It's worth pointing out that you normally do not need to install AT ALL. Not even copy. If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.
The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)
Firefox also freaks out if you try to run it from its disk image. Not pretty.
If Google circuments this, then this is at least a bug, even if you don't consider it a security issue.
And if the bug is fixed, all Google needs to do is not allow Firefox to view the data, require other browsers. The can be circumvented, the the circumvention can be circumvented ad nauseam, but it is Google's right to limit who can see the data.
Very good quote... that is what I get for skimming the rest of the article. It protects them from the past infringements, but we all should buy our LCDs while they are cheap.
It is perhaps worth adding that the technology exposed in a patent may not be commercially viable and therfore worth stealing until many years after the patent is issued.
True, but then no one will be infringing on it in that time period so the laches do not apply.
I'm not too worried about them blowing themselves up - they are well prepared for that - I am worried about them blowing up someone else. If the vehicle fails in flight it might crash anywhere. I'm not saying congress can do it, but someone neutral party with authority needs to check on the safety of these things.
I believe the doctrin of laches would protect the other manufactures. From the linked article:
Laches enables the infringer to avoid liability if the patent holder delays too long before commencing litigation. The doctrine flows from the longstanding, fundamental legal principle that equity will not protect those who sleep on their rights.
[...]
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held the laches defense applicable to patent infringement cases. The defense contains two elements:
The patent holder delayed bringing suit and that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable; and
The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay.
IANAPL but from what I have read it seems Honeywell waited long enough (over 6 years seems to the the magic number) in suing that the defendants could claim they believed that Honeywell did not object. The delay allowed the damages to build up and that delay causes the defendants harm.
Re:Okay, it's another bio-oil source.
on
A Viable Biofuel?
·
· Score: 0
Oh yeah, and the majority of new cars in Europe are diesels. Try taking a peek outside the American border once in a while! Anyway, once ULSD finally hits the States, perhaps America will get some decent diesel numbers as the improved engines from Europe (built for ULSD) can be imported.
And that is why the air in paris was so stinky the last time I was there? Admittedly that was abut 4 years ago, but every where I went it had a strong diesel exhaust odor. The air pollution bothered me more there than it did in Tokyo, LA and Taipei.
I have an HDTV and a TiVO and the TiVO looks like crap on it, especially after watching DVDs and HDTV content. Unless I can get a TiVO with component or DVI output and higher quality compression there is no way that I will use the service.
In a post above you had said "This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.", that really seems like you are saying it is not Bush's war, and he is not to blame, therefor excused. That, combined with your comments on Kerry made me believe you had excused Bush and were blaming congress/Kerry. Sorry if that is a mistake.
Does a speech have the force of law? face it congress (and John Kerry) dropped the ball.
So you are saying that congress dropped the ball by not stopping Bush from going into Iraq, and that somehow excuses Bush? Is he some little kid that needs constant watching over? (Wait, don't answer that) How is he absolved from responsibility but congress is not?
You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
We did bomb him out of Afghanistan and he didn't move into Iraq. In fact we moved troops that were looking for him in Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq, thus making it that much harder to actually find the person responsible for 9/11 (and also leaving Afghanistan to fester like it did before). Halliburton had many contacts with the the old Iraq regime in the same time period, should be be suspicious of them now?
In my opinion, the founders were right about the need for something to shift power to smaller states, because as a resident of a smaller state it's quite clear that our voices are completely irrelevant. So, if you want to fix the electoral college, you should just modify it so that states allocate their electoral votes proportionally, based on the votes cast in that state. That will (mostly) eliminate the bloc voting effect while retaining the balancing feature that has, unfortunately, never worked.
There are some good arguments out there that say that shifting power to the smaller states was not what they really wanted. This is from the linked article:
The second (partially) wrong explanation: the electoral college was designed to protect the small states from dominance by the large. This is the explanation the respected commentator, Daniel Schorr, gave recently on National Public Radio. In all the debates over the executive at the Constitutional Convention, this issue never came up. Indeed, the opposite argument was more important. At one point the Convention considered allowing the state governors to choose the president but backed away from this in part because it would allow the small states to chose one of their own.
The correct explanation: to understand the origin of the electoral college we first must see the various methods of picking a president that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered. Initially, the president was to be elected by the Congress and serve for seven years. Some delegates wanted a single term for the president, but the majority were opposed to term limits -- they believed the best leaders should serve as long as the people wanted them to serve.
[...]
Thus, the delegates had to find another method of electing the president. On July 19, 1787 Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed "electors" appointed by the state legislatures. Under Ellsworth's plan these would be apportioned on the basis of population, and thus the small states would have no special advantage.
At this point James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia, weighed in. The most influential delegate, Madison argued that "the people at large" were "the fittest" to choose the president. But "one difficulty...of a serious nature" made election by the people impossible. Madison noted that the "right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes." In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the electoral college. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina was more open about the reasons for southern opposition to election by popular vote. He noted that under a direct election of the president, Virginia would not be able to elect her leaders president because "her slaves will have no suffrage." The same of course would be true for the rest of the South.
