Yet more proof why software patents are horrible. XOR is a basic mathematical operation and every 10-year-old kid writing graphics in BASIC thought of doing that. It is a good thing those patents were not well-enforced.
I'm confused when you say "none of your postdictions was true." What Marlin wrote is an accurate statement of what happened. I'm also confused about what 50,000 patents you are referring to and how they relate to his statement about the IBM PC BIOS..
IBM did not patent the PC BIOS. The lack of patents allowed IBM PC clones to be possible. That proliferation rapidly expanded the PC industry. This is commonly seen as an example of why software patents should not be allowed.
complete this conversion at a less than or equal cost of energy generated by the oil. The shredder, crucible, and condenser arent powered by the mellow rock stylings of huey lewis and the news.
Actually, the article claims it does. It specifically says it produces a $100 barrel of oil for $35. The way they word it, it sounds like that $35 includes the energy costs.
Where did you see the part about "refused permission?"
According to The Guardian:
Google video service confirmed it was dropping content from independent labels that have not signed up for its upcoming subscription music service...YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier...
According to the BBC:
YouTube will remove music videos by artists such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead, because the independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site.
What I am confused on is this: Are they removing videos that are on some special YouTube music site? Or from the general YouTube site? Ex: If I upload a video of me singing, would they remove it? (Well, the probably would, but for quality reasons, not licensing reasons.) I'm totally unclear on what they are calling a "music video."
By "head exploding" I don't mean I would confuse them. I mean that it would go against what they tend to use law for. Using the law to create something open and shareable is the opposite of what they usually do. I won't go into detail here, but I've had experiences with layers that have made me realize they are not trained to think like normal conscionable people.
The article sites southern California: So yes, they might actually be running continuously.
Your sample size is one. That doesn't give you any kind of statistical significance.
True, but the la times article had a sample size of 0. They did not use a kill-a-watt. Instead they used the sticker on the back of the power supply. They didn't provide any comparative figures or do any math, and they didn't quote any numbers of other devices. Frankly, that random Slashdot post provided more information than the linked article.
By 2016, the average barista will need at least a 2 year degree to remain competitive. The best ones will have their BSES (Bachelor of science in espresso services)
Around 2001 or so I rigged a pair of laptops with GPS and Wifi (high tech!) so they relayed coordinates to each other and ran a star-trek esque battle game. The passenger would hold the laptop which showed the opponents position and shields as well as weapons fire. They would feed information to the driver who would dodge virtual torpedoes.
A few friends of mine tested this out, but I abandoned the project because this surely would have killed people.
A lawyer explained to me that that is not true. They have another option.
They can send a letter to the site offering them a $0/yr license to use the mark.
In my non-lawyer opinion, I think they could also send them a letter stating that Ikea decided not to sue them because are not infringing, and advise them how to use the mark appropriately to prevent future infringement. I remember talking to a lawyer about this and he didn't like that approach, but I believe lawyers are biased on this subject. Probably because it prevents their ability to sue in the future. But that's how lawyers think. If I explained copyleft to him his head probably would have exploded.
These Slashdot book reviews have become useless. In general, if you have a book review, go put it on Amazon.com.
In this case, the review is confusing and spends too much time on anecdotes, trivia, and debunking misconceptions. It's also totally in conflict with itself:
The topic itself is not exactly compelling..., so the book is more of a detailed technical reference. Those looking for a highly technical overview, interoperability guidance, and overall reference will find the book most rewarding.
So is the book a detailed technical reference, a highly technical overview, or an overall reference? I'm totally confused.
A good review might start with an expanded table of contents, explaining the topics in the book, what level of expertise is required, and which ones were most poignant. If the reviewer has read other books on the subject, perhaps compare them.
(Next: someone will post a review of this comment, producing a meta-review-review)
This is what Windows does with UAC virtualization. An app wants to write a file to C:\Program Files\MyApp\Data and Windows redirects the file elsewhere. (Although Windows does not have fine-grained permissions like Android)
But let us be clear: Cisco didn't mention anything relating to ISPs deploying "fast lanes." They did the opposite, specifically using the term QOS and giving a list of relevant content-types so there should be no confusion.
