You cite a case where a design actually was forced to be proven through litigation. This comes after the patent was granted. One merely has to prove that the patentable object not just an idea, that it's unique, and that it hasn't been done before within legal constraints, and that it doesn't somehow occur in nature. It must be described in this way as well. Ford won the litigation, and had the patent invalidated subsequently, to my recollection.
Still, the object of a patent application doesn't have to be demonstrated or proven to get a patent grant. Indeed, it can be challenged, but the patent can be granted for things that don't work at all. As an example, you don't need to go into the patent office with your PC and working algorithm to have that algorithm patented.
Lots of inventions that don't work and can never work, have been granted patents. This is a part of the problem. More often than you think might be the case, patent applications are drawn where the object is in progress, and is theoretical-- to beat the competition. The legality of this, or its ability to withstand additional scrutiny (whether through litigation or not) is dubious. But it's done. Lying about prior art happens all the time, as well.
Inventing science fiction things when they truly are fiction is an abuse of the system. But more than one fictional item has been made into reality when challenged. The fact that it didn't quite exist at the time of filing then becomes a point of contention as your research has shown.
Multi-disciplinary MBAs have at least a leg-up on those with a monolithic program. General practitioners don't make good surgeons, and vice-versa.
My experience with many MBAs is that they believe most elements of businesses run strictly on money/compensation. It's a narrow view bereft of satisfaction, quality of life issues, and ancillary perspectives. Still, your generalizations seem apt.
There's hope for a balance. I see more *buntu and Macs used by CS students. In the great scheme of things, MBAs will learn that there are multiple possible models for success in development organizations.
Proprietary software makes money. Don't confuse making money with success, however. Like other methods of making money, proprietary software is transient in nature, just as open software is.
Like any other tort, it's an establishment of injury.
We don't know yet what the injury was. Soon we will, as the docs will have to become public. In the meantime, the wayback machine might give clues. Perhaps some of the data was lifted out of Neilsen copyrighted sources. If so, Neilsen can cry foul. If not, then it's just a glove thrown down. There's no downside to swearing out a DCMA notice, effectively, so Neilsen gets away with it.
Now, it's time to feed the EFF attorneys and get them marching, again. Does anyone else notice how the EFF has become the twin separated at birth from the ACLU? How awful that we need to get civil liberties protected from so many angles.
There's a philosophy of Vincentian charity (Catholic), as well as any number of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other 'quiet' charities where the reward is perhaps in the next life, or a function of karma.
Believing that liberals prefer to use other people's money distracts from the reality that many people are conservative in the 'greedy' sense. Conservative in the social sense has many meanings and while there is some commonality of description in the sense of the term 'social conservative', the concept of "forced 'charity' through punitive taxation" doesn't describe most liberals I know. Instead, bearing responsibility is an action that needs to be done no matter one's political persuasion. Social justice doesn't grow on trees, and neither does money.
Contrasting values.... the virtues are midpoints between extremes-- to quote pieces in the thread above to which you're (I believe) responding.
Therein, as they say, lays the rub. This is where Aristotle polarizes, and connotes that a midpoint has value (virtue), whereas that doesn't work for very many cases at all, and that's my point, and the point long salted by others. It's a simpleton's truism that's not.
On the surface, one could draw that conclusion, but it's out of context. A mid point implies three answers. Go to Pascal, Kane, and others that disassemble the context to a finer degree and add the dimensionality needed.
Consider that the pendulum swing Aristotle talked about represents two ends or opposites of an issue. My arguments say that very few decisions in life are right or wrong. First, there's a consideration for stipulation. Then there's a likely grey scale of possibilities between the two seeming poles represented by the opposite ends of the pendulum swing. Then there are additional vectors whose weights add dimensionality to an answer.
Some are easy, like yes, I'll have cream with my coffee. Others, like should I recycle a can or does it actually all go into the city incinerator anyway? may have answers that are varied and are transitive in nature.
When I say 'contrasting values', I represent them to be that. I have my own fears, as well as my own silent charity(s). I need no reward for them. Instead, I labor for them because it elevates humanity and makes the earth better for my ggggrandchildren, and their descendents. That's what my antecedents did; it helps the species survive many things.
Aristotle was wrong in several regards, this being one of them.
