrant, etc.)
It would seem pushing fresh air into a burning section would help consume more fuel (i.e. the wood holding the second floor from falling on your head).
Yes, there is something to that. PPV is not a magic bullet. It's use has to be taught, and firefighters and officers have to understand where , when and how to use it, and the ramifications of doing so. Used properly it can be a HUGE help in handling a structural fire. Used improperly, it can definitely help burn a house to the ground real fast. In fact, I would not be surprised if a fire department one day gets sued for negligence for misusing PPV and burning a house down. And for what it's worth, yes I have worked fires where PPV was mis-used and caused more harm than good. I think that usually happens in fire departments where they get their first PPV fan, are all gung-ho to use it, and haven't had the appropriate training yet to really understand it.
For anybody who's interested, here's a good article that talks about PPV in some detail:
http://www.firetactics.com/PPV-GRIMWOOD.htm
Oh yeah, I should probably also say that while PPV is a valid technique, and what I think one of the parent posts was referring to, it's NOT what the patent is referring to, as best as I can tell. The patent seems to clearly state that the idea is to suck the fire and gases OUT using a vacuum, which is the exact opposite of PPV.
My considered opinion is that the "inventor" of this particular device doesn't know much about firefighting, if he seriously intends to try to fight fire this way. Doing it this way, would most likely just make matters worse, as several people have pointed out.
Of course, he could turn it around, and he'd just have a truck-mounted PPV fan.
Then again, ventilation fans already exist for doing both positive and negative pressure ventilation, and I question whether simply truck-mounting it either way, is sufficiently different enough from existing practice to justify granting a patent anyway.
Oh, yeah, since this is Slashdot, I should probably point out that yes, IAAFFI (I Am A FireFighting Instructor), who has been certified to teach IFSAC accredited Firefighter I & II training courses, by the state of North Carolina.
Where have you seen this technique used? This will basically turn the house into a giant blow-torch.
That technique (Positive Pressure Ventilation) is widely used in the fire service, pretty much everywhere in the U.S. It is, as near as I can tell, pretty much ubiquitous. The training materials provided by IFSTA teach PPV, and PPV training materials and equipment are very much in demand in the fire service.
Your point about turning the home into a giant blow-torch does have some validity of course. PPV, when done wrong, CAN have negative consequences. Timing is crucial to do proper PPV. As one of the parent threads pointed out, the idea is to force the smoke and super-heated gases away, clearing a path for the fire crews to advance on the seat of the fire and extinquish it.
Another factor is where the PPV fans are placed. Firefighters are taught to always (when possible) attack a fire from the un-burnt side. What this means, is that when you "push" the fire, whether with PPV fans, or with the air pushing effect of hose-lines with fog nozzles, you push the fire back into territory it's already burned... this is part of the "locate, confine, extinguish" strategy.
If you did the opposite, attacking the fire from the already burned side, you would not want to try and use PPV, or you would indeed be helping to spread the fire into areas that were not yet damaged.
For anybody who's interested, here's a link to some more info: http://www.tempest-edge.com/ppv/
In my experience these fans are usually used to remove smoke from the house after the fire has been extinguished.
That's also a valid use of ventilation fans, although the fans used for negative / exhaust ventilation are usually smaller, electric fans, with less capacity in CFM.
Whether or not there is prior art to Microsoft or not, this is a patentable idea.
In theory, you can't patent "ideas", that is, you're supposed to have to *build* something to get a patent.
And anyway, this "invention" is so dirt obvious that a 2nd grader could have come up with it. Shit like this is a glaring example of how dysfunctional our patent "system" has become.
Never mind the fact that the entire idea of "software patents" is ridiculous in the first place.
Then you were doing yourself and your employer a disfavor. Certification certainly doesn't PROVE that you know what you're doing, and I'm sure there are plenty of "paper <insert certification>'s" out there, but there is another side to certifications.