The 3/5 compromise gave white land owners in southern states, especially Virginia, much more power in choosing president than the smaller northern states. In the 1800 election between John Adams (not a slave owner) and Thomas Jefferson (slave owner from virginia) John Adams would have won if the 3/5 compromise had not been in place.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.
When has the EC ever saved us from making stupid choices?
Because there was a desire for the states to unite. In order to unite the more populous states had to reach a compromise with the less populous (and more rural) states, so that the union would even be a possibility. Consider this in the same light as the northern states that allowed the 3/5 compromise so that the southern states would be willing to join the union.
Well fine, so then lets get rid of the EC then. The 3/5 compromise was removed.
A regular TV only has to lock on to the signal; a DTV has to lock on and decode it. Theoretically that should take only a fraction of a second
Well, it also needs to receive enough of the signal to decode a meaningful picture. Correct me, but I believe it needs a keyframe (or i-frames in MPEG speak), a frame that has a complete image, to start decoding effectively. If only delta frames have been received then a whole frame cannot be constructed. IIRC most compression schemes only send a keyframe every 5 to 10 seconds, so that means you will have on average a 2.5 to 5 second before enough information is available to reconstruct the full stream.
Their disadvantage is that HDTV can be quite the high-bandwidth application, and that means the limitations of the PCI bus, and even the AGP connection can sometimes cause quality loss.
Uncompressed HDTV could cause those problems sure, but compressed streams (what you would be recording) are about 19.2Mb/s, a far cry from the theoretical cap of PCI. The AGP slot should be able to handle the uncompressed stream fine for display, after all it is only 1280x720 @ 60hz or 1920x1080 @ 30hz (or rather 1920x540@60hz) and most graphics card can exceed that by quite a bit (right now I'm at 1600x1200 @ 85hz on an old laptop).
They are already doing this for dumps. They have been doing this in Michigan using Toronto's imported garbage, and it looks like another one is being developed near Montreal. It looks like the Montreal facility will power a paper plant, and if memory serves me correctly -- I can't actually find a link now -- the Michigan dump(s) are selling the power to the grid.
On top of that, someone could come along and change the code and forget to update the comment to reflect the change. Then you simply have more obfuscated code.
He could be looking for a vendor that does not include back doors. Admittedly that story was not about switches but it still is telling about the company.
The DTCP license explicitly disallows the use of the standard on a computer. Specifically, it does not allow unencrpyted data to go across a PCI bus which rules out all firewire interfaces to your computer.
It's off-topic, etc., but I'm curious if anyone can answer this without using subjective, ambigious words such as "fair" or "just," because it seems that the general "explanation" for paying taxes as a percentage of income is, "Well, that's only fair." Which explains nothing.
I'm not expert (never stopped me from posting before) and someone else can probalbly put the better, but IMO the short answer is that it is better for society as a whole. For example if we do not have an education system that every can use then society loses (yes, we have a poor education system, but it is still leaps and bounds better than say Sudan's). Poor people cannot pay for all of it on their own. Same with crime fighting. If people cannot get educated, they have a much harder time making a living wage, if they cannot make a living wage, crime can rise.
Public health, crime fighting, firefighting and the military are also other areas that benefit the whole society.
I ran across this idea recently (well actually a long time ago but have not really thought about it much) and am still turning it over in my head, here is the basic argument: the rich get more from the government. Where are all the good public schools? In the good neighborhoods. Who got the most money from the S&L bailouts? Who is more likely to get a robbery investigated, a person living in an aparment or a mansion? The poeple with larger deposits. Corporations also get quite a bit of money in subsidies from the government too, and poor people are not in the habit of running those. Related to this, rich people also control more of the government (how many poor people have a really good lobbyist, or the last senator that was living in a studio aparment and drove a 1986 tercel).
Poor people do get benefit from government. In 1995 (these are what I had on hand) they gave about $116 billion to the poor (medicaid, AFDC, Food stamps, housing subsidies, school lunch, head start, etc). That is only about 8% of the whole budget. 8% is also what was spent on corporate subsidies (farm subsidies, S&L and bank rescues, export/import assistance, tax credits, reimbursement for advertising, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)
Firefox also freaks out if you try to run it from its disk image. Not pretty.
And if the bug is fixed, all Google needs to do is not allow Firefox to view the data, require other browsers. The can be circumvented, the the circumvention can be circumvented ad nauseam, but it is Google's right to limit who can see the data.
It is perhaps worth adding that the technology exposed in a patent may not be commercially viable and therfore worth stealing until many years after the patent is issued.
True, but then no one will be infringing on it in that time period so the laches do not apply.
