You have to context switch from walkToObject(environment, objectLocation) to avoidObstacles(environment, perceptionFilters). Yeah avoidObstacles() is just a function call, but it's a processor-intensive one and it has higher priority.
This violates so many rules of the Unix philosophy that I don't even know where to begin...
FTFA:
Grep has issues with data blocks as well. "With regular expressions, you don't really have the ability to extract things that are nested arbitrarily deep," Weaver said.
If your data structures are so complex that diff/grep won't cut it, they should probably be massaged into XML, in which case you can use XSLT off the shelf. It's already customizable to whatever data format you're working with.
FTFA:
With [operational data in block-like data structures], a tool such as diff "can be too low-level," Weaver said. "Diff doesn't really pay attention to the structure of the language you are trying to tell differences between." He has seen cases where dif reports that 10 changes have been made to a file, when in fact only two changes have been made, and the remaining data has simply been shifted around.
No, 10 changes have been made. The fact that only two substantive changes have been made based on 10 edits is a subjective determination. That is, unless you want to detect that moving a block of code or data from one place to another in a file has no actual effect, in which case good luck because that's a domain-specific hard problem.
If you want X to be provided as a tax-supported service, as rubbish removal is for residents in much of the USA, then it is completely appropriate for the government to regulate the use of X.
Correct. However, I suspect many people here, myself included, don't want X to be provided as a tax-supported service, for almost all values of X.
Most services (not all) can be paid for by user fees, not government taxes. User fees allocate cost to those who benefit from a service, while general taxes (like income taxes) are designed to be uniformly unfair in this regard. Some services, such as ensuring preservation of civil liberties and civil rights, and ensuring that all vendors are provided a free market, may require taxation to implement. But these are very specialized and noble services, not mundane services such as trash collection.
Of course content owners have a right to try to make money from their property (your point) -- this is one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. They do not, however, have a right to succeed (my point). If you read my post carefully, you will see that you are attacking a point different than the one I was making.
Content owners do not have a right to make money from their content, and neither do artists. If I, a mediocre musician, toil away for months putting together a crap song that no one will buy, who do I sue for infringing my "rights"?
The same argument also applies to health care, education, and all sorts of other things (generally called entitlements, lord knows why) that, while useful in a productive society, do not give rise to actual rights. For example, if I had a right to be healthy, I could sue you for infringing that right when you give me a cold. And what about genetic diseases, do I get to sue my parents for predisposing me to a heart attack? These are obviously ridiculous conclusions, and people have more of a "right" to be healthy than content owners have to profit from rent-seeking behavior.
Sorry for the self-reply. I wanted to say that as a member of the LNC, I have pretty good access to any of the elected or candidate Libertarians across the country, including Presidential candidates.
Also, I'd recommend Ron Rivest as a non-candidate expert on voting. (Yes, the "R" in "RSA".) He's a really down-to-earth guy who I think would be really approachable, and he has done work that addresses electoral fraud (including inventing a new voting system).
If anyone is interested, I can get someone on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) or the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC) to answer questions. The Libertarian Party is the largest third and fastest growing party in the US (as confirmed by Wikipedia!) and I know that many./ers tend to lean small-L libertarian.
How about we give people more choices for where to get a good high school education? Or better yet, a good elementary / junior high education? Education doesn't start with college.
The issue is three-fold: one, standardized education is mandatory; two, our public school system is, with a few exceptions, terrible; and three, many poor and lower middle class families have no alternative to terrible public schools. Change any of these three things and the problem is much easier to solve. (Not all of you will agree that education should be optional, but that requirement is nevertheless part of the issue. Personally, I think parents should have the choice to educate their kids to THEIR standards, not to some arbitrary level decided by some politician who doesn't know their situation.)
BTW, this looks to have been introduced in the House back on June 14. The corresponding Senate bill (the subject of this story) was introduced on June 15 and has been languishing in the Judiciary Committee since then.
This is an application, not a patent, and the original journalist is either ignorant or being sensationalist (you decide). Here's a link from the article to the published app:
A quick check of the USPTO website's "public PAIR" using the application serial number 12/726252 (right off the publication data) shows that the application has not even been looked at yet for patentability. But let's not let facts get in the way of journalism.
