Simon is the classic toy that has 4 big buttons. The buttons flash and play tones in sequence, and the game is to repeat the sequence. It starts with one button/tone and adds one at each step. After the computer plays the sequence, you play it back by hitting the buttons -- if you mess up, you lose.
This is an awesome toy to build memory skills. It is also great for musical skills -- I used the tones to remember the sequence, and I subsequently had an easy time with musical instruments memorizing tunes.
Best of all, there is a new Simon on the shelves now. If you flip it over, it has a new "head-to-head" Simon game, but the original game is still there on the front side, unchanged.
US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is, actually, a very important component of homeland security. Just because some of their duties are more mundane (like stopping counterfeit imports) doesn't mean they don't belong under DHS. Here are the agencies that fall under DHS.
The problem isn't their classification under DHS. The problem is that most Americans are woefully uneducated about what the DHS is and what its duties are. The formation of the DHS was a huge step away from the fractured nature of these federal agencies. Now that they are under one umbrella, they can more effectively share information and resources. In the past, ICE and the FBI, for example, sometimes competed for "turf." Not anymore -- they both ultimately answer to the same bosses.
Sorry for sounding rude, but the only way to understand the law is to actually read the law. Federal Customs agents (here, "local customs" means the local office of the federal division) have jurisdiction over imports. If your store imported a counterfeit Gucci purse, or Rolex watch, or Rubicks Cube, Customs can come and get it.
Let's see now: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Do you want to explain where in there, exactly, the government has any right to ban assault weapons?
In certain countries, including the United States, it is also possible to deposit a local trademark registration with the local customs authorities, who will conduct spot checks of imported goods to make sure that the imported goods bearing the trademark are authorized. If unauthorized uses of a registered trademark are discovered, the products will be confiscated and the trademark owner will be notified, following which, within a short period of time, the trademark owner may bring action against the infringing goods.
Either way, it really bugs me that homeland security is even thinking about anything besides terrorism. Why the hell are we paying agents to fly out to bumsville for a da## rubiks cube.. And if we're paying them to do that, why aren't we paying them to research things first?
When the Dept of Homeland Security was created, lots of existing agencies got rolled in. Including Customs. These weren't some new brand of "terrorist hunter" agent. These were Customs agents (now part of Homeland Security) doing what they always do.
If there hadn't been a bureaucratic reshuffling of federal agencies, perhaps Cowboy Neal wouldn't be so confused, and this wouldn't make the front page.
Yes! We need to make america safer. Not expend resouces trying to enforce expired patents/copyrights.
Oh, wait. The article was about a valid trademark, not about an expired patent/copyright.
Well, anyway, we shouldn't expend resources trying to enforce trademarks. For God's sake, America is unsafe! Let's make a list of all laws, in order of priority. Then, let's focus 100% of our resources on the top one until we solve it. Sound good?
Ummm, no. Most speech is protected by the First Amendment. Some speech is not. Usually, there are two canonical examples given of speech that is not protected:
1. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
2. Threatening to kill the President.
Another is joking about bombs while you're waiting to get aboard an airplane. These forms of speech are not protected. Anyone who does them is stupid.
Your job is to read the article. You didn't do so, because if you did you'd know that no trademark was infringed, and the patent's already expired.
Which article did you read?
The article said, "...Agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint...." So, this is a trademark issue -- the patent expiration is irrelevant. It also said, "A representative [of Magic Cube's manufacturer] told her that... the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark." Of course the manufacturer said that. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the owners of the trademark who filed the complaint obviously disagree.
Please U[understand]TFA before you tell me to RTFA.
Bullshit. It is, in fact, not illegal to manufacture trademark-infringing items. It is illegal to sell them -- either to retailers or to customers. It doesn't matter whether you're the thief or the fence. It is still illegal. Their job was to stop the sale of an illegal knockoff. They did so. Kudos.
Everyone LOOK AT WHAT THIS GUY WROTE. He says, "I said some rather inflammatory things about George W. Bush in a public post in my LJ, done in a satirical style."
First of all, this isn't even close to satire. Second, it is supremely stupid.
