Are you sure about those numbers? I don't have a consumer reports subscription so I can't double check but I think you may have transposed the 2 numbers
No, he's probably about right. I don't have a CR subscription either, however, I can very well tell you from experience that I stay as far away from any level of ethanol I can because even 10% ethanol kills my gas mileage. Granted my new Mazda3 (2005) does better with it than my old Grand Marquis (1994, a gift in 2002). The Marquis mileage would noticeably halve when even 5% ethanol was present. The Mazda3 isn't quite as bad, but still tanks a little.
So, in other words, for every $1 spent on ethanol mixed fuel, I would have spent $0.50 for regular fuel. Yeah - that kinda pissed me off. And the state mandates for it too (VA required it starting sometime in 2006).
In other words, I find his numbers at least conservative based on what I have actually seen. Given new vehicles and such, they are likely good numbers.
Linux users may need to stop being so fussy when putting demands on OEMs for pre-installed Linux PCs
True to some degree or other. There are a number of linux users (though, I think this number is likely shrinking now) that are very vivacious about what distro they will use and so forth. These lively people may or may not buy a system from an OEM, but they are also making it harder for the rest of us who want to.
As others have noted (and I think this is the growing community consensus, or at least all the articles/comments I have read on this issue seems to be pointing that way, and I agree myself) that the real need is that the OEMs provide a way that is cheaper to buy a non-Windows system, even if there is no OS at all, and to ensure that the OS interfaces to the hardware are open and do not require NDAs (or minimally require NDAs that are not restrictive enough to prevent an open source OS device driver) so that the various open source OS's (BSDs, Linux distros, etc.) can support the hardware.
While yes, I would, of course, absolutely love it if an OEM took up my favorite distro (a tie between Gentoo and Slackware for me; Debian/Ubuntu and friends thereafter; but no RPMs for me - can't stand them), I see no reason why I should keep from purchasing from an OEM that built systems that were open enough that I could either (a) run it with a Linux distro provided by them, or more importantly (b) be able to get to work with my favorite distro if I so chose.
And, btw, I am (or rather will shortly be and am therefore starting to look now) in the market for laptops and desktops that are OEM provided that fully support Linux. (My wife wants Windows, and she may get it - but only to support the software she needs for her job.) It would still be nice to be able to buy a set of systems configured near identically that meets my needs and which I can run Linux on. If the OEM does not provide the distro of my choice, so what - I can always switch it over, but at least make it so that the hardware is supported at least to some degree by the Linux community in general, or at least can be supported, so that I can use my own distro either right away or in a short time thereafter (e.g. waiting for a beta or release driver to hit the kernel).
I think more people would be open to being able to at least get supported hardware from an OEM. Which distro is a secondary issue.
Now it doesn't affect you at all unless you choose to try and use DRM'd media. HDCP isn't required when you are playing games or anything. It's no an evil DRM gremlin that tries to fuck you over.
It's not just a matter of buying DRM'd media as the media companies will look to the hardware companies first to make sure their DRM is supported in the available hardware that customers have. By refusing to buy the hardware, you also make it harder for the media companies to distribute their media. Hardware companies do not look at the media and say "this is selling, let's build this"; no, it's the other way around. (Though, they will likely stop if something is not selling; but it starts with the hardware.)
I was not aware that DVI support HDCP too, but I've only got one DVI connection on my home system, and it's hooked up to a VGA converter to a monitor. So no more DVI for now.;-)
It's sad when the vendor no longer listens to the customer...then again, in this day and age most vendors see themselves as customers, not the real customer as the customer.
They do. There's a plugin for reading and writing ODF in Word 2007.
Sorry, but they don't. Microsoft barely even approves of that plug-in, and give recognition to it only to get past the 'Office does not support ODF' argument. The plugin does not even provide the same level of support for ODF that Word Perfect 5.x gets (or use to get). Support means putting it in the "Save As" dialog, not putting up a separate menu entry for "Save As ODF..." - and we all know that Microsoft can do that even with plug-ins as that is how you still get a lot of support for the older documents that are not Microsoft's.
Cable, unlike DSL, is a shared medium. In other words, if some selfish jerk wants to trade torrents 24/7 and max the bandwidth then that can very well impact every other user on that line.
If their advertisement of "unlimited bandwidth" is several hundred of gigs each month then that is effectively "unlimited."
In my opinion, it is completely reasonable to threaten to terminate service to people who are, in effect, diminishing the service of others.
As others have pointed out, there is already ways to deal with this. However, selling a connection speed of X as "unlimited" should mean that you cannot exceed a quota of X * (# of seconds in month) in size. But regardless, they should not be able to limit you any further than the connection speed of X you are purchasing - otherwise they are breaking your agreements. If they do otherwise, then it better be in the paper work you signed - in which case, it is your probably for agreeing to let them do that; but even then it should only be affective until the end of the month. So, assuming a connection speed of 5 megabits per second, and assuming a 31 day month, that should mean that the quota is no less than 13.392 terabits (base 10, or ~1.52 terabytes). If they cut if off before then, then they are not holding their contract.
What is perfectly reasonable for them to do is limit you to your contract and no more. If, however, they let you exceed your contractual speed rating, then that should be their problem as your contract is for the rate and not the total amount of data. They should then only be able to limit you down to your contractual speed rate, which they should be doing any way. If they over provision the lines so that no one can get the rate in their contract, then they should be accountable to the customer for the customer not being able to get their contractual rate. It goes both ways. (And if a lawsuit ensued, then this information should be available through discovery. IANAL)
Note - this only takes into account one-way data flow as most residential contracts are asynchronous as others have pointed out. So that might be a 5 Mbps download, with only a 512Kbps upload (1.3713408 terabits or ~159.645 gigabytes data). Regardless, they should only be able to limit you to your contract.
