Yes, Lotus Word Pro was great. Lotus 123 was everything that its history suggests it should be. Anyone else notice that Microsoft's Haaa-mazin' "Ribbon" is just Lotus' info-box, from the mid 90's, pinned to the top of the screen, where it takes up room the user needs for other things?
A debate is where you have a reasonable number of people on opposing sides. That was more like "Oh yes, we have got to do this" times about 500. Even the "Debate" should make obvoius what the literate world thinks of this idea.
Now, how do we get some legislation proposed that would cut copyright back to reasonable levels, like a flat 14 year monopoly on commercial distribution?
Everyone makes life changing decisions that involve maths - quite advanced math, at that - regularly. For instance, take this type of question:
Deadly disease X has a prevalence of 1 in 10,000. Consuming substance A reduces your risk by 80%. Deadly disease Y has a prevalence of 1 in 500. NOT consuming substance A reduces your risk by 20%. If this is all that is involved, should you or should you not consume substance A?
Many decisions we make involve things like this. If one lacks the ability to reduce the maths, how can one live?
My point precisely. They bought themselves a head start, and if they want to keep it, they need to do it in the R&D department and the high street, not the courts.
Well, as Samsung holds many of the hardware patents to tech that made the iPad possible: Probably. After all, the tablet PC has been a dream for decades before Apple produced one.
Apple burnt millions placing large orders of screens and touch panels to get manufacturers to implement what were fairly cutting edge inventions. The iphone was not really possible before 2007, and Apple used money to make it happen first for them.
* Bring back physical call/disconnect/vibrate/unlock. They don't have to be large but pocket/holder-fumbling a phone while trying to hit "answer" or unlock is a PITA
Doesn't every phone have that? Both Android phones I have used use the volume rockers to silence or drop a call. Generally, press one of them to silence a call, and then the other to drop it.
What similarities? They are different sizes, different shapes, Samsung's lacks the button on the front panel, different thicknesses, shape of the back panel is different, location of the edge buttons are different wherever being different makes sense, and a different choice of external ports.
The only similarities is that they are both tablets, a computer form factor that has been dreamed of for the better part of a century, and who's design is older than Christ.
The iphone seems to have been announced in January 2007, and released in June. That phone was announced in February 2007, and released in December. It could be argued that that phone was rushed to market to compete with the iphone. It is more likely a result of the "flat rectangle, thin as possible, as small as possible bezel with rounded corners because sharp corners would be just plain DUMB" design for a phone being obvious, and 2007 is when technology finally made the design possible. Apple was first because they burnt millions to make it happen.
The point is, not that software can be reduced to maths, but that no reduction is necessary. A software program is maths. Already. A programming language is simply a language for writing down maths. It just happens to be one which computers can understand too. These are simple statements of fact. Like global warming, they are facts that corporations just want to ignore.
They continue circulating until they are scrapped when they become damaged or excessively worn.Which will probably take over a hundred years. (Which adds inflation to the reasons for destruction) This is well established practice. King george pennies were circulating normally when australia went decimal in '66. Interestingly, most australian wallets contain at least one coin dated 1966.
The interesting thing is that, if they are mylar (or 'foil') balloons, you could do just that. It is the latex, and most plastics like polythene, that leak helium.
All the copies of shakespeare existing were heavily messed with by early theater owners. Scene order was messed with until scenes didn't make sense - characters saying things that the learn about in a later scene, scenes added to use a theatre's special effects -all sorts of changes, leading to arguments in scholarly circles to this day.
During the startup, the train uses as much power as 1,300 houses. (Does anyone else think that "houses" is a silly unit of power?) So, the energy required to accelerate a train (it takes 30 seconds) could power 1,300 houses for 30 seconds.
two points: Overhead systems like you see normally use much higher voltages than 600V, for the reasons that you quote. Third-rail systems can deal with much higher currents. Secondly, A system that can deliver that current could only absorb it if it has somewhere else to send it - another accelerating train. Another poster suggested that, most of the time, the energy in the braking currents are, at least partially, lost in the resistances of the third rail, carrying it miles until it finds an accelerating train to use it. Absorbing it in a local storage flywheel and pumping it back a few minutes latter makes good sense.
