And... how exactly is Google dead? I fail to see any resonable cause for such a statement.
They're just dead okay, just like all the other companies that make shitloads of money in China and "comply with local laws". Awesome ninjas will descend on them in their sleep, wail on the guitar for a bit, then flip out and kill them with their laser vision.
And that makes it okay? "Shareholders" and society in general need to grow a conscience and learn there is more to success than money. That there's more to LIFE than money.
What if that money that they made was spent on curing Malaria in Africa, or some similar beneficial endeavour? Wouldn't that lighten this already-grey area slightly? Is openly-labelled censorship better or worse than disease? It's subjective.
My point is that it's easy to say there's more to life than money, but when money has such a significant effect on you and those around you it's rarely that simple.
While I wish that were the case, English is defined by usage. If eejits (surely to soon be in the Oxford dictionary) start using a word, it becomes official. Perception defines reality.
We're also speaking English, not French. So we don't need some committee to tell us which words we can and can't use. Virii makes reasonable sense, sounds cool, and is immediately understood.
You're saying we should all use the poncy variant "virii" for viruses because you prefer it. Are you sure you're not French?
My conclusions have been 1) they do not care 2) they like the negative attention 3) they have not read my posts, nor have they learned how to write a working search engine or use a working one called Google.
I think the most realistic explanation is that they, like most of us, aren't 100% attentive at all times. They're human, they've got other shit to do.
Perhaps what might be handy is something that isn't human, for example a bit of code that checks links and/or keywords for likely duplicates before allowing a story to be sumbitted. Of course, that would take time and hence money. What's this issue worth?
Is anyone even trying anymore? Just because the engine exists doesn't mean anyone will put it to use?
Ion engines are already in use. If these guys have come up with a performance increase then that new development will certainly see use... unless it's prohibitively expensive (unlikely), someone comes up with something better almost immediately (unlikely), or the world ends very soon (also unlikely).
This just goes to further prove that copyright law is not only out of touch with what the public expects, it's out of touch with what music professionals expect.
Friends of mine within the music industry often find it difficult to understand my boycott of major labels. Perhaps policies like this will help them see what a cynical beast the industry appears to be from the outside.
Or maybe this just proves what we have been saying all along, that the reason people steal music is simply because the current methods of music distribution do not satisfy the needs of the consumer.
I think that's what I said, but with less hyperbole.
Then you're in favour biasing the system towards organisations with the huge resources required to monitor everyone else's products and respond immediately. Doesn't sound very fair to me.
They are in two different markets as well.
He designed an electric propulsion system. I've only skim-read the patent, but it doesn't mention boats or ships.
If you invented a new type of cloth and started licencing it to companies making ski-jackets, then later found out that some tent company had been using your fabric for five years without you knowing, wouldn't you be a little pissed off?
So call it a sleeper patent, because the dude was a sleep at the wheel.
Why should we call it a "sleeper patent"? Because he wasn't spending his life stripping down every new model of car (even though he designed it for a boat) to see if it infringed? How is he supposed to know? Tarot cards perhaps?
The patent was in use. Solomon Technologies makes and sells these things for boats. They're not IP hoarders. They're not using submarine patents. They're not patenting questionable things. This suit seems justified.
Yea three years till the patent expires but the Prius has been available for sale for the past 5. Where was this guy 5 years ago?
Living his life perhaps?
A patent grants an invention certain protections for the lifetime of the patent. It doesn't require you to keep constantly aware of exactly what everyone else in the same industry, and other industries, are doing. It'd be completely unreasonable to expect this inventor to review every new product in case of violation.
This is just submarine patenting...
Submarine patenting is when a patent is hidden or unpublished. This patent was published. Therefore it's not a submarine patent.
Dumb idea. Patents represent actual property. That would be like the government telling you that you couldn't resell your car.
That's a very poor metaphor. Does your ownership of your car expire? Can you licence your car to thousands of people across the world? Did you invent your car? The two things are really quite different.
