Isn't it possible that Windows 7 - on compatible hardware, of course - does temperature-based CPU throttling? That would also account for your observations, and would be compatible with mine, which are that Windows 7 is not appreciably slower (and sometimes quicker) at SMB transfers.
That's just wrong. Flipping bits increases entropy. If your software is instructing the hardware to flip bits, it is instructing the hardware to consume power.
Fact is not a matter of public polling, and I stand by my statement that nothing remotely like a "Koch" "takeover" of "public utilities" has taken place. Whether you agree with the measures in the budget repair bill or not, this is not an accurate or reasonable representation of what it contains.
And *you* were the one who asked me if I was "convinced."
Yes, I do. For one, these are small state-owned power stations, *not* "public utilities" (i.e., weenergies). For two, they haven't even been sold yet, so calling it a "takeover" by the Koch brothers, who by the way have disclaimed any interest in owning them, is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree? For three, there is an obvious rationale for not using the state low-bid procedure: they want to make a deal with the new owners for reduced rates on the heat and power in the future.
So, yes, I am still not convinced. Show me some actual evidence of a *Koch* "takeover."
You've got to change your frame of thinking, that's all.
TIRED: Massive, fascist-chic, state-run, bureaucratic space "agencies."
WIRED: Privately owned space travel.
Remember, private space ventures were always the end goal (remember the "Pan American" spacecraft in 2001?) for routine access to space. And interestingly enough, the U.S. is already the private spaceflight capital of the world, and booming fast. Mark my words, the next decade is going to see a lot more U.S. spaceflight activity than you think.
The justification is very obvious: Microsoft doesn't want to violate the GPL. Since it feels that it cannot redistribute software in a manner that would comply with the GPL, it will not redistribute that software. This is how the GPL is *supposed* to work.
So you think people searched for things like "hiybbprqag", "mbzrxpgjys", "indoswiftjobinproduction" just because they felt like it?
No, Google's engineers searched for those terms, because they were ordered to. That is how the association was made. Seriously, did you even read the story?
This law is designed to address that, by making priority based on something easy to prove (a postmark) instead of something difficult to prove (exactly who did what when, and what significance those events have.)
Suppose that I had never seen, used, or so much as heard of fire. If I develop fire entirely on my own, does that make me an inventor of one of the most important technologies in human history, or does it make me merely a genius who is way behind his time? I don't think that people would say that's invention, and at that point there's only a gap in time between the real inventor and the latecomer, and whether it's millennia or months or minutes, there's no qualitative difference.
"Fire" is a bad example, because you can't patent natural phenomena in the first place. You could, theoretically, patent a method or device for creating fire, such as rubbing two sticks together or a Zippo lighter. So let's assume that's what you meant, you wanted to patent a method for creating fire that has existed since prehistory. That *is* an invention, if you came to it completely independently. You still can't patent it though, because sufficient information is available to you that you could easily have read about it, had you been so inclined. That's prior art.
Bell invented the telephone. Not 'his' but 'the.' I think there's an important distinction.
(Also do bear in mind that while copyright allows for independent creation in theory, in practice even moderately similar works will probably result in the later author found to infringe; I've never heard of two authors fighting over absolutely identical works where the later author was found not to infringe.)
Not true at all. Bell's patent described in detail the methods used by his invention to transmit voices. Nobody else could use those same methods to transmit voices without a license. But certainly somebody could come up with a different method to transmit voices. Look at the history of the phonograph, and you'll see a series of different patents, each one using different methods to do the same thing, record and playback audio.
Except they can't do that. "First to file" changes the method used to decide who "wins" who two people claim to have independently invented something. But you STILL have to be the inventor, and so the existence of prior art is STILL a bar to obtaining the patent. So in your scenario, US Widgets can't get the patent, because they obviously didn't invent it, as demonstrated by the prior art of the UK widgets.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it possible that Windows 7 - on compatible hardware, of course - does temperature-based CPU throttling? That would also account for your observations, and would be compatible with mine, which are that Windows 7 is not appreciably slower (and sometimes quicker) at SMB transfers.
That's just wrong. Flipping bits increases entropy. If your software is instructing the hardware to flip bits, it is instructing the hardware to consume power.
Fact is not a matter of public polling, and I stand by my statement that nothing remotely like a "Koch" "takeover" of "public utilities" has taken place. Whether you agree with the measures in the budget repair bill or not, this is not an accurate or reasonable representation of what it contains.
