While they're at it, why doesn't my car have an emergency gear/wheel/crank system that I can connect ot my battery on cold days when my Jolapy won't start?
There is no way you could crank enough to generate the power to start your car. You would be better off with a crank for the engine.
...and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?
IMHO there is no way making a website exclusive to IE would server anyone more than a platform independent website would. From an end user perspective any functionality that a website can provide can be served up in a cross-platform manner. End users don't care what technology a site uses if the experience is similar. ActiveX is generally regarded as insecure and using it will drop your 87% number considerably by itself. Why use inherently insecure technology when a properly designed site can be built to be cross-platform, fast and efficient.
As far as my boss or my clients, they may not care about the additional 12% directly, but they do value my experience and knowledge. Plus, I don't develop in ActiveX, ASP,.Net or using SQL Server and will not use these technologies until or unless the market demand forces me to.
You may disagree, maybe you are biased against MS. That is not my concern, as a businessman, my concern is to keep my doors open.
As a businessman, my concern is to reach as many people as possible. IE has 87.2% of the market share according to the article. That means 12.8% of potential patrons are NOT using IE. I'm not willing to have a website that's not functional in multiple browsers and immediately alienate 12.8% of viewers.
Something related to the word "failure". Did a search of the pages for GW, Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore that came up for a search word "failure". That word isn't even in any of those three pages. Seems to me there is something wrong when a search term lists pages that don't even have the actual word in it.
I have no problem with what the government USES. I have a problem with what the government forces it's citizens to use to interface with them. If it uses DVDs they should be standards based and able to be accessed on any computer system. My concern is access, in my mind this similar to handicap access to government buildings. Everyone should be able to access government services with means they have available, not be forced into one particular convention. It's not a 'holy war' at all. I would have the same issue if the IRS stopped using platform indpendent pdf forms and started forcing everyone to use Word docs, or if the government stopped using email and forced everyone to instal AOL Instant Messenger to communicate with them, or if the government stopped using the telephone system and forced everyone to purchase a special radio if they wanted to talk to a government official.
But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.
I looked at the article to see if it specified what the actual ad was that caused the problem. All it said was GEICO had established a likelihood of confusion. I would consider your example a fair use (although IANAL), but what is to stop you from putting an ad up that read "GEICO Insurance" and linking to your site? That could easily create confusion and dilute the value GIECO's trademark. With the thousands, maybe millions of ads that Google has in adwords I would think it prudent for them to just have a list of trademarked words that can't be used in an ad. It would be difficult to review each ad individually to see if the usage was appropriate.
My guess is that they want to see how thier USERS would react to this change.
Perhaps, but personally I believe the US Government should create everything in a standards based manner that can be accessed by any application that adheres to the standards. Anything less is favoritisim and gives the developer of a particular application an advantage in the market place. The US Patent office has a broad customer base, it consists of every citizen of the US and any corporation that does business in the US. The original poster may not currently have a patent to submit, but he could tomorrow, or I could tomorrow.
The main reason the US entered the war against Germany was because Germany formerly declared war on the US just days after Pearl Harbor.
We are foolish? You just summed up the US involvment in WWII in one sentence and you called me foolish? The main reason, from what I remember from history class, that the US entered WWII was a little event called Pearl Harbor. We entered the war in the European Theatre primarily because they thought they could win there quickly and of course because Japan, Germany and Italy were allies - the Axis powers. There were concerns that fighting the Japanese in the Pacific would take a very long time, plus the Japanese had air superiority at the beginning of the war.
This defending democracy bullshit started with Kennedy. Lovely liberalism, but I'm tired of people distorting the ideal to fit imperialist goals.
No it didn't. Not sure when it started, but the Korean war was fought in defense of democracy South Korea. I even found this excerpt in wikipedia concerning the Spanish American war.
Thus, on April 11, 1898 McKinley went before Congress to ask for authority to send American troops to Cuba for the purpose of ending the civil war there. On April 19, Congress passed joint resolutions proclaiming Cuba "free and independent" and disclaiming any intentions on Cuba, demanded Spanish withdrawal, and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuban patriots gain freedom from Spain.
Sounds like defending democracy and freedom was a central theme there. Our motivations are rarely altruistic, but there is some truth to the statement that US is the worlds largest defender of democracy.
They bought their way out of an antitrust conviction. If they don't like the patent system, bribe the same assholes to change it.