For reference here's the math (lowercase 'b' is bits, uppercase 'B' is bytes):
5 Mbps = 5,000 Kbps = 5,000,000 bps
31 days * 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour * 60 seconds/minute = 2678400 seconds
5,000,000 bps * 2678400 seconds = 13,392,000,000,000 bits
If you really care about stopping DRM, then DO NOT BUY THESE CARDS! HDCP is DRM at its worst and will not let you show certain content on non-HDCP enable devices. So, if you really do care about DRM and stopping it, and all, then DO NOT BUY THESE CARDS! Show them that we, the customer, do not want DRM.
Some businesses may be running on a 24/7 basis, like WalMart and card driven gas stations, but that is more of an exception. I've found that many businesses operate on a 1000 to 2100 basis, while others seem to function with a 0800 to 1800 schedule. And when it comes to manufacturing, while some firms run 24/7, others run two shifts and some run only one.
Yes, WalMart, Meijer, and quite a number of retailers are going 24/7 too, but my main point here is not so much retailers as businesses. A lot of companies - especially those that are highly IT centric, even if they are not IT companies - work on a 24/7 basis, and it is moving more towards that every day as more companies rely more and more on IT.
People, on the other hand, will work one shift or a subset of those hours. But nonetheless, we are moving more and more in a 24/7 direction. With Cell Phones, Internet Access, Phone Service, TV, Cable, Shopping, Electricity, Water, Sewage, and a lot more we as people are demanding 24/7 support and access. Companies are responding and requiring people to work different hours, resulting in 24/7 provisions.
Even 10 or 15 years ago it was not normal for a lot of people to be up late at night. Yet, today it is quite popular and very normal - especially among certain age groups. (Yes, there have nearly always been some groups of people for which this has been the norm, however, it is growing to be part of society as a whole.)
The rest of us, unfortunately, have to be available during so called peak business hours
And others have to work during those non-peak hours to ensure that support is provided during all 24 hours of the day. While the majority may work during those peak hours (which very depending on what kind of company you work at - e.g. electric peaks in the morning, afternoon, early evening; ISPs and TV centric companies see peaks in the evening).
All-in-all, we are quite a bit a 24-7 society. Life does not (as it use to) stop in the evening. For example, it use to be that TV stations would shut down around midnight, and start up again around 6 AM. Outside of a few stations (namely PBS stations, and even then) that is no longer true, and it's not merely that it saves money to stay up and running versus turning them off (as it does with flight simulators).
DST was designed when the entire economy nearly shutdown every night. People would actually care about how much electricity they used. Today, people still do care about the financial aspect, but they do what is convenient for them and businesses enable it. People go grocery shopping late at night, stay up playing on-line computer games late at night, go to work at various hours of the day, study at all kinds of insane hours, and so much more. We no longer limit ourselves based on the time of day for what activities we do - we just do them.
I do find it interesting that you assume that people are running the heat or the air conditioning almost 24/7
It's not so much people as businesses. Sure, people can do that. However, businesses can't let their computer systems (their servers) that support the organization get out of certain temperature ranges, and will typically be running an A/C system 24/7 to keep the rooms cool enough. At the same time, they will usually keep the offices warm enough (running either A/C or Heaters) to keep employees and (more importantly) customers comfortable - and no, they will not go to the measures you stated. (That's not good business.)
I also find the comment about crops and DST to be a little bit strange. The biggest impact that DST would have would be on the farmers that have day jobs that are not in farming. If they had the flex time you speak about, then DST would not be useful. But I suspect that most of them don't, so having DST might give them more daylight at the end of the non-farm work day.
It's actually kind of funny.. People like sleeping in. Most people's work hours have shifted from "8 to 5" to "9 to 6". If you keep screwing with DST, it'll turn into "10 to 7" in fairly short order.
True, I like a 9 to 6 myself, and know a number of others that do too.
It's like I said to my parents this weekend. The US use to be an 8-to-5 society, with a few companies (in the minority) running 24/7 and at that time DST probably made a bit of sense. However, the US is now a 24/7 society, with a few companies (in the minority) still running 8-to-5 like, and DST no longer makes senses.
Sure, DST made sense in WW-I/II when it came out to support the War effort - it was an 8-to-5 society that needed that extra time to do more mass producing for the war. It even made sense somewhat to keep it after WW-II as it was an 8-to-5 society and that hour could be used to produce more.
DST has never been about energy savings, nor will it ever be. While in the old 8-to-5 societies, it meant that the heat could be turned off (lower) earlier in the evenings; today we don't do anything - we run either the heat or the A/C nearly 24/7 regardless.
I can understand the morale POV (as some have said, going to-and-from work in the light is nice). But there's an alternative - work different hours. Don't commute 2 or 3 hours one way to work. (You'd be amazed at how much extra light in your day that would bring you.)
All-in-all, DST does not do us any good. It needs to be abolished. Crops don't grow on DST, and manufacturing does not work on any kind of 8-to-5 schedule any more either.