That's a really crappy "solution," as you've just limited patents even more to the large corporations. There's nothing wrong with a little guy inventing something, patenting it, and licensing it for commercialization. Otherwise, you're saying that to invent anything you have to have the necessary capital to build a factory, and that sucks.
I don't think that's what he meant. I took his suggestion to mean that only the original patent filer could hold the patent. That person or organisation could then licence the patent however they wanted.
Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
Absolutely right. Most users wouldn't enable it. Some of them wouldn't enable it because they didn't go looking through options, and some of them wouldn't enable it because it's of no benefit to them.
Automated data collection is rarely for the benefit of users. It's perfectly understandable that people get twitchy about it, especially when companies try to sneak it in without asking. Even Microsoft has started asking explicit permission for some of their data collection.
Companies that want to maintain a good reputation should really ask your permission if they want to use your bandwidth and CPU time for interests other than your own. The fact that they're collecting data about you just raises the stakes.
It has been very hard to find competant staff. Sure, there are a lot of wannabe grads and deadwood who have drifted through a few years experience, but it's slim pickings in general.
I lived in Melbourne for 6 months (2002-2003) and was looking for work in IT. I didn't get a single interview until I removed any mention of my nationality from my CV.
...esp. if those blogs are being used to incite and coordinate violent attacks on the public
I think that overstates the effect "blogs" have on the community, online or otherwise. This is to do with long-standing cultural and economic tensions, not what some spotty teenager wrote on some website.
I suppose Leonardo da Vinci pretty smart, "for the 15th century".
I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that's pretty patronising. People were making ingenious use of wind power long before the 17th century, for example the use of tacking to sail against the prevailing wind. They only reason ideas like this seem simple to us is because we've had exposure to the creativity of previous generations.
I admit the metal industry and the large energy corporations may not be that interested in answering all these questions. The photo of the car on the web site suggests this technology is ready to go. IMHO it has a LONG way to go.
It's funny how people keep saying "IMHO" whilst asserting that their opinion is more correct than someone else's. If opinions were really humble they'd never be asserted over other people's, and would usually not be heard at all.
haraldm, apologies for this being a reply to your post. It's mostly just a convention, and everyone does it. I'm just feeling grumpy and opinionated today.
I tend to speak with such brevity when I assume I'm speaking to one familiar with the scientific method.
For me (a fully trained physicist), a fundamental of scientific method is that you don't start believing things without knowing why you think they're true (or useful).
So we shouldn't automatically trust the hypothesis you put forward until you tell us what evidence supports it.
You should have no trouble telling us what this is based on since you will have learnt about the basis of this model before believing it yourself.
Just because you do not like that mode does not make it invalid.
That wasn't my point at all. I don't "not like" it, and I never said it was invalid. I was saying that the detail view of the classic mode is arranged poorly. Large quantities of the space that could be used to display the clipped text is available unused on the left of the screen. Like or dislike doesn't come into it, this is about effective display of information. There are arguments in favour of large margins, but I don't find them convincing when the purpose of the view is maximum information.
I think that it is a great design.
The parent to my post defined what the "precise point" of the page was and I explained how it failed to meet his definition. I stand by my opinion that this page is lazy design. Whether or not it satisfies your needs doesn't dictate whether or not it's lazy design.
I'll give you an example. If you sort by category, your list items will be grouped and listed according to the name of the category. Some items appear in more than one category, but will appear to be grouped with only one of them (depending on which is listed first in that field). So if you're looking for "Date and Time" settings in the "Clock, Language and Regional" category you would not find it. It'd actually be grouped with the "Appearance" category.
Slashdot Mirror
And... how exactly is Google dead? I fail to see any resonable cause for such a statement.
They're just dead okay, just like all the other companies that make shitloads of money in China and "comply with local laws". Awesome ninjas will descend on them in their sleep, wail on the guitar for a bit, then flip out and kill them with their laser vision.
And that makes it okay? "Shareholders" and society in general need to grow a conscience and learn there is more to success than money. That there's more to LIFE than money.