I'm very proud of our Secret Service. They behaved in a very diligent and professional manner. No matter who becomes President, I'm glad that they will be protecting him.
I'm also incredibly impressed that they were able to show the restraint necessary to keep from smacking this jackass upside his head.
Oh, come on. Do you really think that GWB made an edict that foreign IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to visit the site?
Nobody at the campaign had anything to do with this. My guess is that the website is probably mercilessly hacked, and the poor techies in charge of keeping the site online saw this as an easy way of blocking a large portion of the problematic traffic until they could beef up security.
This entire discussion is typical of the political environment today. There are serious issues on the ballot. Worry about stuff that matters.
The silly American then added, "Oh, and by the way, you would have fed millions of hungry people, not just your own family. You would be doing your part to reduce food costs and help overcome malnutrition by providing fresh, healthy food to your countrymen. Your fleet of boats, and then your cannery, will provide employment for hundreds of workers who couldn't even afford the small boat you enjoy now, enabling them to feed and educate their children. Your purchases of big, fine boats and cannery equipment will help boatmakers and cannery equipment manufacturers to continue to employ their workers as well. Also, the money isn't bad. If one of your children decides that they don't want to fish for a living, you will have the means to help them achieve their goals. If, God forbid, a family member becomes ill, you can afford the finest medical care in the world for them. And this Chateau Lafite wine beats the hell out of whatever you're slugging out of that paper bag."
The Mexican replied, "Fishing is only my hobby. I'm on vacation. I run a multinational banking syndicate. This small boat is tender to my yaught that you can see on the horizon. I was going to ignore you -- just another jackass Harvard MBA, assuming that all Mexicans were lazy, simple folk. But your last statement proved that there might be hope for you. Send me your resume. By the way, it's Mouton in the bag. The Baron can make wine, can't he?"
Almost all "software patents" miserably fail at this task.
Actually, about 1/3 (from my experience) miserably fail at this task. In the case of the other 2/3, practically everyone "skilled in the art" already reproduces the invention as a regular part of the job. The "sufficient detail" requirement of most software patents isn't satisfied because reproduction of the subject of the patent is already a standard part of engineering practice. It would look foolish to include an implementation, especially when college textbooks ship with similar code.
The real problem scenario with software patents today is not when a company patents something and the rest of the world says, "Wow, I can't reproduce that!" The real problem is when a company patents something and everybody says, "I've been doing that for six years now."
The idea of requiring source code in patents has value. But the value is not in satisfying the "sufficient detail" requirement. The value is in restricting software patents to a particular implementation. If you provide source code for an invention, and someone else cannot show prior art or come up with an implementation that is not "substantially similar," then perhaps the inventor deserves a patent. If you patent the source code for a hyperlink, however, it had better be some damn good code for the patent to be worth anything.
Hey, everyone: Take a look at his web page. You'll find the answers to 50% of the questions here. (90% if you don't count the "why are your endings so abrupt" questions)
Let's try to keep Neal's answers to/. from being, "See FAQ"
You might be particularly interested in this link, at the very top of the page:
>Neal, in Cryptonomicon why did you call Windows and MacOS by
> their true names but used the fictitious name 'Finux' to refer
>to what is obviously 'Linux?' Does this mean that you hate Linux?
Since Finux was the principal operating system used by the characters in the book, I needed some creative leeway to have the fictitious operating system as used by the characters be different in minor ways from the real operating system called Linux. Otherwise I would receive many complaints from Linux users pointing out errors in my depiction of Linux. This is why Batman works in Gotham City, instead of New York--by putting him in Gotham City, the creators afforded themselves the creative license to put buildings in different places, etc.
One of the major themes in Cryptonomicon that carried over (in a big way) to The Baroque Cycle is money. You introduced some "futuristic" views of currency and of where money might be going in Cryptonomicon, and you skillfully managed to do the same thing, while explaining some of the history of modern monetary systems, in the most recent books.
You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about money lately. Is there anything going on in the modern world with monetary systems (barter networks, for example) that you find particularly interesting? What do you see on the horizon with respect to money?
When you say "commercial", you mean "proprietary," right? Not "sold for cash"?