So, when you say you had to research which printers worked well and which ones did not that should clue you into a big worry. Actually getting software that is the right mix of features/ease of use for a simple needs user is also a major concern. Selling a product which limits upsell potential for high-profit products is a really bad business decision
I won't argue that do that would be a bad business decision; but, on the other hand, if Dell does have the demand for it (which there seems to be) then they could use it as an opportunity to push more manufactures to support Linux so that there is a larger upsell potential so they can take the market. This may start by first offering just stuff like they do now (e.g. FreeDOS) and then start using the sales numbers of FreeDOS based systems to show manufacturers that there is potential and persuading them to support Linux, thus growing its capabilities, and at the same time working with Linux Distros to make sure that the plug 'n play abilities (e.g. Hotplug) work better with the hardware from the vendor's they are pushing.
E.g. push the hardware vendors to support Linux and the distros to support the hardware vendors, with promises of sales for both if they do so.) They could even move their support for Linux to the distros. Example phone call: User - calls Dell Tech Support Dell - "Press 1 if Windows, 2 if Linux,..." User - Presses #2 Dell - "Press 1 for Red Hat Distro, 2 for Novell Distro,..." User - Presses 1 Dell - Please wait while we connect you to the Red Hat Technical Support line for Dell Customers
(System transfers call) Dell/Red Hat - Hello, Red Hat Technical Support for Dell Customers, How may I help you today?".
Yeah - it can work, and Dell could outsource their support to the distros instead of overseas. Win-Win for both.
This could explain why IIRC Amernian Christian sect believes Noah's Ark lies on top of mount Ararat.
Or it could just be that it is recorded as being on top of Mount Ararat (Also here, for reference within this discussion)? Now as to what mount the text is referring to as Mount Ararat may not be what we presently identify as Mount Ararat; but given how some locations have been the same for thousands of years, it is probably not far from it.
However, even if the ark was found, many would still likely deny it. But finding it is highly unlikely.
Java is absolutely a compiled language - it's compiled into Java bytecode. It does get translated by the runtime engine now, but that's not compilation, that's recompilation
Java is an interpreted language. Yes, SOME virtual machines do a full recompilation to binary - but that is not required by the language - it is a shortcut to gain some performance at the loss of some flexibility, like a CPU with its cache and branch predictions. Since Java (and.Net for that matter) are compiled to byte code, they are still in an intermediary state that requires interpretation to run. Saving of the interpreted data (e.g. compiled byte code) is nothing more than optimization of the interpreter itself and applies only during that immediate run of the code.
Now, there are also java compilers (e.g. gjc) that do compile directly to full binaries. So, I guess it could be argued that java is a bit of both. However, by its nature - by its specification - Java is an interpreted language.
ASP is not a language.
True. ASP itself is not a language but a technology to enable languages to use Microsoft's system for providing dynamic webpages. It must be combined with another language (e.g. C#, VB.Net, VBScript, Jscript, etc.) to function.
To be accurate PHP isn't either. PHP+Zend=What we think of as PHP.
Wrong. PHP is a language, and one that uses an interpreter. Zend has added some additional things (e.g. the Zend Optimizer and Zend Compiler) to (i) add performance, and (ii) help companies hide secret stuff. But PHP does not require either of those to work. It just requires the PHP Interpreter to function - just like Perl and Python.
As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).
C and C++ are NOT interpreted languages. Interpreted languages are languages that make the final steps from a language (Basic, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, ASP) or byte code (Java,.Net CLR) to machine code during run-time. Compiled languages, however, are compiled directly to machine code at compile-time; yes, a compiled language may be interpreted internally to the compiler to another language (e.g. C++->C->Assembly->machine code), but all the compilation is done at compile time. This is a big difference - and is a difference that has existed since the two came into existence.
Microsoft even has C# compiler now which compiles to machine code with no CLR dependencies now
Microsoft has always had this. They turned their C++ compiler (VC, VC++) into a variant of the C# compiler; where the only difference is whether or not the code is compiled as managed code. They no longer truly support C or C++; while their C# language is similar enough for them to pull this off, it truly a different language using a different compiler. This has been around since VC++ 2002 - the initial release of VS where.Net was included.
Yes, we do migrate in and out of interpreted languages, namely as the interpreted languages mature they become too burdensome to remain interpreted and usually get converted to compiled languages (Qbasic->VB), only to have the need for an interpreted language create a new variant. In the case of.Net, Microsoft was told they could not modify Java, so they created.Net instead. Some times this is driven by academics, sometimes it is driven by industry (.Net), sometimes it is driven by hobbyists (PHP).
However, machine code and compiled languages have a longer history than interpreted languages.
Actually, I already did tell the politicians to do that.
But in nice language that they would actually read.
Oh, and the person to contact is David Emerson Contact Page
Even if you are not a Canadian Citizen you can send them info about how bad it has been for the US and others. I am.
It's not even the same as that, because driving more than 20 MPH lower than the posted speed limit is illegal.
That's not quite true. It depends on, for a few things, the state you're in, interstate vs. municiple streets, etc.
For example: I can bring my car to a dead stop, legally, on a city street. If I go to the interstate, I must go at least 40 mph.
Not quite true either...if you are doing more than 15 MPH under the speed limit on nearly any road, then you are pretty much required anywhere (no matter what kind of road) to have your hazards on (at least in the US). Typically, this is 40 MPH on highways (since speed limit is 55), but it varies (50 MPH when speedlimit is 65; 55 MPH when it is 70).
However, if you are going faster than the speed limit (how fast depends on state laws - some states are 1 MPH over (e.g. PA), others give some room for approximation (e.g. NJ, VA, MD)) then they have the right to ticket you. The same is also true if you are not going fast enough and are not using your hazards.