You'd have a good idea, except the courts continue to reinterpret the laws used to determine whether inventions are patentable. Some patents that were valid become invalid, and sometimes the other way around. So, your idea of penalizing examiners is actually quite unfair. Also, it's not the examiner's fault that he only has X number of hours to search and read hundreds of pages of prior art, apply them to dozens of claims, and issue a written action. The fault lies at least partially with the point system devised by the patent office that is used to track examiner workload.
One answer to ease the workload burden is to hire more examiners. This has been tried for the past several years, with limited success given the steep learning curve and high turnover rate. Another answer is to raise the fees for filing and prosecuting patents to cut the number of new applications. However, PTO fees are a huge political football right now, and in any event the patent office can't raise them too much without backlash from the big players in the industry. Another answer is to change the "count" system used to track examiners. This could result in higher quality patents issuing, if longer is taken with each application. Doing so would of course increase the backlog of applications, another political mess.
The USPTO does not have a cavalier attitude, based on my personal experience having spoken with many examiners and supervisors over the course of several years of patent practice. They're doing the best with what they have, and what they have isn't good enough.
5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.
This quote reflects a really depressing world view and a lack of perspective. For the most part, those in authority in the US are doing a fine job. Look at other, truly repressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, and the atrocities they are daily committing against their citizens. That doesn't happen here nearly as often, or to nearly as great a degree.
I am a lawyer, and I sought out my job because I want to help people. The same can be said for most other lawyers I know. Cops, judges, politicians, and lawyers keep society together, not destroy it. Of course some of these people are corrupt, but they are the outliers, so they stand out more and make a bigger impression.
To quote a wise man, "stop thinking in binary fashion."
Slashdot Mirror
You have to context switch from walkToObject(environment, objectLocation) to avoidObstacles(environment, perceptionFilters). Yeah avoidObstacles() is just a function call, but it's a processor-intensive one and it has higher priority.
This violates so many rules of the Unix philosophy that I don't even know where to begin...
FTFA:
Grep has issues with data blocks as well. "With regular expressions, you don't really have the ability to extract things that are nested arbitrarily deep," Weaver said.
If your data structures are so complex that diff/grep won't cut it, they should probably be massaged into XML, in which case you can use XSLT off the shelf. It's already customizable to whatever data format you're working with.
FTFA:
With [operational data in block-like data structures], a tool such as diff "can be too low-level," Weaver said. "Diff doesn't really pay attention to the structure of the language you are trying to tell differences between." He has seen cases where dif reports that 10 changes have been made to a file, when in fact only two changes have been made, and the remaining data has simply been shifted around.
No, 10 changes have been made. The fact that only two substantive changes have been made based on 10 edits is a subjective determination. That is, unless you want to detect that moving a block of code or data from one place to another in a file has no actual effect, in which case good luck because that's a domain-specific hard problem.
In fact, there's strong evidence that Congress is merely a training ground for the much more lucrative business of being a lobbyist.
See http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2302 for example.
If you want X to be provided as a tax-supported service, as rubbish removal is for residents in much of the USA, then it is completely appropriate for the government to regulate the use of X.
Correct. However, I suspect many people here, myself included, don't want X to be provided as a tax-supported service, for almost all values of X.
Most services (not all) can be paid for by user fees, not government taxes. User fees allocate cost to those who benefit from a service, while general taxes (like income taxes) are designed to be uniformly unfair in this regard. Some services, such as ensuring preservation of civil liberties and civil rights, and ensuring that all vendors are provided a free market, may require taxation to implement. But these are very specialized and noble services, not mundane services such as trash collection.
Of course content owners have a right to try to make money from their property (your point) -- this is one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. They do not, however, have a right to succeed (my point). If you read my post carefully, you will see that you are attacking a point different than the one I was making.
Content owners do not have a right to make money from their content, and neither do artists. If I, a mediocre musician, toil away for months putting together a crap song that no one will buy, who do I sue for infringing my "rights"?
The same argument also applies to health care, education, and all sorts of other things (generally called entitlements, lord knows why) that, while useful in a productive society, do not give rise to actual rights. For example, if I had a right to be healthy, I could sue you for infringing that right when you give me a cold. And what about genetic diseases, do I get to sue my parents for predisposing me to a heart attack? These are obviously ridiculous conclusions, and people have more of a "right" to be healthy than content owners have to profit from rent-seeking behavior.
Congress didn't pass the law struck down in that case, that was an Illinois state law.
Sorry for the self-reply. I wanted to say that as a member of the LNC, I have pretty good access to any of the elected or candidate Libertarians across the country, including Presidential candidates.