What if that money that they made was spent on curing Malaria in Africa, or some similar beneficial endeavour? Wouldn't that lighten this already-grey area slightly? Is openly-labelled censorship better or worse than disease? It's subjective.
My point is that it's easy to say there's more to life than money, but when money has such a significant effect on you and those around you it's rarely that simple.
The correct form is definitely: viruses.
While I wish that were the case, English is defined by usage. If eejits (surely to soon be in the Oxford dictionary) start using a word, it becomes official. Perception defines reality.
We're also speaking English, not French. So we don't need some committee to tell us which words we can and can't use. Virii makes reasonable sense, sounds cool, and is immediately understood.
You're saying we should all use the poncy variant "virii" for viruses because you prefer it. Are you sure you're not French?
My conclusions have been 1) they do not care 2) they like the negative attention 3) they have not read my posts, nor have they learned how to write a working search engine or use a working one called Google.
I think the most realistic explanation is that they, like most of us, aren't 100% attentive at all times. They're human, they've got other shit to do.
Perhaps what might be handy is something that isn't human, for example a bit of code that checks links and/or keywords for likely duplicates before allowing a story to be sumbitted. Of course, that would take time and hence money. What's this issue worth?
As Lewis Carroll said in The Hunting of the Snark What i tell you three times is true. so, must be true then.
It's not true.
It's not true.
It's not true.
Is anyone even trying anymore? Just because the engine exists doesn't mean anyone will put it to use?
Ion engines are already in use. If these guys have come up with a performance increase then that new development will certainly see use... unless it's prohibitively expensive (unlikely), someone comes up with something better almost immediately (unlikely), or the world ends very soon (also unlikely).
Warp engines. Impulse power. Hmmm. So, when do we make "first contact" with the Vulcans?
When you reach puberty.
This just goes to further prove that copyright law is not only out of touch with what the public expects, it's out of touch with what music professionals expect.
Friends of mine within the music industry often find it difficult to understand my boycott of major labels. Perhaps policies like this will help them see what a cynical beast the industry appears to be from the outside.
Or maybe this just proves what we have been saying all along, that the reason people steal music is simply because the current methods of music distribution do not satisfy the needs of the consumer.
You don't happen to have a newsletter do you?
I think that's what I said, but with less hyperbole.
Then you're in favour biasing the system towards organisations with the huge resources required to monitor everyone else's products and respond immediately. Doesn't sound very fair to me.
They are in two different markets as well.
He designed an electric propulsion system. I've only skim-read the patent, but it doesn't mention boats or ships.
If you invented a new type of cloth and started licencing it to companies making ski-jackets, then later found out that some tent company had been using your fabric for five years without you knowing, wouldn't you be a little pissed off?
So call it a sleeper patent, because the dude was a sleep at the wheel.
Why should we call it a "sleeper patent"? Because he wasn't spending his life stripping down every new model of car (even though he designed it for a boat) to see if it infringed? How is he supposed to know? Tarot cards perhaps?
The patent was in use. Solomon Technologies makes and sells these things for boats. They're not IP hoarders. They're not using submarine patents. They're not patenting questionable things. This suit seems justified.
Yea three years till the patent expires but the Prius has been available for sale for the past 5. Where was this guy 5 years ago?
Living his life perhaps?
A patent grants an invention certain protections for the lifetime of the patent. It doesn't require you to keep constantly aware of exactly what everyone else in the same industry, and other industries, are doing. It'd be completely unreasonable to expect this inventor to review every new product in case of violation.
This is just submarine patenting...
Submarine patenting is when a patent is hidden or unpublished. This patent was published. Therefore it's not a submarine patent.
Dumb idea. Patents represent actual property. That would be like the government telling you that you couldn't resell your car.
That's a very poor metaphor. Does your ownership of your car expire? Can you licence your car to thousands of people across the world? Did you invent your car? The two things are really quite different.
That's a really crappy "solution," as you've just limited patents even more to the large corporations. There's nothing wrong with a little guy inventing something, patenting it, and licensing it for commercialization. Otherwise, you're saying that to invent anything you have to have the necessary capital to build a factory, and that sucks.