How did they muddy the waters? Computerworld is the only one who even mentioned network neutrality.
even if they meant what you think they meant
They were quite clear:
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays
They gave a specific list of content types that should be prioritized. They made no mention of source or destination based prioritization. It is clear what they meant.
they are only muddling the net neutrality issue further.
Since they didn't say anything at all about network neutrality, how are they muddying the network neutrality issue? The only mention of network neutrality in the article is by the Computerworld writer. It isn't fair that technical people need to avoid talking about technical solutions to technical problems, just because some author might possibly interpret it to mean something significantly different.
Instead of avoiding the issue, we should be educating the public that these two things are different.
This is a good summary. Notice however, that most of these scenarios require bad administrators. (Even the scenarios involving parents or political groups - since they cannot fire individual teachers.) Why does this happen? In the corporate world, bad administrators are usually removed from their positions. But in schools, it seems that these bad administrators stay in place and the teachers lose out. Why?
Network neutrality = traffic prioritization based upon source and destination. Quality of service = traffic prioritization based upon content type.
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays, said Jeff Campbell, Cisco's vice president for government and community relations.
Cisco is talking about prioritizing traffic based on the content type, which is, and has always been, part of the internet. Everyone who has an IP phone probably has a router that supports this because you can't have your roommate's bittorrent connection preventing you from making a quality 911 call.
Stop using this term for things it is not! Every time it happens we lose ground on the network neutrality debate. One of the problems we have with advocating NN is that every time someone talks about QOS there is an article like this that confuses everyone. Reasonable people listen and think that what Cisco is saying makes sense, so they decide that they don't support network neutrality, not realizing that isn't what the discussion is about.
I created a chat bot that emulates a 65-year-old grocery store clerk who speaks perfect English. Here is a sample transcript:
Tester: Hello, and welcome to the Turing test! Bot: Hey, gimme one sec. I gotta pee really bad. BRB. . . . Tester: You back yet? . . . Tester: Hello? . . .
You asked the right question. It really is the key here.
There's only a couple of Kinect games for the Xbox one, and they all got bad to mediocre reviews. The reason Microsoft included Kinect with all Xbox One's was so that developers could develop for the Kinect and be guaranteed that it is there. Now that it is an optional accessory, there will be fewer Kinect games. Why spend money to develop for an accessory that many of your customers won't have? Spend money to have fewer sales = bad strategy.
Ultimately though, Kinect was already dead when the first few games came out and they sucked. Microsoft pulling it out of the bundle was an admission of Kinect's death, not the first cause. But now it will snowball. I'm very sad since I had great hope for this device.
Microsoft's last ditch strategy was when they started giving away Xbox One's with Kinect to developers. They hoped that somebody out there would develop a killer app for it. But it didn't happen.
So the difference between a story, and PR, is the volume of parts made per working day? There are many more interesting things to discuss and learn about 3D printing than solely speed.
I'm going to guess that you didn't know what the term "nationalizing" meant. Just to be clear: it means the government declares that it owns a company and all it's assets. The US constitution has an Eminent Domain clause that explicitly forbids the US government from doing this without compensating the owners. This is perhaps one of the strongest boldest lines between a dictatorship and a democracy. The government cannot waltz into a company and say "we now own this company."
Do not try to equate "not stealing a company" with "coddling an industry."
Which is why calls were 100 to 1 against telecom immunity in 2008
Really? Do you have a source for that? I was one of those 100 callers, but I felt very alone. I could get geeks riled-up about it, but most people around me seemed to think that the government could do whatever they wanted. Perhaps those people just didn't call. Even if the calls were 100 to 1, I think public sentiment overall was in favor of telecom immunity.
I can buy a what, a what, and then I can what the blank? I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do have a 3D printer! Ooh, I can build a gun? sweeet! *clicks*
Slashdot Mirror
Yet more proof why software patents are horrible. XOR is a basic mathematical operation and every 10-year-old kid writing graphics in BASIC thought of doing that. It is a good thing those patents were not well-enforced.
I'm confused when you say "none of your postdictions was true." What Marlin wrote is an accurate statement of what happened. I'm also confused about what 50,000 patents you are referring to and how they relate to his statement about the IBM PC BIOS..