Also, I'd recommend Ron Rivest as a non-candidate expert on voting. (Yes, the "R" in "RSA".) He's a really down-to-earth guy who I think would be really approachable, and he has done work that addresses electoral fraud (including inventing a new voting system).
If anyone is interested, I can get someone on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) or the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC) to answer questions. The Libertarian Party is the largest third and fastest growing party in the US (as confirmed by Wikipedia!) and I know that many ./ers tend to lean small-L libertarian.
Disclaimer: I am the Region 2 alternate member of the LNC, and Chair of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party.
You must be new here.
If you have to mount any partition other than / to boot, your OS has a pretty serious security hole.
I trust an engineer's ability to do politics about as much as I trust a politician's ability to do engineering.
Americans tend to be pissy, rude and impatient
Fixed that for you
How about we give people more choices for where to get a good high school education? Or better yet, a good elementary / junior high education? Education doesn't start with college.
The issue is three-fold: one, standardized education is mandatory; two, our public school system is, with a few exceptions, terrible; and three, many poor and lower middle class families have no alternative to terrible public schools. Change any of these three things and the problem is much easier to solve. (Not all of you will agree that education should be optional, but that requirement is nevertheless part of the issue. Personally, I think parents should have the choice to educate their kids to THEIR standards, not to some arbitrary level decided by some politician who doesn't know their situation.)
You could read a version of the bill that isn't formatted like it's perl:
Here
BTW, this looks to have been introduced in the House back on June 14. The corresponding Senate bill (the subject of this story) was introduced on June 15 and has been languishing in the Judiciary Committee since then.
This is an application, not a patent, and the original journalist is either ignorant or being sensationalist (you decide). Here's a link from the article to the published app:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110230178%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110230178&RS=DN/20110230178
A quick check of the USPTO website's "public PAIR" using the application serial number 12/726252 (right off the publication data) shows that the application has not even been looked at yet for patentability. But let's not let facts get in the way of journalism.
I could write a long rambling ode, but I think I'll just say thanks for the last 14 years. You did good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NorZUFfpvC0
Based on the original Portal.
My /. fortune with this article: "Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy."
I have an easy solution. English teachers should start immediately returning the student's papers with a grade of 0%, and a note attached that reads
paper.c:5: error: apostrophe unexpected after "it"
paper.c:7: error: apostrophe unexpected after "it"
paper.c:13: error: apostrophe unexpected after "it"
paper.c:18: error: apostrophe unexpected after "it"
spamgourmet.com
I've been using them for years. All the same benefits, and you don't need your own domain.
You'd have a good idea, except the courts continue to reinterpret the laws used to determine whether inventions are patentable. Some patents that were valid become invalid, and sometimes the other way around. So, your idea of penalizing examiners is actually quite unfair. Also, it's not the examiner's fault that he only has X number of hours to search and read hundreds of pages of prior art, apply them to dozens of claims, and issue a written action. The fault lies at least partially with the point system devised by the patent office that is used to track examiner workload.
One answer to ease the workload burden is to hire more examiners. This has been tried for the past several years, with limited success given the steep learning curve and high turnover rate. Another answer is to raise the fees for filing and prosecuting patents to cut the number of new applications. However, PTO fees are a huge political football right now, and in any event the patent office can't raise them too much without backlash from the big players in the industry. Another answer is to change the "count" system used to track examiners. This could result in higher quality patents issuing, if longer is taken with each application. Doing so would of course increase the backlog of applications, another political mess.
The USPTO does not have a cavalier attitude, based on my personal experience having spoken with many examiners and supervisors over the course of several years of patent practice. They're doing the best with what they have, and what they have isn't good enough.
Robo Rally. Try the demo.
5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.
This quote reflects a really depressing world view and a lack of perspective. For the most part, those in authority in the US are doing a fine job. Look at other, truly repressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, and the atrocities they are daily committing against their citizens. That doesn't happen here nearly as often, or to nearly as great a degree.
I am a lawyer, and I sought out my job because I want to help people. The same can be said for most other lawyers I know. Cops, judges, politicians, and lawyers keep society together, not destroy it. Of course some of these people are corrupt, but they are the outliers, so they stand out more and make a bigger impression.
To quote a wise man, "stop thinking in binary fashion."
I refer you to my post of yesterday: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2244776&cid=36465806
s/CmdrTaco/Soulskill/g