No one said rashness, and no one stated that these are opposites-- another incorrect conclusion. Binary/polar viewpoints are often plainly wrong as the world isn't binary at all.
I see fear being manifested by cowardice in the face of the need to act. Thinking is part and parcel to effective action.
No. Inconspicuous means charity with no thought of reward. Done for the satisfaction of the needs of others. Enabling people is one thing, not realizing that their gifts in life-- including motivation-- sometimes mandates lifting all boats, is an inclusive effort.
Note also that the word 'charity' doesn't mean a big headline in the local business journal regarding a huge named donation. It means really giving, for some, until it hurts-- and for a fewer still, every day.
My observations are that conservatives are exclusive, driven by fear of loss while liberals are driven by inclusiveness and inconspicuous charity. But this entire thread is a crap magnet.
C'mon,/., is that all you got? All of these geeks on Red Bull, off their meds, raging on hormones, and this is all we get? Puhleeze. Do us all the favor and just pull this thread's plug. Now-- before you make the rest of us growl, gnash our teeth, and wail. Mod me incredulous.
No, my figures are completely adjusted. An imperial gallon, used in Canada and UK, is larger. I took liters in Germany, converted to quarts, multiplied by four, adjusted the currency, and rendered a range.
Of course not. Ford's been making vehicles in the EU for decades, even before there was an EU so as to balance currencies and comply with local incentives.
If they made it here-- as well-- then they could get a jump on the domestic competition, which is wheezing badly right now, and for good reason.
In the end, if the vehicle is profitable, those profits ostensibly go to the US shareholders (if Ford isn't in Ch11 by the time they make any $$ on it).
This was one of the worst days in modern stock market trading. You haven't seen anything yet. This makes Enron look like a sparrow fart. Sorry to rant. Exports good. Repeat after me.
"but NOx emissions, especially those from diesels."
We agree that NOx is ugly. Filters? Show me a filter on a Volvo, KW, Peterbuilt, FL, etc. let alone a MB 220D, and so on. The low overall gradient dump is still wickedly low compared to say, a 2000 Pontiac Bonneville with a 3.8L engine (or say, your average gas RV).
That "mistaken belief" comes as the product of a lot of research into particulate emissions.
Still, Ford misses another opportunity to do good, as the emissions of this econobox are said to be decently low-- in the face of amazingly bad gas guzzlers throughout the state.
Remember that fuel in the EU runs between 8-11euros per gallon, adjusted. The car sell will sell well there, and we need to rebalance the trade deficits away from the Chinese for a change.
This is for the investment community on a bad stock market day.
There is no reality here.
This is Sony, who would give you a rootkit to control their DRM. Expect that this works with and only Sony products, sometime when your hair turns grey, if then.
Sure-- it's a great thing. But Google and Yahoo and myriads of other online sites live and die for your IP address, so that they may serve you better-- after running you through great behemoths of analyticals. Anonymizing after such a time serves no one's real privacy interest. Anonymizers have the ability to help you peruse privately, but even those are becoming easier to predict-- making anonymizing increasingly difficult. It's best to start your own botnet if you really want to be anonymous these days and this is just what a few good anonymizers do. Face it folks, Google's not trying at all and is financially compelled not to do so.
You see, a lot of traffic is comprised of protocols that have miserably short answers. The banter back and forth between hosts is often maintenance traffic, and large packets/long packets can't encompass the data. It harkens back to the old days of ack/nak, file I/O requests, and other datagram traffic.
I'm not suggesting that large MTUs might not be more efficient for some apps, but for the biggest part of traffic count by packets, it's fine. Others will just have to gnash their teeth and wail.
GBE is FC at the MAC-- and a 1500 byte MTU is totally suitable. As for larger/jumbo frames in 10GBE(+), there's an increase in overhead admittedly.... but what relevant server doesn't use a TOE card to handle that anyway? Mostly moot, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
You cite a case where a design actually was forced to be proven through litigation. This comes after the patent was granted. One merely has to prove that the patentable object not just an idea, that it's unique, and that it hasn't been done before within legal constraints, and that it doesn't somehow occur in nature. It must be described in this way as well. Ford won the litigation, and had the patent invalidated subsequently, to my recollection.