IBM did not patent the PC BIOS. The lack of patents allowed IBM PC clones to be possible. That proliferation rapidly expanded the PC industry. This is commonly seen as an example of why software patents should not be allowed.
complete this conversion at a less than or equal cost of energy generated by the oil. The shredder, crucible, and condenser arent powered by the mellow rock stylings of huey lewis and the news.
Actually, the article claims it does. It specifically says it produces a $100 barrel of oil for $35. The way they word it, it sounds like that $35 includes the energy costs.
Where did you see the part about "refused permission?"
According to The Guardian:
Google video service confirmed it was dropping content from independent labels that have not signed up for its upcoming subscription music service...YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier...
According to the BBC:
YouTube will remove music videos by artists such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead, because the independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site.
What I am confused on is this: Are they removing videos that are on some special YouTube music site? Or from the general YouTube site? Ex: If I upload a video of me singing, would they remove it? (Well, the probably would, but for quality reasons, not licensing reasons.) I'm totally unclear on what they are calling a "music video."
By "head exploding" I don't mean I would confuse them. I mean that it would go against what they tend to use law for. Using the law to create something open and shareable is the opposite of what they usually do. I won't go into detail here, but I've had experiences with layers that have made me realize they are not trained to think like normal conscionable people.
But not running continuosly.
The article sites southern California: So yes, they might actually be running continuously.
Your sample size is one. That doesn't give you any kind of statistical significance.
True, but the la times article had a sample size of 0. They did not use a kill-a-watt. Instead they used the sticker on the back of the power supply. They didn't provide any comparative figures or do any math, and they didn't quote any numbers of other devices. Frankly, that random Slashdot post provided more information than the linked article.
By 2016, the average barista will need at least a 2 year degree to remain competitive. The best ones will have their BSES (Bachelor of science in espresso services)
The NHTSA has finally caught up with me.
Around 2001 or so I rigged a pair of laptops with GPS and Wifi (high tech!) so they relayed coordinates to each other and ran a star-trek esque battle game. The passenger would hold the laptop which showed the opponents position and shields as well as weapons fire. They would feed information to the driver who would dodge virtual torpedoes.
A few friends of mine tested this out, but I abandoned the project because this surely would have killed people.
Can we also get rid of animating billboards? Those slideshow transitions are distracting when driving since the brain pays attention to movement.
A lawyer explained to me that that is not true. They have another option.
They can send a letter to the site offering them a $0/yr license to use the mark.
In my non-lawyer opinion, I think they could also send them a letter stating that Ikea decided not to sue them because are not infringing, and advise them how to use the mark appropriately to prevent future infringement. I remember talking to a lawyer about this and he didn't like that approach, but I believe lawyers are biased on this subject. Probably because it prevents their ability to sue in the future. But that's how lawyers think. If I explained copyleft to him his head probably would have exploded.
These Slashdot book reviews have become useless. In general, if you have a book review, go put it on Amazon.com.
In this case, the review is confusing and spends too much time on anecdotes, trivia, and debunking misconceptions. It's also totally in conflict with itself:
The topic itself is not exactly compelling..., so the book is more of a detailed technical reference. Those looking for a highly technical overview, interoperability guidance, and overall reference will find the book most rewarding.
So is the book a detailed technical reference, a highly technical overview, or an overall reference? I'm totally confused.
A good review might start with an expanded table of contents, explaining the topics in the book, what level of expertise is required, and which ones were most poignant. If the reviewer has read other books on the subject, perhaps compare them.
(Next: someone will post a review of this comment, producing a meta-review-review)
This is what Windows does with UAC virtualization. An app wants to write a file to C:\Program Files\MyApp\Data and Windows redirects the file elsewhere. (Although Windows does not have fine-grained permissions like Android)
Agreed.
But let us be clear: Cisco didn't mention anything relating to ISPs deploying "fast lanes." They did the opposite, specifically using the term QOS and giving a list of relevant content-types so there should be no confusion.
How did they muddy the waters? Computerworld is the only one who even mentioned network neutrality.
even if they meant what you think they meant
They were quite clear:
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays
They gave a specific list of content types that should be prioritized. They made no mention of source or destination based prioritization. It is clear what they meant.
they are only muddling the net neutrality issue further.