First, I don't believe Microsoft committed widespread bribery of the federal government to get out of their antitrust conviction. AFAIk, they were actually found guilty in that case. Now their sentencing may have been a little light, but I believe that was more due to the change in administration to a more pro-big business president.
Microsoft did
make some very strong proposals for patent reform about 6 months ago. They have lost several cases recently over patents, I really don't think they are fans. My theory is they are so fed up with the patent system that they are going to file every patent possible so they either
Won't get sued for patent infringement every again or
Will bring the patent system to it's knees by their flood of ridiculous patents
Microsoft has a lifelong reputation for stealing things, last thing they want are patents on other people's ideas.
Well, I think one can not blame anybody for the alliance with Stalin in that situation.
I agree, but how different is that from our current relationship with the Saudis, which was one of the original GP's examples. The situation in the Middle East is not as extreme (yet) as it was during WWII, but the US supporting Saudi Arabia is somewhat more than just a self-serving action.
Well, initially yes. But I think you lose the status of a 'democratic leader' once you start throwing your oponents into jail.
Maybe, but who makes that determination. My understanding is that Hitler believed he was really loved by the people and judging from the video recordings of his speeches many people did, or at least pretended to.
Wasn't trying to defend Hitler at all, just wanted to point out that everything isn't always cut and dried. If you look on the other side of the coin, Stalin was as evil a dictator as Hitler. Should we not have included him in the Allies during WWII. Was it right to ally with him considering the tragedies that were occuring in his country?
Thanks for the link though, very interesting article.
We are all grateful for what the US did in WWII, but remember was against a democratic election there since the result would probably have been something it didn't want.
I believe Adolph Hitler was a democratically elected leader. We shouldn't have helped out against him either. Benito Mussolini was initially elected to parliment and his government was a democratic one with a parliment. I suppose the US shouldn't have helped get rid of those guys.
From time to time there are situations where democracy has either gone awry or cannot be implemented at any given time. Just because the US doesn't attack every non-democratic regime it has contact with doesn't mean the US isn't a defender of democracy. Life is full of compromises.
The bands got themselves into the mess. The record labels are sly, and they know their legal stuff, but that's no excuse for stupidity on the part of the signer(s).
Not only that, but is it stupidity if the contract made you famous? As you said, the labels are in business to distribute and promote. It's a sad reality that in our current society the only way to sell lots of music is to get signed by a major label so they can put you on the radio and in millions of stores. If these artists hadn't signed this evil contract that 'takes away their rights' they wouldn't have to worry about putting their music on iTunes - nobody would download it if they did.
I'm no fan of the record labels, but for successful artists to complain about and break their contracts is just greedy.
Do any businesses that would NEED software to do business NOT use at least one of these?
These days most businesses 'NEED' software. It may only be point-of-sale, accounting or inventory management, but these tasks have to be done and purchasing software is much cheaper than hireing a CPA. OTOH, most businesses don't need to run their own web server or even their own database. Most high level software packages are going to come with their own backend, or have a specification for which databases it will use. I'm sure the assumption is that any business that does need to run their own web server or a database without some type of frontend probably doesn't need this article.
Use Wells Fargo, their bill pay service auto-prints checks and mails them to companies that don't have online pay.
Yeah, but Wells Fargo is an evil corporate bank that gobbles up small local banks. As a Slashdot member I cannot, in good conscience, do business with a big evil bank like that.
The only thing I have to write on a regular basis are checks - for stupid companies that don't have online bill pay. That and return addresses on letters when I'm too lazy to find my stickers. Otherwise the most I write is my signature.
I mean, you can buy 100 dollar digitals that take pictures, but they're not exactly nice.
Depends on what you want them for. I have a little Kodak digital that I bought for under $100 3 years ago. I've taken it everywhere and it works like a champ. Battery lasts for months. I use it primarily to post pics to my website, so I don't need huge resolution. Works great for me.
I wouldn't try to use it for professional photography or stuff I wanted to hang on the wall, but for family events, vacations and the like it works great. The $500 Olympus may be working in another 20 years, but by that time the $100 camera will be way better than the current $500 Olympus, and I will have been able to buy a brand new camera every 4 years. Seems to me that digital camera technology is still moving at such a fast pace that there's not much point in spending $500 on a camera.
Unfortunately there is no country in the world who could build a rocket (unless they allowed something like an Orion) big enough to carry all the lawyers.
