You may wish to correct the impression given by the summary (packet by packet basis). While decisions may be made by examining individual packets, it's really balancing sockets, which is what makes it possible.
(and you might want to provide a more terse, less marketecture oriented explanation on your website)
it's not about the tools, but how well you use them. If you're more productive with old tools than your peers are with new ones, why worry? It's easier to move forward than backward, so you'll always have a bigger tool belt than those who didn't bother learning/understanding the capabilities of "old school."
"Simulated," yes, as in imitating, not duplicating. You can simulate a wheel, but that doesn't mean you've violated the wheel patent. And, contrary to what's implied by your claim, that simulation is math, even if the wheel itself isn't. Conversely, taking something physical and simulating it on a computer shouldn't make it subject to patent (the common "x, but on a computer" patents).
You're having a hard time with concepts. Math puts the words on the screen, but that doesn't make the words themselves "math." I can measure a distance and an angle and use math (trigonometry) to determine the height of a tree. That doesn't make the height of a tree "math."
Except for the "Hello World!\n" (which is data, not code), it's nothing but math. Not any different than any other mathematical function, which is why it's in the form of one - f(x). The language it's written in even calls it a "function."
Note that there's no mention of any impact on actual performance, just that CPU is high according to some utility. IDK, but perhaps it runs at low priority, like seti@home, or folding, or lots of other things which only use CPU when nothing else is.
You patent all the physical/chemical processes you can discover for making the drug, not the drug itself. e.g. You patent the Bessemer process, not the steel which results.
If you discover the most efficient method, then you have a competitive advantage.
"Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases"
Growing wheat for your own use has been held to be "interstate commerce." So much for that argument. Don't quote judicial decisions as part of a logical argument, they're two different worlds.
The Judiciary make laws at (almost) random, depending on how they feel, and the current political climate. They pretend to have some semblance of reasonable justice and independance, but there have been way too many decisions which declare that "black is white" (with a straight face) to deserve any respect.
It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power.
It's not just Obama. There's a rich history of Presidents using EOs to try and get out of their duty to execute the law. It's been a bipartisan dereliction of duty (and illegitimate power grab).
But yes, you're right in that this sounds like a legitimate use - ordering an execution of the law which makes it more accessible.
Slashdot Mirror
I went the the Connectify site, and based my comments on Dispatch. My bad.
You may wish to correct the impression given by the summary (packet by packet basis). While decisions may be made by examining individual packets, it's really balancing sockets, which is what makes it possible.
(and you might want to provide a more terse, less marketecture oriented explanation on your website)
That rules out a 'bot from Apple, Microsoft (Linux), and Google (evil). Who's gonna make it?
it's not about the tools, but how well you use them. If you're more productive with old tools than your peers are with new ones, why worry? It's easier to move forward than backward, so you'll always have a bigger tool belt than those who didn't bother learning/understanding the capabilities of "old school."
When they hire you, they don't care if you have an education, only a degree. There's a significant difference.
I, for one, will be serving my robotic overlords.
No, their primary purpose is to assert the force of government.
You're referring to numerals, not numbers.
Whoosh.
It's ambiguous. I choose to read it as the unicorns are ordered to stop the farting rainbows. Rainbows do fart, just watch a Skittles ad.
If you stop rainbows from farting, where will Skittles come from?
"Simulated," yes, as in imitating, not duplicating. You can simulate a wheel, but that doesn't mean you've violated the wheel patent. And, contrary to what's implied by your claim, that simulation is math, even if the wheel itself isn't. Conversely, taking something physical and simulating it on a computer shouldn't make it subject to patent (the common "x, but on a computer" patents).
Meh. If you agreed with that, then why did you first argue it's not true? Just admit that you didn't think it through, were wrong, and move on.
You're having a hard time with concepts. Math puts the words on the screen, but that doesn't make the words themselves "math." I can measure a distance and an angle and use math (trigonometry) to determine the height of a tree. That doesn't make the height of a tree "math."
No. A number is not math. Manipulation of that number is.
Except for the "Hello World!\n" (which is data, not code), it's nothing but math. Not any different than any other mathematical function, which is why it's in the form of one - f(x). The language it's written in even calls it a "function."
Isn't code already math? Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
Note that there's no mention of any impact on actual performance, just that CPU is high according to some utility. IDK, but perhaps it runs at low priority, like seti@home, or folding, or lots of other things which only use CPU when nothing else is.
Laws are for plebeians, not patricians.
You patent all the physical/chemical processes you can discover for making the drug, not the drug itself. e.g. You patent the Bessemer process, not the steel which results.
If you discover the most efficient method, then you have a competitive advantage.
Barron v Baltimore. Cherokee Nation. Dred Scott. Slaughter-House. Wickard v. Filburn (and a boatload of other IC cases). Kelo. Citizens United.
"Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases"
Growing wheat for your own use has been held to be "interstate commerce." So much for that argument. Don't quote judicial decisions as part of a logical argument, they're two different worlds.
The Judiciary make laws at (almost) random, depending on how they feel, and the current political climate. They pretend to have some semblance of reasonable justice and independance, but there have been way too many decisions which declare that "black is white" (with a straight face) to deserve any respect.
It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power.
It's not just Obama. There's a rich history of Presidents using EOs to try and get out of their duty to execute the law. It's been a bipartisan dereliction of duty (and illegitimate power grab).
But yes, you're right in that this sounds like a legitimate use - ordering an execution of the law which makes it more accessible.
Well, they could go to written ballots, subject to public counting, like Survivor.