... At least, not compared to petrol. The major point is that, should the tank rupture, the light hydrogen safely escapes upwards. Even explosions tend to safely float up.
Now all we need is for that to be an automatic response. Then, the only way back in would be to fix the procedural issues, get properly audited, then generate a new root cert and reissue everyone fresh certs. The huge cost of this might get them taking security seriously. And even saying "no"to governments.
Surely, if any a fraudulent certificate evert shows up, then the public keys for the issuing CA should be instantly removed? Even if they are Verisign themselves, if a fraudulent certificate exists, then trust is lost, and they cannot remain.
I strongly doubt that Sun would have given google the kind of open, transferable license that Google needed. Sun always tried to keep strict control over what you could do with"Java". Any license they could get would have left google with constant headache. When the only thing they would have got for such a license would have been the name Java, why would they?
Yes, their (cups... work). They, as in their employees Michael Sweet and others, are working on CUPS. And in this ridiculous world, holding a junk patent that covers you work is a good idea: You can then tell the troll who gets a junk patent on it tomorrow "Hey, our patent applied for {{yesterday}} is word for word like your's, so shut up before we sue you out of existence." One would think that "There is an identical patent in our database" would prevent a second patent from being issued, but this is the real world we are in.
The copyright doesn't expire after 20 years, so you cannot copy the code. You can re-write it, though. As long as you have never seen the original. Note that nothing makes you safe from patent troll attacks, but using 20-year old code is as close as you will ever get. Mind you, someone will probably claim that combining two obvious techniques covered in Knuth, written in expired patents, in the same software, is covered by their patent issued last year. Even if you just copied an example from K&R.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Lotus Word Pro was great. Lotus 123 was everything that its history suggests it should be. Anyone else notice that Microsoft's Haaa-mazin' "Ribbon" is just Lotus' info-box, from the mid 90's, pinned to the top of the screen, where it takes up room the user needs for other things?
A debate is where you have a reasonable number of people on opposing sides. That was more like "Oh yes, we have got to do this" times about 500. Even the "Debate" should make obvoius what the literate world thinks of this idea.
Now, how do we get some legislation proposed that would cut copyright back to reasonable levels, like a flat 14 year monopoly on commercial distribution?
I stated clearly that we are to assume that there are no other factors involved.
20% of a 1 in 500 risk is bordering on the area where "But it tastes good" is a perfectly reasonable response.
Everyone makes life changing decisions that involve maths - quite advanced math, at that - regularly. For instance, take this type of question:
Deadly disease X has a prevalence of 1 in 10,000. Consuming substance A reduces your risk by 80%. Deadly disease Y has a prevalence of 1 in 500. NOT consuming substance A reduces your risk by 20%. If this is all that is involved, should you or should you not consume substance A?
Many decisions we make involve things like this. If one lacks the ability to reduce the maths, how can one live?
My point precisely. They bought themselves a head start, and if they want to keep it, they need to do it in the R&D department and the high street, not the courts.
Well, as Samsung holds many of the hardware patents to tech that made the iPad possible: Probably. After all, the tablet PC has been a dream for decades before Apple produced one.
Apple burnt millions placing large orders of screens and touch panels to get manufacturers to implement what were fairly cutting edge inventions. The iphone was not really possible before 2007, and Apple used money to make it happen first for them.
* Bring back physical call/disconnect/vibrate/unlock. They don't have to be large but pocket/holder-fumbling a phone while trying to hit "answer" or unlock is a PITA
Doesn't every phone have that? Both Android phones I have used use the volume rockers to silence or drop a call. Generally, press one of them to silence a call, and then the other to drop it.
What similarities? They are different sizes, different shapes, Samsung's lacks the button on the front panel, different thicknesses, shape of the back panel is different, location of the edge buttons are different wherever being different makes sense, and a different choice of external ports.
The only similarities is that they are both tablets, a computer form factor that has been dreamed of for the better part of a century, and who's design is older than Christ.