However, typical practice is that the speeds they will ticket you at are (a) not going fast enough with relation to the posted speed limit without having your hazards on, and (b) going significantly faster (15MPH+) over the average speed of traffic.
I will add however that the previous poster is also right that the word used in the original hebrew to describe what is covered is Eretz, which is usually translated as "Land" (for instance "Eretz Yisroel" i.e. "the Land of Israel). The verse COULD be interpreted as referring to the land, literally the ground/earth, I could see the extension to translating that as "the Earth" (capital "E"), however the idea of it being tied to a relatively localized event does not seem in contradiction to the original text.
While I will be the first to admit that there can be multiple translations of the same word (I read the ancient greek, but have not had the hebrew training yet; and there are multiple translations for greek words as well, though in reference to this, I am not going to refer to any greek translation); however, looking at a single word (in the case "eretz") and trying to determine what happened based on that single word is incorrect in any translation context. When translating you have to look at the entire context, not simply a single word.
While the word "eretz" can be translated in those different forms, the broader context of the passage yields criteria for the translation that requires a broader translation. In this case in particularly, the context gains additional information from verses 19 and 20, which put requirements that make it exceed a localized event. (Again - explain to me just how could the "all high mountains" be covered an not the entire earth? This is rather simple logic.)
Now, one could possibly say that the term "high mountains" referred to all those within the "land of Israel", however, the passage would date to a time when the people of Isreal did not know of the land of Israel[1]. But that too would still have problems of its own. Add to it the fact that similar stories are pretty much universal among all cultures, which means the context of the story is not limited to that of the Israeli culture or land holdings.
On the assumption that the flood story is 100% true then the fact of the matter is that there is little knowledge (scientifically or otherwise) about what the Earth was like prior to the flood account[2]. The environment could have been tremendously different[3]. It could have been different enough that it would very easily throw off our modern studies as modern science pretty much assumes that there is a consistent enough environment (e.g. barometric pressure, humidity, etc.) to make its predictions of the past. If for example, there was a larger amount of oxygen in the air at one time with a rapid change of a lower amount over a short time, then the conditions would differ enough to throw off our modern studies. Any how...to get back to my point, we don't know what the land was like (topology, etc.) prior - there could have been thousands of mountains, or few. And an event as disruptive as the flood would have changed the topology and landscapes.
[1] While it is disputed as to when exactly the original texts were written and by whom, the content of the texts itself would have dated to before the Israelites took over the land of Israel.
[2] What little is spoken of with respect to the layout of the Earth in the early parts of Genesis (e.g. 1 to 7) we can only hypothesize that it was likely more of a tropical environment wherever humans lived - something warm and not harsh or changing between extremes (e.g. summer/winter).
[3] One hypothesis is that a canopy of water surrounded the earth; there are other hypotheses too, but no way to truly prove any of them. Of course, this goes right back to the original post of this thread, which was kind of jesting that a lot of the water came from these aquifers whereby (if indeed true) a lot of the rest of the earth would have had a similar water/rock composition - so instead
It is certainly possible that the Noah flood was a localized event, without invalidating the Scriptures (as seen in the original language).
Except that has a different issue with Genesis 7:17-23 - "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (versus 19 & 20 specifically quoted here)
How exactly do you cover "all the high mountains" and not cover the entire earth?
If, in fact, a hill or mountain, etc keeps the water from spilling over onto another area of land, then in fact not all the high mountains have been covered. In other words, everything would have had to be covered in order to qualify, thus the context puts the word "eretz" as translating to the largest, most vast sense of the word, making it a globalized event.
For reference, here's an alternative translation. I am not familiar with how accurate the translation is - but it is an alternative to the 'norm'. Someone who can understand hebrew could verify how literal it is. Since it is from 1898, it seems to have withstood the 'test of time'.
As far as resumes go, who cares, fluff it out. Drop off the the job who'll give you the worst references/referee & extend the other jobs in a month, with a two month 'sabbatical'* in the middle....* When you're asked about your sabbatical in your interview, say you wanted time to learn $.Net_related_thing and had enough saving to take some time off.
While IANAL, the above is NOT good advise. Yes, you can drop a job off your resume; but DO NOT LIE ABOUT WHY and do not extend other jobs to cover up that missing time.
Lieing (sp?) about your resume, credentials, etc. is easy grounds for dismissal at any company, and may even be grounds for criminal charges (fraud anyone?).
What annual limit are you talking about? All income is reportable and taxed regardless of your age and amount. I guess if Ebay was your only source of income and you made a little money, you would not be taxed very much but your income from sales will just add to your overall income you made that year, just like all income from interest is taxed, regardless if you made $10 or $10000 in interest.
Not quite true. In US, there is a cut-off that if you make below a certain amount you do not have to (a) pay tax on it and (b) report it. Now, your employer is required to take the taxes out (regardless), so you might not get money back if you don't report it even if you don't have to. I believe for a single person (unmarried, dependent) it is about $4500USD. My wife (a tax accountant) figured it was probably about $17000USD (if I remember correctly) for a married couple. (There's a number of things to take into account, so that number could be way off. I am not a tax accountant so do not quote me (or her - since it is me saying this) on that.)
You also do not have to report something if it is pretty nominal (like $2 in interest). (Definition of nominal is defined by the IRS tax code.) Now if those 'nominals' add up to something that is not nominal, then you are still required to report it all. (The reason we need tax accountants - the tax codes are just so messy and full of loop-holes and gotchas that its too hard to follow if you don't do it full time.)