I don't think that's what he meant. I took his suggestion to mean that only the original patent filer could hold the patent. That person or organisation could then licence the patent however they wanted.
Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
Absolutely right. Most users wouldn't enable it. Some of them wouldn't enable it because they didn't go looking through options, and some of them wouldn't enable it because it's of no benefit to them.
Automated data collection is rarely for the benefit of users. It's perfectly understandable that people get twitchy about it, especially when companies try to sneak it in without asking. Even Microsoft has started asking explicit permission for some of their data collection.
Companies that want to maintain a good reputation should really ask your permission if they want to use your bandwidth and CPU time for interests other than your own. The fact that they're collecting data about you just raises the stakes.
Now, unless I misunderstood, it's telling me that if I install said security patch, and it breaks something, I can't hold MS accountable.
You may or may not be able to hold them accountable in court, but third party adjudication is not the only form of accountability.
If Microsoft didn't bother to test their patches carefully they'd risk upsetting their corporate customers, and hence their bottom line.
It has been very hard to find competant staff. Sure, there are a lot of wannabe grads and deadwood who have drifted through a few years experience, but it's slim pickings in general.
I lived in Melbourne for 6 months (2002-2003) and was looking for work in IT. I didn't get a single interview until I removed any mention of my nationality from my CV.
Yes, he's clearly a nutjob. If SETI signals contain anything it'll be adverts for penis enlargement.
I think that overstates the effect "blogs" have on the community, online or otherwise. This is to do with long-standing cultural and economic tensions, not what some spotty teenager wrote on some website.
Pretty brilliant, for the 17th or 18th century.
I suppose Leonardo da Vinci pretty smart, "for the 15th century".
I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that's pretty patronising. People were making ingenious use of wind power long before the 17th century, for example the use of tacking to sail against the prevailing wind. They only reason ideas like this seem simple to us is because we've had exposure to the creativity of previous generations.
why oh why did they not use something descent like *nix/apache with something like postgreSQL, it seems to me like a win win solution.
Probably because they had limited time, skills and resources (i.e. they live in the real world) so they used what tools they had experience with.
I admit the metal industry and the large energy corporations may not be that interested in answering all these questions. The photo of the car on the web site suggests this technology is ready to go. IMHO it has a LONG way to go.
It's funny how people keep saying "IMHO" whilst asserting that their opinion is more correct than someone else's. If opinions were really humble they'd never be asserted over other people's, and would usually not be heard at all.
haraldm, apologies for this being a reply to your post. It's mostly just a convention, and everyone does it. I'm just feeling grumpy and opinionated today.
I tend to speak with such brevity when I assume I'm speaking to one familiar with the scientific method.
For me (a fully trained physicist), a fundamental of scientific method is that you don't start believing things without knowing why you think they're true (or useful).
So we shouldn't automatically trust the hypothesis you put forward until you tell us what evidence supports it.
You should have no trouble telling us what this is based on since you will have learnt about the basis of this model before believing it yourself.
Just because you do not like that mode does not make it invalid.
That wasn't my point at all. I don't "not like" it, and I never said it was invalid. I was saying that the detail view of the classic mode is arranged poorly. Large quantities of the space that could be used to display the clipped text is available unused on the left of the screen. Like or dislike doesn't come into it, this is about effective display of information. There are arguments in favour of large margins, but I don't find them convincing when the purpose of the view is maximum information.
I think that it is a great design.
The parent to my post defined what the "precise point" of the page was and I explained how it failed to meet his definition. I stand by my opinion that this page is lazy design. Whether or not it satisfies your needs doesn't dictate whether or not it's lazy design.
I'll give you an example. If you sort by category, your list items will be grouped and listed according to the name of the category. Some items appear in more than one category, but will appear to be grouped with only one of them (depending on which is listed first in that field). So if you're looking for "Date and Time" settings in the "Clock, Language and Regional" category you would not find it. It'd actually be grouped with the "Appearance" category.