"Why should mousetrap makers enjoy protection that software crafters do not?"
Because to patent a mousetrap I have to do it in a new way, disclose that way, it has to be novel and non-obvious. With a software patent, all I apparently have to do is take the well-known way of doing something and add one of the phrases "with a computer" or "on the internet" and I get a patent. Any software that I write is incidental, since it isn't disclosed in the patent.
All of the features that you list seem to be about limiting the options of the programmers rather than extending the capabilities of the base language.
Any time that I hear that something is going to "force me to do it the right way" I know that the first project I try to use it on will need to do something the wrong way. If a tool provides a great way of doing something then it shouldn't need to force me to use it, I would use it that way naturally.
And does it also have telepathy to capture the data in memory when power goes down? You won't lose a journaling filesystem, but you can lose the data in any file open for write or update.
"I don't live in the US. I live in Europe. From our point of view, you have two parties that are so similar we can't even really tell the difference."
In a two-party race, you do best by moving to the center. You get all of the extreme votes on your "side" and take as much of the moderate vote as possible that way. In systems that have more than two parties, the strategies have to be more complex. You can build coalitions or take extreme positions on specific topics to capture the single-issue voters. However, it is no more honest than US politics.
The legislature can try to eliminate judicial oversight, but its still up to the courts what evidence they will accept. If they decide it was obtained in an unconstitutional manner, they can throw it out.
I wonder who has the rights to all of the code from Thinking Machines? We are almost to the point where you can have a Connection Machine on your desktop. They did a lot of work on automatically converting code to parallel in the compiler and were quite successful at what they did. Trying to do it manually is the wrong approach. A great deal of CPU time on a modern desktop system is spent on graphics operations, for example. That is all easily parallelized.
Most browsers do this correctly as long as the html code includes width and height parameters in the img tag or css. Otherwise it can't know how big the image is until it downloads it. So blame the poorly written web pages, not the browser.
"They're fine with denying people rights because of race/gender/sexual preference."
The people chose Barack, Hillary, and Barney Frank.
They're fine with their own rights being stripped away because of some vague promise that it'll help fight "terrism".
If people were "fine" with it, why would the admin. be trying to keep their violations of NSLs secret? And be trying to grant retroactive immunity to the Telecoms?
"They're fine with destroying the earth as long as they can save $0.20 a gallon on gas for the next year."
Not sure what this one is about. I don't hear people in favor of Anwr drilling, for example.
There are not too many things that I would not be willing to put up for the vote of an informed populace, with the key being that they have correct information.
Oh. So they are just a tool? They get paid the same whether they win or not? They have no stake in the outcome? Or are they by chance acting "on behalf of their client" because they hope to make millions themselves?
The paring knife doesn't care whether I cut prime rib or old shoe leather. Even if it cuts my finger I don't get mad at it. But when a class action suit gets filed "on my behalf" for a drop in shareholder value, for example, I get mad at the law firm as well as the greedy bastards that were coaxed into filing the suit.
What article? Business wire is a press release service. The "article" authors are listed at the bottom: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, the lawyers who are suing google.
Slashdot Mirror
TSS/360 had a similar uptime to Windows, so that would definitely be prior art.
"Why should mousetrap makers enjoy protection that software crafters do not?"
Because to patent a mousetrap I have to do it in a new way, disclose that way, it has to be novel and non-obvious. With a software patent, all I apparently have to do is take the well-known way of doing something and add one of the phrases "with a computer" or "on the internet" and I get a patent. Any software that I write is incidental, since it isn't disclosed in the patent.
They were doing that, too.
All of the features that you list seem to be about limiting the options of the programmers rather than extending the capabilities of the base language.
Any time that I hear that something is going to "force me to do it the right way" I know that the first project I try to use it on will need to do something the wrong way. If a tool provides a great way of doing something then it shouldn't need to force me to use it, I would use it that way naturally.
"the RAID controller has battery backed up RAM"
And does it also have telepathy to capture the data in memory when power goes down? You won't lose a journaling filesystem, but you can lose the data in any file open for write or update.
"3.2. (Ecrypted) file systems"
Please tell me more about these ecrypted file systems. Do they also do gurnalling?
Mostly the health insurance costs. You see, they all work with bare feet.
"I don't live in the US. I live in Europe. From our point of view, you have two parties that are so similar we can't even really tell the difference."
In a two-party race, you do best by moving to the center. You get all of the extreme votes on your "side" and take as much of the moderate vote as possible that way. In systems that have more than two parties, the strategies have to be more complex. You can build coalitions or take extreme positions on specific topics to capture the single-issue voters. However, it is no more honest than US politics.
"most of the people up north can barely tie their shoelaces, let alone work satellite equipment."
I wonder why the OP would be looking for a new provider? This is the attitude I get when I call tech support at my ISP.
My design is much safer since no fuel is carried on board. It requires a long-barelled cannon packed with guncotton.
What, they got a new lead for the sequel?
I wonder if Zelma Blare is playing Liz.
"Never mistake Completion for Success" -- me
Only if you tune it for proper vituperation.
Given that its capitalized in the article, I would guess that the author made a misteak.
When I saw the title I was picturing a long spar extending from the side of a ship used for laying cable.
The legislature can try to eliminate judicial oversight, but its still up to the courts what evidence they will accept. If they decide it was obtained in an unconstitutional manner, they can throw it out.
The article uses "comprised of". How can you expect grammatical responses?
You get the knife, I get the épée I fenced with in college. I'll be glad to take you on.
I wonder who has the rights to all of the code from Thinking Machines? We are almost to the point where you can have a Connection Machine on your desktop. They did a lot of work on automatically converting code to parallel in the compiler and were quite successful at what they did. Trying to do it manually is the wrong approach. A great deal of CPU time on a modern desktop system is spent on graphics operations, for example. That is all easily parallelized.
Where is the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag on this article? Was it optimized away by the new AI slashcode?
Most browsers do this correctly as long as the html code includes width and height parameters in the img tag or css. Otherwise it can't know how big the image is until it downloads it. So blame the poorly written web pages, not the browser.
An algorithm for introducing random actions into any situation.
"I foresee him conveniently missing the vote on this one"
Good call - Vote Smart says his record on FISA, Guantanamo and Real ID is to be "out of the loop".
"They're fine with denying people rights because of race/gender/sexual preference."
The people chose Barack, Hillary, and Barney Frank.
They're fine with their own rights being stripped away because of some vague promise that it'll help fight "terrism".
If people were "fine" with it, why would the admin. be trying to keep their violations of NSLs secret? And be trying to grant retroactive immunity to the Telecoms?
"They're fine with destroying the earth as long as they can save $0.20 a gallon on gas for the next year."
Not sure what this one is about. I don't hear people in favor of Anwr drilling, for example.
There are not too many things that I would not be willing to put up for the vote of an informed populace, with the key being that they have correct information.
Oh. So they are just a tool? They get paid the same whether they win or not? They have no stake in the outcome? Or are they by chance acting "on behalf of their client" because they hope to make millions themselves?
The paring knife doesn't care whether I cut prime rib or old shoe leather. Even if it cuts my finger I don't get mad at it. But when a class action suit gets filed "on my behalf" for a drop in shareholder value, for example, I get mad at the law firm as well as the greedy bastards that were coaxed into filing the suit.
What article? Business wire is a press release service. The "article" authors are listed at the bottom: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, the lawyers who are suing google.