I love when people hot-headedly defend statements that are patently wrong. Bottom line, man, high current is high current, and current comes from the ratio of potential difference to resistance (also excluding magnetic inductance which was previously mentioned).
I was NOT wrong. I just said what you said - just didn't want to bring Ohm's law into the discussion and complicate it further. Thanks a bunch.
I=V/R is homes law, so If I have a low voltage the current across the same resistance is lower. I can have a source that will provide a tremendous amount of current, like an arc welder or a car battery, but if it's only providing 12 volts the source won't have enough potential for the current to flow. According to the Singapore Science Center a dry human body has a resistance of about 500,000 ohms. If we plug that into Ohm's law we get I=12/500,000 or.024mA - not enough current to hurt anyone.
The original poster stated, way back when, that 'current was good to burn things'. A source can have all the potential current in the world, but if the voltage is extremely low (obviously much less than 12v) it loses it's usefulness.
Sorry I wasn't more clear earlier, like I said, didn't want to teach a basic electronics class.
Ok, I give you that the battery may have some sort of short term "burst" to deliver 1000 amps.
Not sure what you would consider "short term". You can usually crank a car for several minutes before the battery will give out. Generally you don't have to, but sometimes it will crank a relatively long time.
I'll amend my original question to be: "What kind of vehicle are you driving that has 1000 Amps going into the coil?"
Fair enough, I don't believe there is a 1000 amps going to the coil. Actually, according to this site, the coil uses 5 amps. The output current must be relatively low, if it wasn't touching a spark plug wire would zap you.
WHAT kind of vehicle do you have that has 1000 amps flowing through any part of it?
A regular car.
What mechanism does your vehicle use to generate such a large current at 12V?
It's called a battery. If you look at car batteries next time you are at your local walmart (assuming you live in a country where they have walmarts) you will see that the batteries are generally rated at a minimum of 600 "cold cranking amps" and a max of about 1100. This current is used to run the starter and start the engine. Car starter motors, especially on a V8 engine require a large amount of power.
Information "wants" to be free in the same sense that things "want" to fall to the ground; it's the path of least resistance.
Actually it's more a function of entropy than gravity. Like all things in nature Information wants to move from a state of higher order, secrecy, to a state of lower order, freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
While they're at it, why doesn't my car have an emergency gear/wheel/crank system that I can connect ot my battery on cold days when my Jolapy won't start?
There is no way you could crank enough to generate the power to start your car. You would be better off with a crank for the engine.
...and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?
.Net or using SQL Server and will not use these technologies until or unless the market demand forces me to.
IMHO there is no way making a website exclusive to IE would server anyone more than a platform independent website would. From an end user perspective any functionality that a website can provide can be served up in a cross-platform manner. End users don't care what technology a site uses if the experience is similar. ActiveX is generally regarded as insecure and using it will drop your 87% number considerably by itself. Why use inherently insecure technology when a properly designed site can be built to be cross-platform, fast and efficient.
As far as my boss or my clients, they may not care about the additional 12% directly, but they do value my experience and knowledge. Plus, I don't develop in ActiveX, ASP,
You may disagree, maybe you are biased against MS. That is not my concern, as a businessman, my concern is to keep my doors open.
As a businessman, my concern is to reach as many people as possible. IE has 87.2% of the market share according to the article. That means 12.8% of potential patrons are NOT using IE. I'm not willing to have a website that's not functional in multiple browsers and immediately alienate 12.8% of viewers.
What would you rather it return for such a query?
Something related to the word "failure". Did a search of the pages for GW, Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore that came up for a search word "failure". That word isn't even in any of those three pages. Seems to me there is something wrong when a search term lists pages that don't even have the actual word in it.
I have no problem with what the government USES. I have a problem with what the government forces it's citizens to use to interface with them. If it uses DVDs they should be standards based and able to be accessed on any computer system. My concern is access, in my mind this similar to handicap access to government buildings. Everyone should be able to access government services with means they have available, not be forced into one particular convention. It's not a 'holy war' at all. I would have the same issue if the IRS stopped using platform indpendent pdf forms and started forcing everyone to use Word docs, or if the government stopped using email and forced everyone to instal AOL Instant Messenger to communicate with them, or if the government stopped using the telephone system and forced everyone to purchase a special radio if they wanted to talk to a government official.
But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.