The best thing you can do, is report it and make sure you get back what you should and pay what you should.
Second point, it is not at all unusual for the members of the bench to raise questions that would seem to the layman as a personal predisposition. Breyer appears to "play his hand" by asking whether software patents are even viable, but in fact, he may personally quite agree with the concept or at least have no interest in visiting that legal question with his final opinion. You can't really listen to a Supreme Court Justice's probing questions and distinguish what is direct and what is merely socratic. They are shaking the trees to see what unexpected concepts fall out, so as to craft a more finessed ruling that has the least amount of unintended consequences.
True. Per my reading, that is a sense I got from the entire transcript. Again, IANAL (or a ParaLegal) so I could very well be wrong; but I also find it highly likely that that is why they took this case in particular. As I said earlier, if they rule in favor of AT&T, then software patents are essentially upheld at the Supreme Court level and are thus valid. If they rule in favor of Microsoft, sure there is a lot of different rulings they could make, but it still comes down to one of two things: (1) They say software patents are invalid, the issue is moot, case dismissed, or (2) software patents are valid, but here's why we ruled for Microsoft.
No matter what ruling they make, they will end up making a ruling on software patents - it's the heart of the case. If software patents are not valid, then the case is moot and its a waste of their time. So, more likely than not, they are using this case to say something about software patents.
Again, IANAL so take what I say with a grain of salt, but this is what I got of out it.
I find it amazing that if MS wins this one, in the context that Software Patents are invalid, then they will have killed all future lawsuits they could make against competitors. They have been selling patent protection to Linux users through Novell which will also become moot if they win this case in the context of software patents not being valid.
True, but it would also end all other forms of patent litigation they are in with respect to software - ones where they might lose. So it both works for them and against them no matter the outcome. Though, if they got software patents invalidated, they would probably gain a lot of good karma with the F/OSS community (that's not saying that the F/OSS community would buy anything of theirs unless forced, but they would get at least some good karma with them for a change).
For every litigation a company is in, they have to have financial resources set aside for the result. If software patents were invalidated, then pure software companies could pretty much release these financial resources for use; though not all - some one still be needed for Copyright and Trademark litigations & liabilities.
In my opinion, this means they will quickly and quietly settle with AT&T for what ever amount of money they have to pay because they can't afford to win this case on these terms.
This is partly what leads me to believe they either or both Microsoft & AT&T are trying to get software patents decided at the Supreme Court level. That would solve a lot of things for both of them.
Based on all the choice quotes from the justices, it's clear that there could be some serious fodder for dismissal of software patents to be found in the opinions written by the justices. You can almost bet that if this case doesn't decide whether software is patentable, the fallout will ultimately create other situations that bring the question squarely before the Supreme Court. The only hope for the big software companies now is in the fact that the illustrious members of our highest court have traditionally taken great pains to sidestep hot button topics like this by ruling on some less important issue. Nevertheless, you can bet there will be at least one justice who feels the need to write a separate opinion and address the matter of software patents, whether the majority opinion does so or not.
The Supreme Court only takes on a small number of cases a year - most cases are rejected. So they knew what they were getting into, and they likely decided that the issue needed to be decided. (Perhaps this was the best case of all that was submitted before them to decide this issue.) That's not to say that they have already made up their mind - but that they likely decided it is not time to rule on the issue one way or the other. So their "guidance" to Microsoft saying "we have not held software patentable" is like telling them "this is the issue we want to rule on, so focus your arguments around it".
It will be hard for any of them to sidestep the issue of software patents in this ruling as it is directly related. If they rule on anything else, they are essentially saying that software is patentable as that is the core of this case - if software patents are not valid then the case is moot and any other aspect of the case is a waste of their time; if they are, there is something else to rule on. So a decision either way will be made. Let's hope they make the right one.
Having said that, and assuming you meant what you almost said, I think you are wrong. I seriously doubt anyone at Microsoft was stupid enough to turn this into a software patents debate. It was almost assuredly the lawyer. How he screwed up that majorly, I cannot imagine.
I am not familiar with what was made before the oral arguments - though I read the oral arguments last night. Here's the transcript. (Thanks to Groklaw for the link.) As Groklaw points out, the issue is taken up on both sides (AT&T - Waxman; Microsoft - Olson; Assistant to the Solicitor General (Joseffer) - aiding Microsoft). According to Groklaw, page 27, line 17 (Joseffer) says something to the effect that software is not patentable, and so does Waxman (page 29, line 10 and page 38, line 25).
From the actual transcript (P.22, lines 6 to 10):
JUSTICE BREYER:I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?
MR. JOSEFFER: No,...
So, while IANAL and not familiar with things prior to these oral arguments, it is my suspicion that the issue of patentability was raised from the bench. Why wouldn't they raise that issue? If its not patentable, then the case is moot - they issue a ruling saying that software patents are invalid, and thus the case is dismissed; it's a waste of their time to go any farther. If they are patentable, then they rule on the case and back up the lower courts. However, as quoted above, the Supreme Court has not yet held that software patents are actually patentable, and this is highly reflected in the whole transcript where the Supreme Court keeps referring to software as a Blueprint and does not see how it is any different, despite AT&T and Microsoft and the Assistant to the Solicitor General say.
