Seriously: I believe the patent examiner does not research prior art; (s)he reviews the prior art listed in the application. It seems to me that many applications that should never have been approved in the first place are lacking in prior art. So, why not add a penalty for failing to be exhaustive in the prior art listings?
If it becomes clear that there was prior art that should have been known to the applicant (though dilligent research), and this was not listed, then the patent should be invalidated in its entirety.
f, however, you receive something incorrectly addressed in an envelope, you may not legally open it
What if the street address is correct, but the name is not? Can one legally open it?
Also, is it legal to discard mail that is addressed to people not resident at that address (for example: former residents at that address) without reading it?
When an investor such as Baystar does one of these convertible preferred deals, they can do something called "shorting against the convert".
I've seen lots of postings suggesting that Baystar may have hdged their own deal, but the question is: "where's the profit?".
OK, so Baystar can hedge against losses by shorting, but they also hedge against any profits.
So it's possible that Baystar did short and limited their losses, but by shorting, they would also limit their possible profits.
Take your case above. You show that Baystar would make no loss (and no profit) if Baystar shorted at $15 and the shares went from ~$15 to ~$25. What if Baystar shorts at $15 and the shares go down to $5? Well, Baystar has ALREADY paid an equivalent of $15 per share for the convertibles. So, no profits there either. The only way to hedge yet make profits is to have an option to get a refund on the initial investment at the same price as the initial price and Baystar did not have this.
So, I come back to my initial question: why invest if there are no profits to be made whichever way the shares move? In RBC's case, the answer is available: RBC's investment was always a hedge against a deal they did with a client, so RBC would make money from fees paid by the client in setting up the initial client transaction.
As to whether any slashdotters have profited: I can personally attest to making a modest profit from shorting SCO stock.
... surely the only explanation for all the virus infected emails my wife keeps receiving from a machine that announces itself (in its helo) as "COLOSSUS"
Minor nitpick, but this is an English university and he was there for almost 3 years (the normal length of a Bachelor's degree course at an English university).
Users which generate suspicious amounts of TCP port 25 traffic could be reassigned IP addresses from a probation-class pool
Well, that would require other changes that I suspect Comcast does not want to make. Comcast assigns IP addresses with a life of about 1 week. I don't know why they use such a long period, but I assume there is a good reason.
A whois on didtheyreadit.com shows an address in Florida.
Wouldn't this be a great way to harvest thousands or millions of known good email addresses?
The TOS only states that they will not store the emails -- yet their own logs will contain the email addresses. There is nothing in the TOS that explicitly prevents them from using those addresses.
final blow that will shatter poor Darl's dreams of riches.
Well Darl was paid about $1M last year, a figure that many people (but not, one suspects, Darl) would consider riches.
Perhaps he will consider trying to make money the old fashined way next time, you know: create a product that people actually want and sell it!
I don't think SCO ever intended to SELL any "SCOSource" licenses -- you would expect them to register the domain name if they did, but SCO did not register it
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement?
on
FSF Subpoenaed by SCO
·
· Score: 1
Linus and the other kernel hackers have not assigned kernel copyrights to the FSF.
Grep in the kernel source for "Free Software Foundation" and you will see that some people have in fact assigned copyright to the FSF. Hence the FSF does have some standing.
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement?
on
FSF Subpoenaed by SCO
·
· Score: 1
It's up to the individual copyright holder to enforce his/her/its copyright.
But the FSF does own some copyrights to the Linux Kernel -- a simple grep of the source code shows many files with copyright attributed to the FSF.
So perhaps SCO is going to ask why the FSF is not suing SCO?
In her website, she sees no difference between counting votes and financial bookkeeping. She includes this quote from John Medcalf, CEO ofVOTEC Corp, "His principal thesis (paraphrasing) was that vote management is accounting just like with money" This concept misses the vital element that votes must be kept anonymous. Many of her ideas, which revolve around auditing fail because of this essential element.
She dismisses open source software as a solution to electronic voting because bugs can remain hidden even after many reviews. While this is true, it misses the point that we should assume no system will provide a complete answer and therefore use a combination of source code auditing (best if the code is open), certification and what I believe is the most important: paper ballots that can be re-counted to provide an alternative to the electronic counting.
2. To be able to use various "from" addresses, irrespective of from where we are sending.
3. To be able to cheaply register new domain names.
The problem can only be solved if we accept limitations on how we send email.
The fundamental problem is not authentication. A spammer can easily set up a valid domain name and use it to send email "from". The cost of this is minimal (an *.org.uk domain is about $3-$4).