I looked at the article to see if it specified what the actual ad was that caused the problem. All it said was GEICO had established a likelihood of confusion. I would consider your example a fair use (although IANAL), but what is to stop you from putting an ad up that read "GEICO Insurance" and linking to your site? That could easily create confusion and dilute the value GIECO's trademark. With the thousands, maybe millions of ads that Google has in adwords I would think it prudent for them to just have a list of trademarked words that can't be used in an ad. It would be difficult to review each ad individually to see if the usage was appropriate.
My guess is that they want to see how thier USERS would react to this change.
Perhaps, but personally I believe the US Government should create everything in a standards based manner that can be accessed by any application that adheres to the standards. Anything less is favoritisim and gives the developer of a particular application an advantage in the market place. The US Patent office has a broad customer base, it consists of every citizen of the US and any corporation that does business in the US. The original poster may not currently have a patent to submit, but he could tomorrow, or I could tomorrow.
The main reason the US entered the war against Germany was because Germany formerly declared war on the US just days after Pearl Harbor.
We are foolish? You just summed up the US involvment in WWII in one sentence and you called me foolish? The main reason, from what I remember from history class, that the US entered WWII was a little event called Pearl Harbor. We entered the war in the European Theatre primarily because they thought they could win there quickly and of course because Japan, Germany and Italy were allies - the Axis powers. There were concerns that fighting the Japanese in the Pacific would take a very long time, plus the Japanese had air superiority at the beginning of the war.
This defending democracy bullshit started with Kennedy. Lovely liberalism, but I'm tired of people distorting the ideal to fit imperialist goals.
No it didn't. Not sure when it started, but the Korean war was fought in defense of democracy South Korea. I even found this excerpt in wikipedia concerning the Spanish American war.
Thus, on April 11, 1898 McKinley went before Congress to ask for authority to send American troops to Cuba for the purpose of ending the civil war there. On April 19, Congress passed joint resolutions proclaiming Cuba "free and independent" and disclaiming any intentions on Cuba, demanded Spanish withdrawal, and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuban patriots gain freedom from Spain.
Sounds like defending democracy and freedom was a central theme there. Our motivations are rarely altruistic, but there is some truth to the statement that US is the worlds largest defender of democracy.
First, I don't believe Microsoft committed widespread bribery of the federal government to get out of their antitrust conviction. AFAIk, they were actually found guilty in that case. Now their sentencing may have been a little light, but I believe that was more due to the change in administration to a more pro-big business president.
Microsoft did make some very strong proposals for patent reform about 6 months ago. They have lost several cases recently over patents, I really don't think they are fans. My theory is they are so fed up with the patent system that they are going to file every patent possible so they either
Microsoft has a lifelong reputation for stealing things, last thing they want are patents on other people's ideas.
Well, I think one can not blame anybody for the alliance with Stalin in that situation.
I agree, but how different is that from our current relationship with the Saudis, which was one of the original GP's examples. The situation in the Middle East is not as extreme (yet) as it was during WWII, but the US supporting Saudi Arabia is somewhat more than just a self-serving action.
Well, initially yes. But I think you lose the status of a 'democratic leader' once you start throwing your oponents into jail.
Maybe, but who makes that determination. My understanding is that Hitler believed he was really loved by the people and judging from the video recordings of his speeches many people did, or at least pretended to.
Wasn't trying to defend Hitler at all, just wanted to point out that everything isn't always cut and dried. If you look on the other side of the coin, Stalin was as evil a dictator as Hitler. Should we not have included him in the Allies during WWII. Was it right to ally with him considering the tragedies that were occuring in his country?
Thanks for the link though, very interesting article.
They'll take my encrypted VOIP when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
We are all grateful for what the US did in WWII, but remember was against a democratic election there since the result would probably have been something it didn't want.
I believe Adolph Hitler was a democratically elected leader. We shouldn't have helped out against him either. Benito Mussolini was initially elected to parliment and his government was a democratic one with a parliment. I suppose the US shouldn't have helped get rid of those guys.
From time to time there are situations where democracy has either gone awry or cannot be implemented at any given time. Just because the US doesn't attack every non-democratic regime it has contact with doesn't mean the US isn't a defender of democracy. Life is full of compromises.
The bands got themselves into the mess. The record labels are sly, and they know their legal stuff, but that's no excuse for stupidity on the part of the signer(s).
Not only that, but is it stupidity if the contract made you famous? As you said, the labels are in business to distribute and promote. It's a sad reality that in our current society the only way to sell lots of music is to get signed by a major label so they can put you on the radio and in millions of stores. If these artists hadn't signed this evil contract that 'takes away their rights' they wouldn't have to worry about putting their music on iTunes - nobody would download it if they did.