You have Linux. Open source, runs on a wide variety of hardware, solid.
Now, you'll have Solaris 10. Open source, runs on a wide variety of hardware, solid. Different strengths and weaknesses, but a great alternative for many applications. Most folks who have used Solaris in a producion environment have been very happy with its performance.
Now, Slashdot, be serious. I'm a fan of Groklaw for legal analysis. I'm a fan of Forrester Research because I love to laugh at them. (If you add up all of the multi-billion dollar markets that Forrester Research predicts for almost all software markets in the next five years, you get to a number higher than the GNP of the entire fucking earth.)
Are you really going to get worked up by an article written by a paralegal about an article written by the CEO of Forrester about Sun's latest marketing FUD? In the end, it's Solaris sometimes and Linux sometimes. Sun would rather have you use Solaris, so expect their marketing machines to spew FUD at Linux. This won't be the last time it happens.
These are all good suggestions. I'd suggest one more:
Show them how programming works. Something simple will do. Maybe a simple programming environment, with a "hello world", followed by a "what is your name?", "hello there, [name]" example.
It needs to be quick -- you're going to lose many of the kids quickly. But a few are going to be hooked. Make sure you're ready after class to let them try it themselves.
In case you couldn't tell, I begged my parents for a Timex Sinclair 1000 when I was 10. It was one of the greatest gifts I've ever received.
What's more, you would have had to read some stuff to find it, which would have made you a bit more intelligent in the process.
The next time you have a specific question like this, you shouldn't doubt for a second that you can find the answer online. Google till you find it! You'll learn along the way. The most important thing you'll learn is how to get better at finding information the next time you have a question.
Slashdot Mirror
Simon is the classic toy that has 4 big buttons. The buttons flash and play tones in sequence, and the game is to repeat the sequence. It starts with one button/tone and adds one at each step. After the computer plays the sequence, you play it back by hitting the buttons -- if you mess up, you lose.
This is an awesome toy to build memory skills. It is also great for musical skills -- I used the tones to remember the sequence, and I subsequently had an easy time with musical instruments memorizing tunes.
Best of all, there is a new Simon on the shelves now. If you flip it over, it has a new "head-to-head" Simon game, but the original game is still there on the front side, unchanged.
US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is, actually, a very important component of homeland security. Just because some of their duties are more mundane (like stopping counterfeit imports) doesn't mean they don't belong under DHS. Here are the agencies that fall under DHS.
The problem isn't their classification under DHS. The problem is that most Americans are woefully uneducated about what the DHS is and what its duties are. The formation of the DHS was a huge step away from the fractured nature of these federal agencies. Now that they are under one umbrella, they can more effectively share information and resources. In the past, ICE and the FBI, for example, sometimes competed for "turf." Not anymore -- they both ultimately answer to the same bosses.
Sorry for sounding rude, but the only way to understand the law is to actually read the law. Federal Customs agents (here, "local customs" means the local office of the federal division) have jurisdiction over imports. If your store imported a counterfeit Gucci purse, or Rolex watch, or Rubicks Cube, Customs can come and get it.
Let's see now: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Do you want to explain where in there, exactly, the government has any right to ban assault weapons?
There are lots of instances where the government has the right to ban or restrict certain kinds of speech.
It should have happened exactly the way that it happened.
See this:
Either way, it really bugs me that homeland security is even thinking about anything besides terrorism. Why the hell are we paying agents to fly out to bumsville for a da## rubiks cube.. And if we're paying them to do that, why aren't we paying them to research things first?
When the Dept of Homeland Security was created, lots of existing agencies got rolled in. Including Customs. These weren't some new brand of "terrorist hunter" agent. These were Customs agents (now part of Homeland Security) doing what they always do.
If there hadn't been a bureaucratic reshuffling of federal agencies, perhaps Cowboy Neal wouldn't be so confused, and this wouldn't make the front page.
Perhaps you'd like to point us to the trademark being infringed.
Perhaps you'd like to look one post down.
Yes! We need to make america safer. Not expend resouces trying to enforce expired patents/copyrights.
Oh, wait. The article was about a valid trademark, not about an expired patent/copyright.