Since they didn't say anything at all about network neutrality, how are they muddying the network neutrality issue? The only mention of network neutrality in the article is by the Computerworld writer. It isn't fair that technical people need to avoid talking about technical solutions to technical problems, just because some author might possibly interpret it to mean something significantly different.
Instead of avoiding the issue, we should be educating the public that these two things are different.
This is a good summary. Notice however, that most of these scenarios require bad administrators. (Even the scenarios involving parents or political groups - since they cannot fire individual teachers.) Why does this happen? In the corporate world, bad administrators are usually removed from their positions. But in schools, it seems that these bad administrators stay in place and the teachers lose out. Why?
This is not a network neutrality violation.
Network neutrality = traffic prioritization based upon source and destination.
Quality of service = traffic prioritization based upon content type.
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays, said Jeff Campbell, Cisco's vice president for government and community relations.
Cisco is talking about prioritizing traffic based on the content type, which is, and has always been, part of the internet. Everyone who has an IP phone probably has a router that supports this because you can't have your roommate's bittorrent connection preventing you from making a quality 911 call.
Stop using this term for things it is not! Every time it happens we lose ground on the network neutrality debate. One of the problems we have with advocating NN is that every time someone talks about QOS there is an article like this that confuses everyone. Reasonable people listen and think that what Cisco is saying makes sense, so they decide that they don't support network neutrality, not realizing that isn't what the discussion is about.
We are not good judges for it, as we are hard-wired to assume intelligence behind communications
Good point. But right now, we are the only available judges.
Turing's assumption that the ability to carry on a reasonable conversation was a proof of intelligence was wrong.
Right now, only intelligent beings can carry on "reasonable conversations." The chatbots being entered into the Turing test are not doing that.
I created a chat bot that emulates a 65-year-old grocery store clerk who speaks perfect English. Here is a sample transcript:
Tester: Hello, and welcome to the Turing test!
Bot: Hey, gimme one sec. I gotta pee really bad. BRB.
.
.
.
Tester: You back yet?
.
.
.
Tester: Hello?
.
.
.
Do they still make games for it?
No.
You asked the right question. It really is the key here.
There's only a couple of Kinect games for the Xbox one, and they all got bad to mediocre reviews. The reason Microsoft included Kinect with all Xbox One's was so that developers could develop for the Kinect and be guaranteed that it is there. Now that it is an optional accessory, there will be fewer Kinect games. Why spend money to develop for an accessory that many of your customers won't have? Spend money to have fewer sales = bad strategy.
Ultimately though, Kinect was already dead when the first few games came out and they sucked. Microsoft pulling it out of the bundle was an admission of Kinect's death, not the first cause. But now it will snowball. I'm very sad since I had great hope for this device.
Microsoft's last ditch strategy was when they started giving away Xbox One's with Kinect to developers. They hoped that somebody out there would develop a killer app for it. But it didn't happen.
Not much of a story here, just PR.
So the difference between a story, and PR, is the volume of parts made per working day? There are many more interesting things to discuss and learn about 3D printing than solely speed.
I'm going to guess that you didn't know what the term "nationalizing" meant. Just to be clear: it means the government declares that it owns a company and all it's assets. The US constitution has an Eminent Domain clause that explicitly forbids the US government from doing this without compensating the owners. This is perhaps one of the strongest boldest lines between a dictatorship and a democracy. The government cannot waltz into a company and say "we now own this company."
Do not try to equate "not stealing a company" with "coddling an industry."
The purpose of 3D printing a gun is so that you do not have to know those things.
Which is why calls were 100 to 1 against telecom immunity in 2008
Really? Do you have a source for that? I was one of those 100 callers, but I felt very alone. I could get geeks riled-up about it, but most people around me seemed to think that the government could do whatever they wanted. Perhaps those people just didn't call. Even if the calls were 100 to 1, I think public sentiment overall was in favor of telecom immunity.
I can buy a what, a what, and then I can what the blank? I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do have a 3D printer! Ooh, I can build a gun? sweeet! *clicks*
(That's why)
https://tsdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/c...