Personally, I think it is highly likely that (a) the Supreme Court will rule that software patents are not valid patents and that software cannot be patented (thus the case is moot), and (b) that it is possible - even likely - that AT&T and Microsoft are pushing this to the Supreme Court to get a verdict - either way - on patents. Of course, they'd be happier if software is patentable, but either way a verdict comes from the highest court of the land which can only be overturned by itself, or a change in the Constitution by Congress or the States.
That's my take on the transcript. Read it yourself and see what you think.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in other words, for every $1 spent on ethanol mixed fuel, I would have spent $0.50 for regular fuel. Yeah - that kinda pissed me off. And the state mandates for it too (VA required it starting sometime in 2006).
In other words, I find his numbers at least conservative based on what I have actually seen. Given new vehicles and such, they are likely good numbers.
As others have noted (and I think this is the growing community consensus, or at least all the articles/comments I have read on this issue seems to be pointing that way, and I agree myself) that the real need is that the OEMs provide a way that is cheaper to buy a non-Windows system, even if there is no OS at all, and to ensure that the OS interfaces to the hardware are open and do not require NDAs (or minimally require NDAs that are not restrictive enough to prevent an open source OS device driver) so that the various open source OS's (BSDs, Linux distros, etc.) can support the hardware.
While yes, I would, of course, absolutely love it if an OEM took up my favorite distro (a tie between Gentoo and Slackware for me; Debian/Ubuntu and friends thereafter; but no RPMs for me - can't stand them), I see no reason why I should keep from purchasing from an OEM that built systems that were open enough that I could either (a) run it with a Linux distro provided by them, or more importantly (b) be able to get to work with my favorite distro if I so chose.
And, btw, I am (or rather will shortly be and am therefore starting to look now) in the market for laptops and desktops that are OEM provided that fully support Linux. (My wife wants Windows, and she may get it - but only to support the software she needs for her job.) It would still be nice to be able to buy a set of systems configured near identically that meets my needs and which I can run Linux on. If the OEM does not provide the distro of my choice, so what - I can always switch it over, but at least make it so that the hardware is supported at least to some degree by the Linux community in general, or at least can be supported, so that I can use my own distro either right away or in a short time thereafter (e.g. waiting for a beta or release driver to hit the kernel).
I think more people would be open to being able to at least get supported hardware from an OEM. Which distro is a secondary issue.
I was not aware that DVI support HDCP too, but I've only got one DVI connection on my home system, and it's hooked up to a VGA converter to a monitor. So no more DVI for now.
It's sad when the vendor no longer listens to the customer...then again, in this day and age most vendors see themselves as customers, not the real customer as the customer.
What is perfectly reasonable for them to do is limit you to your contract and no more. If, however, they let you exceed your contractual speed rating, then that should be their problem as your contract is for the rate and not the total amount of data. They should then only be able to limit you down to your contractual speed rate, which they should be doing any way. If they over provision the lines so that no one can get the rate in their contract, then they should be accountable to the customer for the customer not being able to get their contractual rate. It goes both ways. (And if a lawsuit ensued, then this information should be available through discovery. IANAL)
Note - this only takes into account one-way data flow as most residential contracts are asynchronous as others have pointed out. So that might be a 5 Mbps download, with only a 512Kbps upload (1.3713408 terabits or ~159.645 gigabytes data). Regardless, they should only be able to limit you to your contract.
For reference here's the math (lowercase 'b' is bits, uppercase 'B' is bytes):
5 Mbps = 5,000 Kbps = 5,000,000 bps
31 days * 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour * 60 seconds/minute = 2678400 seconds
5,000,000 bps * 2678400 seconds = 13,392,000,000,000 bits
Divide by 1000 (base 10) for bit:
13,392,000,000,000 bits = 13,392,000,000 Kb = 13,392,000 Mb
13,392,000 Mb = 13,392 Gb = 13.392 Tb
Divide by 8 (8 bits = 1 byte), and then by 1024 for bytes (base 2):
13,392,000,000,000 bits = 1,674,000,000,000 bytes = 1,634,765,625 KB = 1,596,450.8056640625 MB
1,596,450.8056640625 MB = 1,559.03398990631103515625 GB = 1.522494130767881870269775390625 TB
512 Kbps = 512000 bps
512000 * 2678400 seconds = 1371340800000 bits
Divide by 1000 (base 10) for bit:
1371340800000 bits = 1371340800 Kb = 1371340.8 Mb = 1371.3408 Gb = 1.3713408 Tb
Divide by 8 (8 bits = 1 byte), and then by 1024 for bytes (base 2):
1371340800000 bits = 171417600000 bytes = 167400000 KB = 163476.5625 MB = 159.64508056640625 GB
If you really care about stopping DRM, then DO NOT BUY THESE CARDS! HDCP is DRM at its worst and will not let you show certain content on non-HDCP enable devices. So, if you really do care about DRM and stopping it, and all, then DO NOT BUY THESE CARDS! Show them that we, the customer, do not want DRM.
Yes, WalMart, Meijer, and quite a number of retailers are going 24/7 too, but my main point here is not so much retailers as businesses. A lot of companies - especially those that are highly IT centric, even if they are not IT companies - work on a 24/7 basis, and it is moving more towards that every day as more companies rely more and more on IT.
People, on the other hand, will work one shift or a subset of those hours. But nonetheless, we are moving more and more in a 24/7 direction. With Cell Phones, Internet Access, Phone Service, TV, Cable, Shopping, Electricity, Water, Sewage, and a lot more we as people are demanding 24/7 support and access. Companies are responding and requiring people to work different hours, resulting in 24/7 provisions.