Well, anyway, we shouldn't expend resources trying to enforce trademarks. For God's sake, America is unsafe! Let's make a list of all laws, in order of priority. Then, let's focus 100% of our resources on the top one until we solve it. Sound good?
Man, you obviously got your legal education by reading slashdot.
Read this. The Customs office was doing its job, plain and simple.
You've tried "RTFA", and now your legal analysis. Want to try again?
Ummm, no. Most speech is protected by the First Amendment. Some speech is not. Usually, there are two canonical examples given of speech that is not protected:
1. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
2. Threatening to kill the President.
Another is joking about bombs while you're waiting to get aboard an airplane. These forms of speech are not protected. Anyone who does them is stupid.
Your job is to read the article. You didn't do so, because if you did you'd know that no trademark was infringed, and the patent's already expired.
... the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark." Of course the manufacturer said that. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the owners of the trademark who filed the complaint obviously disagree.
Which article did you read?
The article said, "...Agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint...." So, this is a trademark issue -- the patent expiration is irrelevant. It also said, "A representative [of Magic Cube's manufacturer] told her that
Please U[understand]TFA before you tell me to RTFA.
Bullshit. It is, in fact, not illegal to manufacture trademark-infringing items. It is illegal to sell them -- either to retailers or to customers. It doesn't matter whether you're the thief or the fence. It is still illegal. Their job was to stop the sale of an illegal knockoff. They did so. Kudos.
By the way, here is the offending product.
Everyone LOOK AT WHAT THIS GUY WROTE. He says, "I said some rather inflammatory things about George W. Bush in a public post in my LJ, done in a satirical style."
First of all, this isn't even close to satire. Second, it is supremely stupid.
I'm very proud of our Secret Service. They behaved in a very diligent and professional manner. No matter who becomes President, I'm glad that they will be protecting him.
I'm also incredibly impressed that they were able to show the restraint necessary to keep from smacking this jackass upside his head.
So... if you're putting it on tons of clients, it doesn't matter if you open-source it? Ummm, huh?
I wish Microsoft saw the world the way you do.
Oh, come on. Do you really think that GWB made an edict that foreign IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to visit the site?
Nobody at the campaign had anything to do with this. My guess is that the website is probably mercilessly hacked, and the poor techies in charge of keeping the site online saw this as an easy way of blocking a large portion of the problematic traffic until they could beef up security.
This entire discussion is typical of the political environment today. There are serious issues on the ballot. Worry about stuff that matters.
The silly American then added, "Oh, and by the way, you would have fed millions of hungry people, not just your own family. You would be doing your part to reduce food costs and help overcome malnutrition by providing fresh, healthy food to your countrymen. Your fleet of boats, and then your cannery, will provide employment for hundreds of workers who couldn't even afford the small boat you enjoy now, enabling them to feed and educate their children. Your purchases of big, fine boats and cannery equipment will help boatmakers and cannery equipment manufacturers to continue to employ their workers as well. Also, the money isn't bad. If one of your children decides that they don't want to fish for a living, you will have the means to help them achieve their goals. If, God forbid, a family member becomes ill, you can afford the finest medical care in the world for them. And this Chateau Lafite wine beats the hell out of whatever you're slugging out of that paper bag."
The Mexican replied, "Fishing is only my hobby. I'm on vacation. I run a multinational banking syndicate. This small boat is tender to my yaught that you can see on the horizon. I was going to ignore you -- just another jackass Harvard MBA, assuming that all Mexicans were lazy, simple folk. But your last statement proved that there might be hope for you. Send me your resume. By the way, it's Mouton in the bag. The Baron can make wine, can't he?"
Actually, that would be:
Ready.
Run
Target Sucks Target Sucks Target Sucks Target Sucks Target Sucks Target Sucks...
The leading space and the ';' made you a very elite c64 hacker.
Almost all "software patents" miserably fail at this task.
Actually, about 1/3 (from my experience) miserably fail at this task. In the case of the other 2/3, practically everyone "skilled in the art" already reproduces the invention as a regular part of the job. The "sufficient detail" requirement of most software patents isn't satisfied because reproduction of the subject of the patent is already a standard part of engineering practice. It would look foolish to include an implementation, especially when college textbooks ship with similar code.
