Oh, I agree totally. And I also think that that at $2500 in 2009 dollars (that $3995 Yugo in 1987 dollars would be ~$7200 today, give or take) there is no way in hell they are going to get much better quality than the Yugo. (Wrap your mind around that!)
Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s remember the Yugo, which was touted then as the cheapest car ever: $3990 when they debuted in the U.S. in 1987 (bear in mind that the U.S. has much tougher safety and emissions standards than India).
It was tried here and failed miserably, especially after the general consensus among the consumer rags, especially Consumer Reports, was that you were better of with a used car than a new Yugo.
Seriously. TomTom is a much smaller company than Microsoft. It isn't likely that they would launch a patent strike against Microsoft (unless their CEO happens to be Darl McBride;), a company with a much bigger portfolio and more cash. As a comparison, according to TomTom's 2007 annual report, at that time, they had ~$2 billion in assets world wide. Microsoft has ~$20 billion just in cash.
No, we don't salute them. If you ask me, now matter what Ted T'so says about it complying with the POSIX standard, sorry, but it's a bug if it causes known, popular applications to seriously break, IMHO.
Broken is broken, whether we're talking about Ted T'so or Microsoft.
Ext4, on the other hand, has another mechanism: delayed block allocation. After a file has been closed, up to a minute may elapse before data blocks on the disk are actually allocated. Delayed block allocation allows the filing system to optimise its write processes, but at the price that the metadata of a newly created file will display a size of 0 bytes and occupy no data blocks until the delayed allocation takes place. If the system crashes during this time, the rename() operation may already be committed in the journal, even though the new file still contains no data. The result is that after a crash the file is empty: both the old and the new data have been lost.
And now my question: Why did the Ext4 developers make the same mistakes Reiser and XFS both made (and later corrected) years ago? Before you get to write any filesystem code, you should have to study how other people have done it, including all the change history. Seriously.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of [change] history are doomed to repeat it.
Wouldn't want it here in Canada, where else am I supposed to store my beer and keep it cool?? In the winter lately, its been way too cold outside, freezing my beer!
Well, that's when you recommend that everyone get cyro-cooled overclocked client machines (saves money by increasing productivity!) and then keep your beer in your PC case!
I know you're joking, but I'm confused by the wording of the AC you're replying to. 'Admissable' in this context usually implies 'Admissable as evidence'.
1) I fail to see how making those searches admissable would solve anything. 2) Information sites and searches are already counted as admissable, but not in the way you think: someone recently convicted of murder in Florida got busted by searching for "how to poison someone" or something like that. The wording of the search and results exactly matched the method the killer used in the murder.
It's not quite the same thing. There is no 'obviousness' test in trademarks and trademarks need not even be unique. Take, for example, Morton's salt vs. Morton's The Steakhouse. Two different industries.
Maybe, maybe not. It's not just a known encryption algorithm, it's DRM, so there's a process for getting and exchanging keys and so forth. If that process is fairly unique for this particular ebook reader, they may pass the obviousness test.
The real question is posed in the summary: is this a 'particular machine or apparatus' or is decrypting an e-book a 'transformation' process.
This is very similar Microsoft v. TomTom. Since the courts have yet to apply In Re Bilksi beyond the original case, we'll see how it gets applied. It maybe be a race between this case and Microsoft v. TomTom to see who gets to set further precedent in the application of the In Re Bilski ruling.
Hey, it's not my fault PHB's bought Apple's reality distortion field marketing hype. Based on what I know about the iPhone's development and features, it seems it was always designed to be a consumer machine and any thought of Exchange syncing and corporate network integration of any kind is an afterthought.
What's worse, is that computer science is not relevant for most IT positions. Unless you are programming, but those jobs are the smallest slice of the IT pie.
Agreed. What's more, computer science focuses on math, so even if you are programming, there are worlds of difference between business software programming and scientific programming. Not that programmers don't benefit from comp-sci, but for most coders doing business apps, a few programming classes are all that is needed.