The iphone seems to have been announced in January 2007, and released in June. That phone was announced in February 2007, and released in December. It could be argued that that phone was rushed to market to compete with the iphone. It is more likely a result of the "flat rectangle, thin as possible, as small as possible bezel with rounded corners because sharp corners would be just plain DUMB" design for a phone being obvious, and 2007 is when technology finally made the design possible.
Apple was first because they burnt millions to make it happen.
Don't forget all those people trying to find out how to change the search engine back to google. That's about all I've used bing for.
The point is, not that software can be reduced to maths, but that no reduction is necessary. A software program is maths. Already. A programming language is simply a language for writing down maths. It just happens to be one which computers can understand too.
These are simple statements of fact. Like global warming, they are facts that corporations just want to ignore.
They continue circulating until they are scrapped when they become damaged or excessively worn.Which will probably take over a hundred years. (Which adds inflation to the reasons for destruction)
This is well established practice. King george pennies were circulating normally when australia went decimal in '66. Interestingly, most australian wallets contain at least one coin dated 1966.
The interesting thing is that, if they are mylar (or 'foil') balloons, you could do just that. It is the latex, and most plastics like polythene, that leak helium.
If the top one percent paid 34.33...%, the bottom 80% could probably take home 100%.
All the copies of shakespeare existing were heavily messed with by early theater owners. Scene order was messed with until scenes didn't make sense - characters saying things that the learn about in a later scene, scenes added to use a theatre's special effects -all sorts of changes, leading to arguments in scholarly circles to this day.
Since when was wine used to run linux binaries on BSD?
Still, your point stands. Linux binary compatibility is no more emulation than wine is.
During the startup, the train uses as much power as 1,300 houses. (Does anyone else think that "houses" is a silly unit of power?)
So, the energy required to accelerate a train (it takes 30 seconds) could power 1,300 houses for 30 seconds.
two points: Overhead systems like you see normally use much higher voltages than 600V, for the reasons that you quote. Third-rail systems can deal with much higher currents.
Secondly, A system that can deliver that current could only absorb it if it has somewhere else to send it - another accelerating train. Another poster suggested that, most of the time, the energy in the braking currents are, at least partially, lost in the resistances of the third rail, carrying it miles until it finds an accelerating train to use it. Absorbing it in a local storage flywheel and pumping it back a few minutes latter makes good sense.
... At least, not compared to petrol. The major point is that, should the tank rupture, the light hydrogen safely escapes upwards. Even explosions tend to safely float up.
Now all we need is for that to be an automatic response.
Then, the only way back in would be to fix the procedural issues, get properly audited, then generate a new root cert and reissue everyone fresh certs.
The huge cost of this might get them taking security seriously. And even saying "no"to governments.
Surely, if any a fraudulent certificate evert shows up, then the public keys for the issuing CA should be instantly removed? Even if they are Verisign themselves, if a fraudulent certificate exists, then trust is lost, and they cannot remain.
I strongly doubt that Sun would have given google the kind of open, transferable license that Google needed. Sun always tried to keep strict control over what you could do with"Java". Any license they could get would have left google with constant headache.
When the only thing they would have got for such a license would have been the name Java, why would they?
Yes, their (cups ... work). They, as in their employees Michael Sweet and others, are working on CUPS. And in this ridiculous world, holding a junk patent that covers you work is a good idea: You can then tell the troll who gets a junk patent on it tomorrow "Hey, our patent applied for {{yesterday}} is word for word like your's, so shut up before we sue you out of existence."
One would think that "There is an identical patent in our database" would prevent a second patent from being issued, but this is the real world we are in.
The copyright doesn't expire after 20 years, so you cannot copy the code. You can re-write it, though. As long as you have never seen the original.
Note that nothing makes you safe from patent troll attacks, but using 20-year old code is as close as you will ever get. Mind you, someone will probably claim that combining two obvious techniques covered in Knuth, written in expired patents, in the same software, is covered by their patent issued last year. Even if you just copied an example from K&R.