Furthermore, even a medium size company cannot possibly predict all the sources of email if people are allowed to send from their home ISP.
So, we could force people to pretty much always use their company's mailserver to send emails (requiring mass deployment of SASL or other solutions), yet this will not stop the spammer getting a cheap throw-away domain name and using that.
So, I really think that our expectaions of email will have to fundamentally change, or we need to use plan b:
A mix of technical and legal solutions to kill spam.In other words, kill the root cause of the problem.
The real question is whether MS will continue to support pre-SP2 installations. Is there some compelling need for SP2? Otherwise, why not just stay with earlier versions and continue to get security updates.
There really is no reason why the present generation of hybrids should be significantly better than conventional cars in this regard.
The key to making internal combustion engines most efficient and putting out minimum pollution is to run the engine at one speed/load point. With the engine connected to the drive chain (as in current hybrids), you can't do this. What you really need is an engine that is connected only to a generator and always runs at a single speed and always the same loading.
An electric motor (or one per wheel) then provides the motive force for the vehicle. Batteries are used to balance the power input (from the engine) and output (by the electric motors).
Now, I suspect that there is some good reason why this setup has not been used in the current generation of hybrids, but nevertheless, I believe it would produce minimum emissions.
He then also lies about his gas milage. Perhaps not a direct lie but atleast an exageration of a one time millage spoken as if it was what he always got.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that either:
I drive with a very heavy right foot (unlikely) or
Just about everyone lies about mileage.
Actually, I think what really happens is that people only measure mileage on long journeys, when cars naturally perform better. People just don't want to know what mileage they get around town, since it is an unpleasant number.
This is a fact that much of the mainstream media glosses over in noting his accomplishments
As opposed to the weblog wo which the article is linked, which merely make glaring factual errors, such as:
This is a photograph of the Enigma cryptanalytic machine devised by Alan Turing
There are 2 other problems. One is that the British goverment, for reasons that are not clear (stupidity probably) kept the existence of Bletchley Park secret long after the war, allowing the second problem to exist, which is US-centric re-writing of history claiming ENIAC as the first computer without challenge from those who had been at Bletchley park.
While ENIAC clearly progressed the technology, one can consider it merely a step between Bletchley Park's Colossus and The University of Manchester's "Baby", which is claimed to be the first device to have all the components that are now considered characteristic of a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
... disclose prior art fully.
Seriously: I believe the patent examiner does not research prior art; (s)he reviews the prior art listed in the application. It seems to me that many applications that should never have been approved in the first place are lacking in prior art. So, why not add a penalty for failing to be exhaustive in the prior art listings?
If it becomes clear that there was prior art that should have been known to the applicant (though dilligent research), and this was not listed, then the patent should be invalidated in its entirety.
Ineteresting... I read the description of the device -- isn't this exactly what Mr. Anderer was patenting (ref. SCO and the Anderer memo)?
What if the street address is correct, but the name is not? Can one legally open it?
Also, is it legal to discard mail that is addressed to people not resident at that address (for example: former residents at that address) without reading it?
and check it for porn at the same time
It is 2.1M common shares of common stock -- worth about $10M.
Because intellignece is not the key attibute required for wealth -- I believe the dominant attribute is a lack of morals.
I'll betcha not a single person on all of Slashdot cashed in on these fools. Damn.
Not true: I made a modest profit from shorting SCO stock.
I've seen lots of postings suggesting that Baystar may have hdged their own deal, but the question is: "where's the profit?".
OK, so Baystar can hedge against losses by shorting, but they also hedge against any profits.
So it's possible that Baystar did short and limited their losses, but by shorting, they would also limit their possible profits.
Take your case above. You show that Baystar would make no loss (and no profit) if Baystar shorted at $15 and the shares went from ~$15 to ~$25. What if Baystar shorts at $15 and the shares go down to $5? Well, Baystar has ALREADY paid an equivalent of $15 per share for the convertibles. So, no profits there either. The only way to hedge yet make profits is to have an option to get a refund on the initial investment at the same price as the initial price and Baystar did not have this.
So, I come back to my initial question: why invest if there are no profits to be made whichever way the shares move? In RBC's case, the answer is available: RBC's investment was always a hedge against a deal they did with a client, so RBC would make money from fees paid by the client in setting up the initial client transaction.
As to whether any slashdotters have profited: I can personally attest to making a modest profit from shorting SCO stock.