Even 10 or 15 years ago it was not normal for a lot of people to be up late at night. Yet, today it is quite popular and very normal - especially among certain age groups. (Yes, there have nearly always been some groups of people for which this has been the norm, however, it is growing to be part of society as a whole.)
And others have to work during those non-peak hours to ensure that support is provided during all 24 hours of the day. While the majority may work during those peak hours (which very depending on what kind of company you work at - e.g. electric peaks in the morning, afternoon, early evening; ISPs and TV centric companies see peaks in the evening).
All-in-all, we are quite a bit a 24-7 society. Life does not (as it use to) stop in the evening. For example, it use to be that TV stations would shut down around midnight, and start up again around 6 AM. Outside of a few stations (namely PBS stations, and even then) that is no longer true, and it's not merely that it saves money to stay up and running versus turning them off (as it does with flight simulators).
DST was designed when the entire economy nearly shutdown every night. People would actually care about how much electricity they used. Today, people still do care about the financial aspect, but they do what is convenient for them and businesses enable it. People go grocery shopping late at night, stay up playing on-line computer games late at night, go to work at various hours of the day, study at all kinds of insane hours, and so much more. We no longer limit ourselves based on the time of day for what activities we do - we just do them.
It's not so much people as businesses. Sure, people can do that. However, businesses can't let their computer systems (their servers) that support the organization get out of certain temperature ranges, and will typically be running an A/C system 24/7 to keep the rooms cool enough. At the same time, they will usually keep the offices warm enough (running either A/C or Heaters) to keep employees and (more importantly) customers comfortable - and no, they will not go to the measures you stated. (That's not good business.)
Some have referenced farmers. Fact is, the
It's like I said to my parents this weekend. The US use to be an 8-to-5 society, with a few companies (in the minority) running 24/7 and at that time DST probably made a bit of sense. However, the US is now a 24/7 society, with a few companies (in the minority) still running 8-to-5 like, and DST no longer makes senses.
Sure, DST made sense in WW-I/II when it came out to support the War effort - it was an 8-to-5 society that needed that extra time to do more mass producing for the war. It even made sense somewhat to keep it after WW-II as it was an 8-to-5 society and that hour could be used to produce more.
DST has never been about energy savings, nor will it ever be. While in the old 8-to-5 societies, it meant that the heat could be turned off (lower) earlier in the evenings; today we don't do anything - we run either the heat or the A/C nearly 24/7 regardless.
I can understand the morale POV (as some have said, going to-and-from work in the light is nice). But there's an alternative - work different hours. Don't commute 2 or 3 hours one way to work. (You'd be amazed at how much extra light in your day that would bring you.)
All-in-all, DST does not do us any good. It needs to be abolished. Crops don't grow on DST, and manufacturing does not work on any kind of 8-to-5 schedule any more either.
E.g. push the hardware vendors to support Linux and the distros to support the hardware vendors, with promises of sales for both if they do so.) They could even move their support for Linux to the distros. Example phone call:
User - calls Dell Tech Support
Dell - "Press 1 if Windows, 2 if Linux,..."
User - Presses #2
Dell - "Press 1 for Red Hat Distro, 2 for Novell Distro,..."
User - Presses 1
Dell - Please wait while we connect you to the Red Hat Technical Support line for Dell Customers
(System transfers call)
Dell/Red Hat - Hello, Red Hat Technical Support for Dell Customers, How may I help you today?".
Yeah - it can work, and Dell could outsource their support to the distros instead of overseas. Win-Win for both.
However, even if the ark was found, many would still likely deny it. But finding it is highly unlikely.
Now, there are also java compilers (e.g. gjc) that do compile directly to full binaries. So, I guess it could be argued that java is a bit of both. However, by its nature - by its specification - Java is an interpreted language.
True. ASP itself is not a language but a technology to enable languages to use Microsoft's system for providing dynamic webpages. It must be combined with another language (e.g. C#, VB.Net, VBScript, Jscript, etc.) to function.
Wrong. PHP is a language, and one that uses an interpreter. Zend has added some additional things (e.g. the Zend Optimizer and Zend Compiler) to (i) add performance, and (ii) help companies hide secret stuff. But PHP does not require either of those to work. It just requires the PHP Interpreter to function - just like Perl and Python.
Microsoft has always had this. They turned their C++ compiler (VC, VC++) into a variant of the C# compiler; where the only difference is whether or not the code is compiled as managed code. They no longer truly support C or C++; while their C# language is similar enough for them to pull this off, it truly a different language using a different compiler. This has been around since VC++ 2002 - the initial release of VS where
Yes, we do migrate in and out of interpreted languages, namely as the interpreted languages mature they become too burdensome to remain interpreted and usually get converted to compiled languages (Qbasic->VB), only to have the need for an interpreted language create a new variant. In the case of
However, machine code and compiled languages have a longer history than interpreted languages.
However, if you are going faster than the speed limit (how fast depends on state laws - some states are 1 MPH over (e.g. PA), others give some room for approximation (e.g. NJ, VA, MD)) then they have the right to ticket you. The same is also true if you are not going fast enough and are not using your hazards.
However, typical practice is that the speeds they will ticket you at are (a) not going fast enough with relation to the posted speed limit without having your hazards on, and (b) going significantly faster (15MPH+) over the average speed of traffic.
As always - usual disclaimer - IANAL or a cop.