I'm not too worried about them blowing themselves up - they are well prepared for that - I am worried about them blowing up someone else. If the vehicle fails in flight it might crash anywhere. I'm not saying congress can do it, but someone neutral party with authority needs to check on the safety of these things.
And that is why the air in paris was so stinky the last time I was there? Admittedly that was abut 4 years ago, but every where I went it had a strong diesel exhaust odor. The air pollution bothered me more there than it did in Tokyo, LA and Taipei.
Or any country that contributed more than a token amount, or a country that was not bribed or coerced into it.
I have an HDTV and a TiVO and the TiVO looks like crap on it, especially after watching DVDs and HDTV content. Unless I can get a TiVO with component or DVI output and higher quality compression there is no way that I will use the service.
In a post above you had said "This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.", that really seems like you are saying it is not Bush's war, and he is not to blame, therefor excused. That, combined with your comments on Kerry made me believe you had excused Bush and were blaming congress/Kerry. Sorry if that is a mistake.
Craigslist personals are much better for the geeks than Yahoo.
So you are saying that congress dropped the ball by not stopping Bush from going into Iraq, and that somehow excuses Bush? Is he some little kid that needs constant watching over? (Wait, don't answer that) How is he absolved from responsibility but congress is not?
We did bomb him out of Afghanistan and he didn't move into Iraq. In fact we moved troops that were looking for him in Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq, thus making it that much harder to actually find the person responsible for 9/11 (and also leaving Afghanistan to fester like it did before). Halliburton had many contacts with the the old Iraq regime in the same time period, should be be suspicious of them now?
There are some good arguments out there that say that shifting power to the smaller states was not what they really wanted. This is from the linked article:
The 3/5 compromise gave white land owners in southern states, especially Virginia, much more power in choosing president than the smaller northern states. In the 1800 election between John Adams (not a slave owner) and Thomas Jefferson (slave owner from virginia) John Adams would have won if the 3/5 compromise had not been in place.A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.
When has the EC ever saved us from making stupid choices?
Should my vote count less simply because my state has a large population?
Well fine, so then lets get rid of the EC then. The 3/5 compromise was removed.
Well, it also needs to receive enough of the signal to decode a meaningful picture. Correct me, but I believe it needs a keyframe (or i-frames in MPEG speak), a frame that has a complete image, to start decoding effectively. If only delta frames have been received then a whole frame cannot be constructed. IIRC most compression schemes only send a keyframe every 5 to 10 seconds, so that means you will have on average a 2.5 to 5 second before enough information is available to reconstruct the full stream.
Just what I was thinking.
Uncompressed HDTV could cause those problems sure, but compressed streams (what you would be recording) are about 19.2Mb/s, a far cry from the theoretical cap of PCI. The AGP slot should be able to handle the uncompressed stream fine for display, after all it is only 1280x720 @ 60hz or 1920x1080 @ 30hz (or rather 1920x540@60hz) and most graphics card can exceed that by quite a bit (right now I'm at 1600x1200 @ 85hz on an old laptop).
Well, this wireless PCMCIA broadband tech is already here.
They are already doing this for dumps. They have been doing this in Michigan using Toronto's imported garbage, and it looks like another one is being developed near Montreal. It looks like the Montreal facility will power a paper plant, and if memory serves me correctly -- I can't actually find a link now -- the Michigan dump(s) are selling the power to the grid.
And that is why I never, ever comment my code.
He could be looking for a vendor that does not include back doors. Admittedly that story was not about switches but it still is telling about the company.
Thank god for PCI Express.
I'm not expert (never stopped me from posting before) and someone else can probalbly put the better, but IMO the short answer is that it is better for society as a whole. For example if we do not have an education system that every can use then society loses (yes, we have a poor education system, but it is still leaps and bounds better than say Sudan's). Poor people cannot pay for all of it on their own. Same with crime fighting. If people cannot get educated, they have a much harder time making a living wage, if they cannot make a living wage, crime can rise.
Public health, crime fighting, firefighting and the military are also other areas that benefit the whole society.
I ran across this idea recently (well actually a long time ago but have not really thought about it much) and am still turning it over in my head, here is the basic argument: the rich get more from the government. Where are all the good public schools? In the good neighborhoods. Who got the most money from the S&L bailouts? Who is more likely to get a robbery investigated, a person living in an aparment or a mansion? The poeple with larger deposits. Corporations also get quite a bit of money in subsidies from the government too, and poor people are not in the habit of running those. Related to this, rich people also control more of the government (how many poor people have a really good lobbyist, or the last senator that was living in a studio aparment and drove a 1986 tercel).
Poor people do get benefit from government. In 1995 (these are what I had on hand) they gave about $116 billion to the poor (medicaid, AFDC, Food stamps, housing subsidies, school lunch, head start, etc). That is only about 8% of the whole budget. 8% is also what was spent on corporate subsidies (farm subsidies, S&L and bank rescues, export/import assistance, tax credits, reimbursement for advertising, etc.)