... surely the only explanation for all the virus infected emails my wife keeps receiving from a machine that announces itself (in its helo) as "COLOSSUS"
Minor nitpick, but this is an English university and he was there for almost 3 years (the normal length of a Bachelor's degree course at an English university).
Their contracts with publishers?
Well, that would require other changes that I suspect Comcast does not want to make. Comcast assigns IP addresses with a life of about 1 week. I don't know why they use such a long period, but I assume there is a good reason.
A lot of SPAM can go out in the space of a week.
What better way to get global news coverage?
A multi-talented family? Accountants, Software, and now a web-based business.
The software seems to be keyloggers and others.
Wouldn't this be a great way to harvest thousands or millions of known good email addresses?
The TOS only states that they will not store the emails -- yet their own logs will contain the email addresses. There is nothing in the TOS that explicitly prevents them from using those addresses.
Well Darl was paid about $1M last year, a figure that many people (but not, one suspects, Darl) would consider riches.
Perhaps he will consider trying to make money the old fashined way next time, you know: create a product that people actually want and sell it!
I don't think SCO ever intended to SELL any "SCOSource" licenses -- you would expect them to register the domain name if they did, but SCO did not register it
Grep in the kernel source for "Free Software Foundation" and you will see that some people have in fact assigned copyright to the FSF. Hence the FSF does have some standing.
But the FSF does own some copyrights to the Linux Kernel -- a simple grep of the source code shows many files with copyright attributed to the FSF.
So perhaps SCO is going to ask why the FSF is not suing SCO?
She dismisses open source software as a solution to electronic voting because bugs can remain hidden even after many reviews. While this is true, it misses the point that we should assume no system will provide a complete answer and therefore use a combination of source code auditing (best if the code is open), certification and what I believe is the most important: paper ballots that can be re-counted to provide an alternative to the electronic counting.
I became very concerned about PayPal when they changes their terms to clarify that they are not a bank.
However, they act like a bank, isn't there any rule or law under which they could be forced to register as a bank?
Well, at least they are not claiming 128k represents "broadband" as is being done in the UK
What do we expect:
1. To be able to send email from anywhere
2. To be able to use various "from" addresses, irrespective of from where we are sending.
3. To be able to cheaply register new domain names. The problem can only be solved if we accept limitations on how we send email.
The fundamental problem is not authentication. A spammer can easily set up a valid domain name and use it to send email "from". The cost of this is minimal (an *.org.uk domain is about $3-$4).
Furthermore, even a medium size company cannot possibly predict all the sources of email if people are allowed to send from their home ISP.
So, we could force people to pretty much always use their company's mailserver to send emails (requiring mass deployment of SASL or other solutions), yet this will not stop the spammer getting a cheap throw-away domain name and using that.
So, I really think that our expectaions of email will have to fundamentally change, or we need to use plan b:
A mix of technical and legal solutions to kill spam.In other words, kill the root cause of the problem.
The real question is whether MS will continue to support pre-SP2 installations. Is there some compelling need for SP2? Otherwise, why not just stay with earlier versions and continue to get security updates.
There really is no reason why the present generation of hybrids should be significantly better than conventional cars in this regard.
The key to making internal combustion engines most efficient and putting out minimum pollution is to run the engine at one speed/load point. With the engine connected to the drive chain (as in current hybrids), you can't do this. What you really need is an engine that is connected only to a generator and always runs at a single speed and always the same loading.
An electric motor (or one per wheel) then provides the motive force for the vehicle. Batteries are used to balance the power input (from the engine) and output (by the electric motors).
Now, I suspect that there is some good reason why this setup has not been used in the current generation of hybrids, but nevertheless, I believe it would produce minimum emissions.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that either:
I drive with a very heavy right foot (unlikely) or
Just about everyone lies about mileage.
Actually, I think what really happens is that people only measure mileage on long journeys, when cars naturally perform better. People just don't want to know what mileage they get around town, since it is an unpleasant number.
As opposed to the weblog wo which the article is linked, which merely make glaring factual errors, such as:
There are 2 other problems. One is that the British goverment, for reasons that are not clear (stupidity probably) kept the existence of Bletchley Park secret long after the war, allowing the second problem to exist, which is US-centric re-writing of history claiming ENIAC as the first computer without challenge from those who had been at Bletchley park.While ENIAC clearly progressed the technology, one can consider it merely a step between Bletchley Park's Colossus and The University of Manchester's "Baby", which is claimed to be the first device to have all the components that are now considered characteristic of a computer.