Still, the object of a patent application doesn't have to be demonstrated or proven to get a patent grant. Indeed, it can be challenged, but the patent can be granted for things that don't work at all. As an example, you don't need to go into the patent office with your PC and working algorithm to have that algorithm patented.
Lots of inventions that don't work and can never work, have been granted patents. This is a part of the problem. More often than you think might be the case, patent applications are drawn where the object is in progress, and is theoretical-- to beat the competition. The legality of this, or its ability to withstand additional scrutiny (whether through litigation or not) is dubious. But it's done. Lying about prior art happens all the time, as well.
Inventing science fiction things when they truly are fiction is an abuse of the system. But more than one fictional item has been made into reality when challenged. The fact that it didn't quite exist at the time of filing then becomes a point of contention as your research has shown.
Uh, no.
If that were the case, then a huge fraction of patents would be invalidated because as we all know, stuff doesn't work.
One doesn't have to show up at the patent office with a working model. Sorry.
But once you do patent something, remember that patents aren't valid in perpetuity-- although there's quite an effort to make them that way.
Multi-disciplinary MBAs have at least a leg-up on those with a monolithic program. General practitioners don't make good surgeons, and vice-versa.
My experience with many MBAs is that they believe most elements of businesses run strictly on money/compensation. It's a narrow view bereft of satisfaction, quality of life issues, and ancillary perspectives. Still, your generalizations seem apt.
There's hope for a balance. I see more *buntu and Macs used by CS students. In the great scheme of things, MBAs will learn that there are multiple possible models for success in development organizations.
Proprietary software makes money. Don't confuse making money with success, however. Like other methods of making money, proprietary software is transient in nature, just as open software is.
Like any other tort, it's an establishment of injury.
We don't know yet what the injury was. Soon we will, as the docs will have to become public. In the meantime, the wayback machine might give clues. Perhaps some of the data was lifted out of Neilsen copyrighted sources. If so, Neilsen can cry foul. If not, then it's just a glove thrown down. There's no downside to swearing out a DCMA notice, effectively, so Neilsen gets away with it.
Now, it's time to feed the EFF attorneys and get them marching, again. Does anyone else notice how the EFF has become the twin separated at birth from the ACLU? How awful that we need to get civil liberties protected from so many angles.
We would disagree.
There's a philosophy of Vincentian charity (Catholic), as well as any number of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other 'quiet' charities where the reward is perhaps in the next life, or a function of karma.
Believing that liberals prefer to use other people's money distracts from the reality that many people are conservative in the 'greedy' sense. Conservative in the social sense has many meanings and while there is some commonality of description in the sense of the term 'social conservative', the concept of "forced 'charity' through punitive taxation" doesn't describe most liberals I know. Instead, bearing responsibility is an action that needs to be done no matter one's political persuasion. Social justice doesn't grow on trees, and neither does money.
Ah.
Contrasting values.... the virtues are midpoints between extremes-- to quote pieces in the thread above to which you're (I believe) responding.
Therein, as they say, lays the rub. This is where Aristotle polarizes, and connotes that a midpoint has value (virtue), whereas that doesn't work for very many cases at all, and that's my point, and the point long salted by others. It's a simpleton's truism that's not.
On the surface, one could draw that conclusion, but it's out of context. A mid point implies three answers. Go to Pascal, Kane, and others that disassemble the context to a finer degree and add the dimensionality needed.
Consider that the pendulum swing Aristotle talked about represents two ends or opposites of an issue. My arguments say that very few decisions in life are right or wrong. First, there's a consideration for stipulation. Then there's a likely grey scale of possibilities between the two seeming poles represented by the opposite ends of the pendulum swing. Then there are additional vectors whose weights add dimensionality to an answer.
Some are easy, like yes, I'll have cream with my coffee. Others, like should I recycle a can or does it actually all go into the city incinerator anyway? may have answers that are varied and are transitive in nature.
When I say 'contrasting values', I represent them to be that. I have my own fears, as well as my own silent charity(s). I need no reward for them. Instead, I labor for them because it elevates humanity and makes the earth better for my ggggrandchildren, and their descendents. That's what my antecedents did; it helps the species survive many things.
Aristotle was wrong in several regards, this being one of them.