While I will be the first to admit that there can be multiple translations of the same word (I read the ancient greek, but have not had the hebrew training yet; and there are multiple translations for greek words as well, though in reference to this, I am not going to refer to any greek translation); however, looking at a single word (in the case "eretz") and trying to determine what happened based on that single word is incorrect in any translation context. When translating you have to look at the entire context, not simply a single word.
While the word "eretz" can be translated in those different forms, the broader context of the passage yields criteria for the translation that requires a broader translation. In this case in particularly, the context gains additional information from verses 19 and 20, which put requirements that make it exceed a localized event. (Again - explain to me just how could the "all high mountains" be covered an not the entire earth? This is rather simple logic.)
Now, one could possibly say that the term "high mountains" referred to all those within the "land of Israel", however, the passage would date to a time when the people of Isreal did not know of the land of Israel[1]. But that too would still have problems of its own. Add to it the fact that similar stories are pretty much universal among all cultures, which means the context of the story is not limited to that of the Israeli culture or land holdings.
On the assumption that the flood story is 100% true then the fact of the matter is that there is little knowledge (scientifically or otherwise) about what the Earth was like prior to the flood account[2]. The environment could have been tremendously different[3]. It could have been different enough that it would very easily throw off our modern studies as modern science pretty much assumes that there is a consistent enough environment (e.g. barometric pressure, humidity, etc.) to make its predictions of the past. If for example, there was a larger amount of oxygen in the air at one time with a rapid change of a lower amount over a short time, then the conditions would differ enough to throw off our modern studies. Any how...to get back to my point, we don't know what the land was like (topology, etc.) prior - there could have been thousands of mountains, or few. And an event as disruptive as the flood would have changed the topology and landscapes.
[1] While it is disputed as to when exactly the original texts were written and by whom, the content of the texts itself would have dated to before the Israelites took over the land of Israel.
[2] What little is spoken of with respect to the layout of the Earth in the early parts of Genesis (e.g. 1 to 7) we can only hypothesize that it was likely more of a tropical environment wherever humans lived - something warm and not harsh or changing between extremes (e.g. summer/winter).
[3] One hypothesis is that a canopy of water surrounded the earth; there are other hypotheses too, but no way to truly prove any of them. Of course, this goes right back to the original post of this thread, which was kind of jesting that a lot of the water came from these aquifers whereby (if indeed true) a lot of the rest of the earth would have had a similar water/rock composition - so instead
How exactly do you cover "all the high mountains" and not cover the entire earth?
If, in fact, a hill or mountain, etc keeps the water from spilling over onto another area of land, then in fact not all the high mountains have been covered. In other words, everything would have had to be covered in order to qualify, thus the context puts the word "eretz" as translating to the largest, most vast sense of the word, making it a globalized event.
For reference, here's an alternative translation. I am not familiar with how accurate the translation is - but it is an alternative to the 'norm'. Someone who can understand hebrew could verify how literal it is. Since it is from 1898, it seems to have withstood the 'test of time'.
Lieing (sp?) about your resume, credentials, etc. is easy grounds for dismissal at any company, and may even be grounds for criminal charges (fraud anyone?).
You also do not have to report something if it is pretty nominal (like $2 in interest). (Definition of nominal is defined by the IRS tax code.) Now if those 'nominals' add up to something that is not nominal, then you are still required to report it all. (The reason we need tax accountants - the tax codes are just so messy and full of loop-holes and gotchas that its too hard to follow if you don't do it full time.)
The best thing you can do, is report it and make sure you get back what you should and pay what you should.
No matter what ruling they make, they will end up making a ruling on software patents - it's the heart of the case. If software patents are not valid, then the case is moot and its a waste of their time. So, more likely than not, they are using this case to say something about software patents.
Again, IANAL so take what I say with a grain of salt, but this is what I got of out it.
For every litigation a company is in, they have to have financial resources set aside for the result. If software patents were invalidated, then pure software companies could pretty much release these financial resources for use; though not all - some one still be needed for Copyright and Trademark litigations & liabilities. This is partly what leads me to believe they either or both Microsoft & AT&T are trying to get software patents decided at the Supreme Court level. That would solve a lot of things for both of them.
It will be hard for any of them to sidestep the issue of software patents in this ruling as it is directly related. If they rule on anything else, they are essentially saying that software is patentable as that is the core of this case - if software patents are not valid then the case is moot and any other aspect of the case is a waste of their time; if they are, there is something else to rule on. So a decision either way will be made. Let's hope they make the right one.
From the actual transcript (P.22, lines 6 to 10):
So, while IANAL and not familiar with things prior to these oral arguments, it is my suspicion that the issue of patentability was raised from the bench. Why wouldn't they raise that issue? If its not patentable, then the case is moot - they issue a ruling saying that software patents are invalid, and thus the case is dismissed; it's a waste of their time to go any farther. If they are patentable, then they rule on the case and back up the lower courts. However, as quoted above, the Supreme Court has not yet held that software patents are actually patentable, and this is highly reflected in the whole transcript where the Supreme Court keeps referring to software as a Blueprint and does not see how it is any different, despite AT&T and Microsoft and the Assistant to the Solicitor General say.
Personally, I think it is highly likely that (a) the Supreme Court will rule that software patents are not valid patents and that software cannot be patented (thus the case is moot), and (b) that it is possible - even likely - that AT&T and Microsoft are pushing this to the Supreme Court to get a verdict - either way - on patents. Of course, they'd be happier if software is patentable, but either way a verdict comes from the highest court of the land which can only be overturned by itself, or a change in the Constitution by Congress or the States.
That's my take on the transcript. Read it yourself and see what you think.