Exchange syncing more than one folder Exchange displaying e-mails with the correct attributes Exchange handling appointments in a sensible way..
Those would be low on the priority list. The iPhone's primary target market is consumers, not corporate users. Features like those are more aimed at corporate users, not home users.
And for having known very intimately the workings of [very large western computer maker (not Dell)], the margins were (it got sold since) in the 1.5% range.
Lessee, western:
not Dell
got sold -- hence not Apple or HP
western....so not Acer...
That leaves (in the very large range that have since been sold): Gateway, Packard Bell or Compaq
This is why I like buying online. Yes, even online stores try to pressure you by automatically selecting stuff you don't need: buy some cheap memory and you'll get some overpriced heat spreaders automatically selected along with with a $10 charge to have them 'burn-in test' the memory, which you know they're not going to do.
But at least you know when they're pulling crap!;)
Optical SVG - the ultimate! Forget pixels. Have cameras sketch accurate SVGs of a scene with the ability to show or print at any resolution.
Good luck with that one. It's a lot harder than it sounds. Try tracing a simple 2-color bitmap in Inkscape sometime and zoom in real close. Now try tracing a full-color, full page photograph in the maximum number of colors possible.
Oh, BTW, hope you got lots of RAM and time to wait....
Exactly. There's always two sides to a story like this. One reason documentation often gets missed is because "make it work and make it work NOW!" and "we forgot to tell you, it also needs to Z in addition to X and Y!" gets nice'd above documentation.
If we all had all the time we needed to do everything, the documentation would get done. But this is the real world and in the real world, IT management is definitely going to put functionality well above documentation on the importance scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I agree totally. And I also think that that at $2500 in 2009 dollars (that $3995 Yugo in 1987 dollars would be ~$7200 today, give or take) there is no way in hell they are going to get much better quality than the Yugo. (Wrap your mind around that!)
Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s remember the Yugo, which was touted then as the cheapest car ever: $3990 when they debuted in the U.S. in 1987 (bear in mind that the U.S. has much tougher safety and emissions standards than India).
It was tried here and failed miserably, especially after the general consensus among the consumer rags, especially Consumer Reports, was that you were better of with a used car than a new Yugo.
MS Virtual Earth has been around since the 1990's.
So has TomTom.
Not likely.
Seriously. TomTom is a much smaller company than Microsoft. It isn't likely that they would launch a patent strike against Microsoft (unless their CEO happens to be Darl McBride ;), a company with a much bigger portfolio and more cash. As a comparison, according to TomTom's 2007 annual report, at that time, they had ~$2 billion in assets world wide. Microsoft has ~$20 billion just in cash.
That would work...
No, we don't salute them. If you ask me, now matter what Ted T'so says about it complying with the POSIX standard, sorry, but it's a bug if it causes known, popular applications to seriously break, IMHO.
Broken is broken, whether we're talking about Ted T'so or Microsoft.
FTFA, this is the problem:
Ext4, on the other hand, has another mechanism: delayed block allocation. After a file has been closed, up to a minute may elapse before data blocks on the disk are actually allocated. Delayed block allocation allows the filing system to optimise its write processes, but at the price that the metadata of a newly created file will display a size of 0 bytes and occupy no data blocks until the delayed allocation takes place. If the system crashes during this time, the rename() operation may already be committed in the journal, even though the new file still contains no data. The result is that after a crash the file is empty: both the old and the new data have been lost.
And now my question: Why did the Ext4 developers make the same mistakes Reiser and XFS both made (and later corrected) years ago? Before you get to write any filesystem code, you should have to study how other people have done it, including all the change history. Seriously.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of [change] history are doomed to repeat it.
Wouldn't want it here in Canada, where else am I supposed to store my beer and keep it cool?? In the winter lately, its been way too cold outside, freezing my beer!
Well, that's when you recommend that everyone get cyro-cooled overclocked client machines (saves money by increasing productivity!) and then keep your beer in your PC case!