No one said rashness, and no one stated that these are opposites-- another incorrect conclusion. Binary/polar viewpoints are often plainly wrong as the world isn't binary at all.
I see fear being manifested by cowardice in the face of the need to act. Thinking is part and parcel to effective action.
No. Inconspicuous means charity with no thought of reward. Done for the satisfaction of the needs of others. Enabling people is one thing, not realizing that their gifts in life-- including motivation-- sometimes mandates lifting all boats, is an inclusive effort.
Notice the word 'inconspicuous'.
Note also that the word 'charity' doesn't mean a big headline in the local business journal regarding a huge named donation. It means really giving, for some, until it hurts-- and for a fewer still, every day.
Call it what you want.
My observations are that conservatives are exclusive, driven by fear of loss while liberals are driven by inclusiveness and inconspicuous charity. But this entire thread is a crap magnet.
Please press the button here: [ ]
Fear and cowardice.
Courage and strength.
Contrasting values.
C'mon, /., is that all you got? All of these geeks on Red Bull, off their meds, raging on hormones, and this is all we get? Puhleeze. Do us all the favor and just pull this thread's plug. Now-- before you make the rest of us growl, gnash our teeth, and wail. Mod me incredulous.
No, my figures are completely adjusted. An imperial gallon, used in Canada and UK, is larger. I took liters in Germany, converted to quarts, multiplied by four, adjusted the currency, and rendered a range.
Circuit breaker went off. Despite that, 500+ points is a huge one-day loss. Don't kid yourself: you haven't seen the worst of it.
Of course not. Ford's been making vehicles in the EU for decades, even before there was an EU so as to balance currencies and comply with local incentives.
If they made it here-- as well-- then they could get a jump on the domestic competition, which is wheezing badly right now, and for good reason.
In the end, if the vehicle is profitable, those profits ostensibly go to the US shareholders (if Ford isn't in Ch11 by the time they make any $$ on it).
This was one of the worst days in modern stock market trading. You haven't seen anything yet. This makes Enron look like a sparrow fart. Sorry to rant. Exports good. Repeat after me.
Perhaps it was
"but NOx emissions, especially those from diesels."
We agree that NOx is ugly. Filters? Show me a filter on a Volvo, KW, Peterbuilt, FL, etc. let alone a MB 220D, and so on. The low overall gradient dump is still wickedly low compared to say, a 2000 Pontiac Bonneville with a 3.8L engine (or say, your average gas RV).
That "mistaken belief" comes as the product of a lot of research into particulate emissions.
Still, Ford misses another opportunity to do good, as the emissions of this econobox are said to be decently low-- in the face of amazingly bad gas guzzlers throughout the state.
Remember that fuel in the EU runs between 8-11euros per gallon, adjusted. The car sell will sell well there, and we need to rebalance the trade deficits away from the Chinese for a change.
This is for the investment community on a bad stock market day.
There is no reality here.
This is Sony, who would give you a rootkit to control their DRM. Expect that this works with and only Sony products, sometime when your hair turns grey, if then.
Sure-- it's a great thing. But Google and Yahoo and myriads of other online sites live and die for your IP address, so that they may serve you better-- after running you through great behemoths of analyticals. Anonymizing after such a time serves no one's real privacy interest. Anonymizers have the ability to help you peruse privately, but even those are becoming easier to predict-- making anonymizing increasingly difficult. It's best to start your own botnet if you really want to be anonymous these days and this is just what a few good anonymizers do. Face it folks, Google's not trying at all and is financially compelled not to do so.
Oh, I want all of those frames.
You see, a lot of traffic is comprised of protocols that have miserably short answers. The banter back and forth between hosts is often maintenance traffic, and large packets/long packets can't encompass the data. It harkens back to the old days of ack/nak, file I/O requests, and other datagram traffic.
I'm not suggesting that large MTUs might not be more efficient for some apps, but for the biggest part of traffic count by packets, it's fine. Others will just have to gnash their teeth and wail.
GBE is FC at the MAC-- and a 1500 byte MTU is totally suitable. As for larger/jumbo frames in 10GBE(+), there's an increase in overhead admittedly.... but what relevant server doesn't use a TOE card to handle that anyway? Mostly moot, IMHO.