Take a fairly difficult certification, like Sun Certified Java Programmer... you cannot take a 1 day seminar and pass the SCJP test. And it would be difficult to pass that test by doing nothing but reading an exam prep guide... I know, I just took the test, after having been a professional Java programmer for a hair over 3 years... and I had to study fairly damn hard to pass the test.
So, if somebody comes in to interview with you, and they have a SCJP, you know the following: They know the fundamentals of how to write a Java program, at an at least moderate skill level. They have the determination, focus, and drive to motivate themselves to study and learn, in order to pass the certification. They are probably very driven and goal-oriented, and will dedicate themselves to being successful.
Again, just having the cert doesn't mean you're necessarily a great programmer, or even a desirable employee. But, IMHO, it does demonstrate several things which, at least for me, would be positive factors in evaluating a prospective employee. At a minimum, I can't see how you could consider it a strike *against* the candidate.
I have to state that in my experience, knowing how to learn doesn't amount to a hill of beans in an interview. Most of the interviews that I've been through can be summed up as, I don't care if you can learn, if you don't already have the skills to complete this required task within X amount of time so that I can then dispose of you, you are waisting my time.
:-)
:-)
That may be true in some (maybe even most) cases, but as they say, the exception makes the rule... In my own case, when I was hired for my present job, I had no professional programming experience, and was still 3 classes shy of finishing my A.S. in Computer Programming from the local community college. I got the job anyway, and later on the manager that hired me made a point of say something like:
"The reason I hired you was because it was obvious that you were a self-starter and a motivated learner."
What gave him that idea? Probably the fact that I answer half his questions (Do you know COM? What about Rexx? What about ADO? What about Linux? OS/2?, etc....) with "I'm not an expert, but I have a couple of books on the subject, and I've been learning it in my spare time" or something to that effect. And no, I wasn't lying either...
Anyway, the point is, some manager ARE more interested in hiring somebody they feel can learn on the job, and will be impressed by qualities like "self-starter" and "motivated learner."
Of course, in my case I was being hired for an entry-level position, and it would probably be different if they were specifically trying to hire somebody who *did* already have all the requisite skills... And I was hired in 2000, back in the days when any yo-yo who could turn a computer on could get a programming job...
If I were laid off, the last thing I'd want to do is make a scene that would look like I was throwing a hissy fit. And quite frankly, unless you are willing to do that, you'll end up compliyng with the company's request that you leave inmediatly and make an appointment to retrieve your belongings.
Why wouldn't you want to make a scene over that? I damn sure wouldn't mind... if there's stuff in my office that **belongs to me** you can damn sure believe it's leaving with me, when I leave... I don't care if I have to throw a hissy fit, call the cops, call the Coast Guard, summon Cthulu, or whatever... Fuck 'em, I figure if they fire me, what the hell do I care at that point?????
If you ever find the answer to this, mail it to me on the back of a $50 bill And when he does, please transcribe the answer onto the back of a one hundred dollar bill and forward it to me....
And now this company is suing others for copyright violations. It becomes more and more clear that SCO will have a hard time documenting where the code lines in question originated, that they actually have and has always held the copyright on them.
Exactly... I'll bet the current SCO/Caldera management has NO idea what's in the Unix code base that they "own." At the very least, that statement by RL makes it clear that there is considerable code that, while IN unix, SCO/Caldera does NOT own the copyright too.
After all, if it's so encumbered by other companies code that they couldn't open source it if they wanted too, that code base has to be a gigantic fucking mess from a copyright standpoint.
See? I knew it. Yeah, I have a thing for pale, thin, english girls to this day, but it's not to everyone's taste.
Well, you're not alone... I had the hots for Romana II (Lalla Ward) also... Although Mary Tamm (the original Romana) wasn't bad either...
Speaking of the Doctor's female companions... How about Nyssa? Or Perpugilliam "Peri" Brown? The Doctor always had some damn hot companions... heh.