The real problem scenario with software patents today is not when a company patents something and the rest of the world says, "Wow, I can't reproduce that!" The real problem is when a company patents something and everybody says, "I've been doing that for six years now."
The idea of requiring source code in patents has value. But the value is not in satisfying the "sufficient detail" requirement. The value is in restricting software patents to a particular implementation. If you provide source code for an invention, and someone else cannot show prior art or come up with an implementation that is not "substantially similar," then perhaps the inventor deserves a patent. If you patent the source code for a hyperlink, however, it had better be some damn good code for the patent to be worth anything.
IANYL (I Am Not Your Lawyer)
Hey, everyone: Take a look at his web page. You'll find the answers to 50% of the questions here. (90% if you don't count the "why are your endings so abrupt" questions)
/. from being, "See FAQ"
Let's try to keep Neal's answers to
You might be particularly interested in this link, at the very top of the page:
my relationship to Blue Origin LLC
From Neal's web page:
>Neal, in Cryptonomicon why did you call Windows and MacOS by > their true names but used the fictitious name 'Finux' to refer >to what is obviously 'Linux?' Does this mean that you hate Linux?
Since Finux was the principal operating system used by the characters in the book, I needed some creative leeway to have the fictitious operating system as used by the characters be different in minor ways from the real operating system called Linux. Otherwise I would receive many complaints from Linux users pointing out errors in my depiction of Linux. This is why Batman works in Gotham City, instead of New York--by putting him in Gotham City, the creators afforded themselves the creative license to put buildings in different places, etc.
One of the major themes in Cryptonomicon that carried over (in a big way) to The Baroque Cycle is money. You introduced some "futuristic" views of currency and of where money might be going in Cryptonomicon, and you skillfully managed to do the same thing, while explaining some of the history of modern monetary systems, in the most recent books.
You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about money lately. Is there anything going on in the modern world with monetary systems (barter networks, for example) that you find particularly interesting? What do you see on the horizon with respect to money?
PS -- thanks for the great books!
When you say "commercial", you mean "proprietary," right? Not "sold for cash"?
You have Linux. Open source, runs on a wide variety of hardware, solid.
Now, you'll have Solaris 10. Open source, runs on a wide variety of hardware, solid. Different strengths and weaknesses, but a great alternative for many applications. Most folks who have used Solaris in a producion environment have been very happy with its performance.
Now, Slashdot, be serious. I'm a fan of Groklaw for legal analysis. I'm a fan of Forrester Research because I love to laugh at them. (If you add up all of the multi-billion dollar markets that Forrester Research predicts for almost all software markets in the next five years, you get to a number higher than the GNP of the entire fucking earth.)
Are you really going to get worked up by an article written by a paralegal about an article written by the CEO of Forrester about Sun's latest marketing FUD? In the end, it's Solaris sometimes and Linux sometimes. Sun would rather have you use Solaris, so expect their marketing machines to spew FUD at Linux. This won't be the last time it happens.
These are all good suggestions. I'd suggest one more:
Show them how programming works. Something simple will do. Maybe a simple programming environment, with a "hello world", followed by a "what is your name?", "hello there, [name]" example.
It needs to be quick -- you're going to lose many of the kids quickly. But a few are going to be hooked. Make sure you're ready after class to let them try it themselves.
In case you couldn't tell, I begged my parents for a Timex Sinclair 1000 when I was 10. It was one of the greatest gifts I've ever received.
OK.
- October/007113.html.
FYI -- your google-fu is nonexistent. I set up a google search for you for "fork bomb". If you had actually done that search and followed a link or two, you would have found this: http://www.madisonlinux.org/pipermail/madlug/2003
What's more, you would have had to read some stuff to find it, which would have made you a bit more intelligent in the process.
The next time you have a specific question like this, you shouldn't doubt for a second that you can find the answer online. Google till you find it! You'll learn along the way. The most important thing you'll learn is how to get better at finding information the next time you have a question.
Is your "google-fu" also nonexistent, or are you just lazy?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fork+bomb%22