And *you* were the one who asked me if I was "convinced."
Yes, I do. For one, these are small state-owned power stations, *not* "public utilities" (i.e., weenergies). For two, they haven't even been sold yet, so calling it a "takeover" by the Koch brothers, who by the way have disclaimed any interest in owning them, is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree? For three, there is an obvious rationale for not using the state low-bid procedure: they want to make a deal with the new owners for reduced rates on the heat and power in the future.
So, yes, I am still not convinced. Show me some actual evidence of a *Koch* "takeover."
They're being sued by Apple.
Look at the Koch Brothers and their no-bid takeover of Wisconsin public utilities via the teabagger government.
This one stands out as exceptionally silly to me, because I live in Wisconsin and nothing remotely like that has happened.
Yes, see spacex.com. I don't know how you missed the launch last year. It was big news.
You've got to change your frame of thinking, that's all.
TIRED: Massive, fascist-chic, state-run, bureaucratic space "agencies."
WIRED: Privately owned space travel.
Remember, private space ventures were always the end goal (remember the "Pan American" spacecraft in 2001?) for routine access to space. And interestingly enough, the U.S. is already the private spaceflight capital of the world, and booming fast. Mark my words, the next decade is going to see a lot more U.S. spaceflight activity than you think.
A brown dwarf generates its own gradient.
??? Microsoft did this pretty much as soon as the 360 was released. http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/gaming/productdetails.aspx?pid=091
And what about Gentoo? It isn't dead yet...
Obama is, and always will be, a Keynesian.
That would be obviously unconstitutional.
I think everybody understood that I meant they cannot, within the context of their business plan and product vision.
It doesn't *REQUIRE* redistribution at no cost, and therefore is NOT excluded.
You do realize there is more to the GPLv3 than the source code distribution requirement, right?
The justification is very obvious: Microsoft doesn't want to violate the GPL. Since it feels that it cannot redistribute software in a manner that would comply with the GPL, it will not redistribute that software. This is how the GPL is *supposed* to work.
So what? As long as the risks are duly disclosed, people should be able to buy dangerous goods and services for themselves.
Yes, they were informed by the click-throughs of the Google engineers. Try to keep up.
So you think people searched for things like "hiybbprqag", "mbzrxpgjys", "indoswiftjobinproduction" just because they felt like it?
No, Google's engineers searched for those terms, because they were ordered to. That is how the association was made. Seriously, did you even read the story?
This law is designed to address that, by making priority based on something easy to prove (a postmark) instead of something difficult to prove (exactly who did what when, and what significance those events have.)
Don't you think there might be prior art on the wheel?
Suppose that I had never seen, used, or so much as heard of fire. If I develop fire entirely on my own, does that make me an inventor of one of the most important technologies in human history, or does it make me merely a genius who is way behind his time? I don't think that people would say that's invention, and at that point there's only a gap in time between the real inventor and the latecomer, and whether it's millennia or months or minutes, there's no qualitative difference.
"Fire" is a bad example, because you can't patent natural phenomena in the first place. You could, theoretically, patent a method or device for creating fire, such as rubbing two sticks together or a Zippo lighter. So let's assume that's what you meant, you wanted to patent a method for creating fire that has existed since prehistory. That *is* an invention, if you came to it completely independently. You still can't patent it though, because sufficient information is available to you that you could easily have read about it, had you been so inclined. That's prior art.
Bell invented the telephone. Not 'his' but 'the.' I think there's an important distinction.
(Also do bear in mind that while copyright allows for independent creation in theory, in practice even moderately similar works will probably result in the later author found to infringe; I've never heard of two authors fighting over absolutely identical works where the later author was found not to infringe.)
Not true at all. Bell's patent described in detail the methods used by his invention to transmit voices. Nobody else could use those same methods to transmit voices without a license. But certainly somebody could come up with a different method to transmit voices. Look at the history of the phonograph, and you'll see a series of different patents, each one using different methods to do the same thing, record and playback audio.
Except they can't do that. "First to file" changes the method used to decide who "wins" who two people claim to have independently invented something. But you STILL have to be the inventor, and so the existence of prior art is STILL a bar to obtaining the patent. So in your scenario, US Widgets can't get the patent, because they obviously didn't invent it, as demonstrated by the prior art of the UK widgets.
That person's patent is invalidated by the existence of your prior art. What about this do you not understand?