The first version I used was prior to 1.0 - 0.96b, ca. 1992, and I was never a kernel developer.
Depending on the climate this could be great. Would be more useful in Nothern Europe or Canada than in the hotter regions of this planet though.
Wouldn't work here in Florida, I can tell you that. The humidity would likely be so bad at certain times of the year, it would short stuff out.
How about Subversion or GIT?
I wonder if you could do massive open collaboration for software? You could probably write an OS kernel, maybe even an entire operating system!
I know you're joking, but I'm confused by the wording of the AC you're replying to. 'Admissable' in this context usually implies 'Admissable as evidence'.
1) I fail to see how making those searches admissable would solve anything.
2) Information sites and searches are already counted as admissable, but not in the way you think: someone recently convicted of murder in Florida got busted by searching for "how to poison someone" or something like that. The wording of the search and results exactly matched the method the killer used in the murder.
Face it, the average juror may not be that sharp and may not realize it until told.
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
It's not quite the same thing. There is no 'obviousness' test in trademarks and trademarks need not even be unique. Take, for example, Morton's salt vs. Morton's The Steakhouse. Two different industries.
Maybe, maybe not. It's not just a known encryption algorithm, it's DRM, so there's a process for getting and exchanging keys and so forth. If that process is fairly unique for this particular ebook reader, they may pass the obviousness test.
The real question is posed in the summary: is this a 'particular machine or apparatus' or is decrypting an e-book a 'transformation' process.
This is very similar Microsoft v. TomTom. Since the courts have yet to apply In Re Bilksi beyond the original case, we'll see how it gets applied. It maybe be a race between this case and Microsoft v. TomTom to see who gets to set further precedent in the application of the In Re Bilski ruling.
Hey, it's not my fault PHB's bought Apple's reality distortion field marketing hype. Based on what I know about the iPhone's development and features, it seems it was always designed to be a consumer machine and any thought of Exchange syncing and corporate network integration of any kind is an afterthought.
The new name of the company.
India Buyers Machines
What's worse, is that computer science is not relevant for most IT positions. Unless you are programming, but those jobs are the smallest slice of the IT pie.
Agreed. What's more, computer science focuses on math, so even if you are programming, there are worlds of difference between business software programming and scientific programming. Not that programmers don't benefit from comp-sci, but for most coders doing business apps, a few programming classes are all that is needed.
Exchange syncing more than one folder ..
Exchange displaying e-mails with the correct attributes
Exchange handling appointments in a sensible way
Those would be low on the priority list. The iPhone's primary target market is consumers, not corporate users. Features like those are more aimed at corporate users, not home users.
He said the margins were 1.5%. That would have been after Amstrad's time.
And for having known very intimately the workings of [very large western computer maker (not Dell)], the margins were (it got sold since) in the 1.5% range.
Lessee, western:
So one of those?
This is why I like buying online. Yes, even online stores try to pressure you by automatically selecting stuff you don't need: buy some cheap memory and you'll get some overpriced heat spreaders automatically selected along with with a $10 charge to have them 'burn-in test' the memory, which you know they're not going to do.
But at least you know when they're pulling crap! ;)
Optical SVG - the ultimate! Forget pixels. Have cameras sketch accurate SVGs of a scene with the ability to show or print at any resolution.
Good luck with that one. It's a lot harder than it sounds. Try tracing a simple 2-color bitmap in Inkscape sometime and zoom in real close. Now try tracing a full-color, full page photograph in the maximum number of colors possible.
Oh, BTW, hope you got lots of RAM and time to wait....
Exactly. There's always two sides to a story like this. One reason documentation often gets missed is because "make it work and make it work NOW!" and "we forgot to tell you, it also needs to Z in addition to X and Y!" gets nice'd above documentation.
If we all had all the time we needed to do everything, the documentation would get done. But this is the real world and in the real world, IT management is definitely going to put functionality well above documentation on the importance scale.