I'm no fan of the record labels, but for successful artists to complain about and break their contracts is just greedy.
I was picturing more of a Batman look. Cool tool belt, scary hat, ultra expensive car (that's where the $5 mil will go) and a cape.
Do any businesses that would NEED software to do business NOT use at least one of these?
These days most businesses 'NEED' software. It may only be point-of-sale, accounting or inventory management, but these tasks have to be done and purchasing software is much cheaper than hireing a CPA. OTOH, most businesses don't need to run their own web server or even their own database. Most high level software packages are going to come with their own backend, or have a specification for which databases it will use. I'm sure the assumption is that any business that does need to run their own web server or a database without some type of frontend probably doesn't need this article.
Use Wells Fargo, their bill pay service auto-prints checks and mails them to companies that don't have online pay.
Yeah, but Wells Fargo is an evil corporate bank that gobbles up small local banks. As a Slashdot member I cannot, in good conscience, do business with a big evil bank like that.
The only thing I have to write on a regular basis are checks - for stupid companies that don't have online bill pay. That and return addresses on letters when I'm too lazy to find my stickers. Otherwise the most I write is my signature.
I mean, you can buy 100 dollar digitals that take pictures, but they're not exactly nice.
Depends on what you want them for. I have a little Kodak digital that I bought for under $100 3 years ago. I've taken it everywhere and it works like a champ. Battery lasts for months. I use it primarily to post pics to my website, so I don't need huge resolution. Works great for me.
I wouldn't try to use it for professional photography or stuff I wanted to hang on the wall, but for family events, vacations and the like it works great. The $500 Olympus may be working in another 20 years, but by that time the $100 camera will be way better than the current $500 Olympus, and I will have been able to buy a brand new camera every 4 years. Seems to me that digital camera technology is still moving at such a fast pace that there's not much point in spending $500 on a camera.
Unfortunately there is no country in the world who could build a rocket (unless they allowed something like an Orion) big enough to carry all the lawyers.
What if they dehydrate them first?
I should remind the submitter that you get what you pay for.... :)
You're right. I'll do it for $40 Million.
I love when people hot-headedly defend statements that are patently wrong. Bottom line, man, high current is high current, and current comes from the ratio of potential difference to resistance (also excluding magnetic inductance which was previously mentioned).
.024mA - not enough current to hurt anyone.
I was NOT wrong. I just said what you said - just didn't want to bring Ohm's law into the discussion and complicate it further. Thanks a bunch.
I=V/R is homes law, so If I have a low voltage the current across the same resistance is lower. I can have a source that will provide a tremendous amount of current, like an arc welder or a car battery, but if it's only providing 12 volts the source won't have enough potential for the current to flow. According to the Singapore Science Center a dry human body has a resistance of about 500,000 ohms. If we plug that into Ohm's law we get I=12/500,000 or
The original poster stated, way back when, that 'current was good to burn things'. A source can have all the potential current in the world, but if the voltage is extremely low (obviously much less than 12v) it loses it's usefulness.
Sorry I wasn't more clear earlier, like I said, didn't want to teach a basic electronics class.
Ok, I give you that the battery may have some sort of short term "burst" to deliver 1000 amps.
Not sure what you would consider "short term". You can usually crank a car for several minutes before the battery will give out. Generally you don't have to, but sometimes it will crank a relatively long time.
I'll amend my original question to be: "What kind of vehicle are you driving that has 1000 Amps going into the coil?"
Fair enough, I don't believe there is a 1000 amps going to the coil. Actually, according to this site, the coil uses 5 amps. The output current must be relatively low, if it wasn't touching a spark plug wire would zap you.
WHAT kind of vehicle do you have that has 1000 amps flowing through any part of it?
A regular car.
What mechanism does your vehicle use to generate such a large current at 12V?
It's called a battery. If you look at car batteries next time you are at your local walmart (assuming you live in a country where they have walmarts) you will see that the batteries are generally rated at a minimum of 600 "cold cranking amps" and a max of about 1100. This current is used to run the starter and start the engine. Car starter motors, especially on a V8 engine require a large amount of power.
Information "wants" to be free in the same sense that things "want" to fall to the ground; it's the path of least resistance.
Actually it's more a function of entropy than gravity. Like all things in nature Information wants to move from a state of higher order, secrecy, to a state of lower order, freedom.