Why are you assuming that you would be using the same resistance for different amps? Instead, you design in larger wires for more amps and better insulation for higher volts.
I'm not sure what construction issues means in this context . . .
It would be unreasonable to lug a computer display around a construction site, rather than just using sets of paper drawings. (And, no, laptops just won't do it for construction workers - their displays not big enough, they are too awkward, and they are not rugged enough.)
I find paper cumbersome, difficult to keep organised and generally useless for more than 10 minutes.
I find electronic documents cumbersome (most of my work uses electronic douments). This is mainly because I work with documents from 8-1/2"x11" to 48"x36" and larger, with multiple documents needing to be opened at once and that's hard with a single 21" monitor. It's also hard because a lot of the large documents are too slow on my computer, especially the tiffs from scans of old paper documents. If I had 2 or three monitors (not going to happen anytime soon) with at least one 36" or so (also not going to happen soon) and a faster computer that could handle it all (that might happen eventually) it would be a lot better. But it's also because it's much easier to spread out multiple documents on a desk, to quickly scan through documents, or to mark up documents when using paper.
Keeping paper documents organized only takes trying. You file electronic documents in particular folders and sub-folders - just do the same with the paper (and I can find the document among the loose papers on my desk, honest)
10 to 15 years ago, it was the electronic files - faxes, e-mails & their attachments,.pdfs or.docs of contracts - that were treated as temporary, to be printed and saved, and the paper documents were the permanent records. Now I find that most of the paper is printed out for temporary use - to be handy for reference while working on an electronic document, to spread out multiple documents at once, or to mark-up for changes, while the final products are the electronic CAD files, spreadsheets, and word processing files; and.pdfs are used for the permanent records.
history shows service industries to be the poor cusions[sic] of people with something to sell.
Citation needed.
In my limited personal experience (working almost 30 years for consulting engineering companies) service industries make more money for far less investment than product-producing companies.
Novell owns the copyrights to Unix. That's $4B right there.
I like Novell, for the most part.
But before evaluating the $ value of their copyrights for Unix, ask yourself (and the BSD guys, for one) just how much of Unix copyrights are held by Novell. (warning: there's no easy answer)
No, you can copyright a specific expression of an idea, if it (the expression, that is, not the idea) is original and creative.
You can patent a specific implementation of an idea, if it is novel, non-obvious, and useful.
The idea itself is neither copyrightable nor patentable
IANAL, YMMV
Do you (or anyone else in this thread) realize just how little energy is in noise, from which this crystal can only extract 18% at best, and that a large percentage of the noise will radiate in directions that don't pass through the crystals, let alone be absorbed by them?
Still, MS could really sock it to us consumers and they don't.
It costs less than 5 dollars to make and ship the next copy, and MS makes about 80% profit on Windows (after subtracting R&D and advertsing, their only significant costs). I'd say that they do really sock it to us consumers.
This may do it:
Options
View
Windows in taskbar
The way to get there may depend on your MS Office version.
It's probably still in the same window, techincally, but you can now switch by clicking on the separate taskbar items, or shortcut thereof.
What I inferred was that the real problem wasn't that they failed - complete failure they would have recovered from. Unfortunately, they did not understand what their state was when only some of them failed, and did not figure out how to recover.
Except that the author wasn't a reporter. Also, igonring the absolute way he presented his points as predictions, he actually pointed out some valid issues.
The internet is not a necessity in the sense that food and shelter are necessities.
But it is a necessity in the sense that automobiles and refrigerators are necessities of modern life.
In the construction industry "Value Engineering" is a well known euphemism for cutting construction costs of the engineered systems, usually performed after the design is complete (or almost complete) and bid, and usually resulting in a return of about 50 cents savings on each dollar actually removed from the cost to the contractor. So, while well established, maybe engineering is not so focused on getting the job done properly, after all.
You start off implying that the GP was talking about the efficiency of the solution, then you seem to contradict that in your last sentence and talk about the efficiency of the process of writing the code. So which is it?
This is why architects try to retain ownership of the drawings they produce, for instance.
Large clients often write contracts specifically calling the work as a work for hire.
Not to mention that even when they don't own the copyrights, the client does own the drawings, and does have the right to use them for the purpose for which they were created, which does involve copying and modifying
Also, no architect's insurance would ever allow them to produce a product (in the US anyway). Products have strict liability attached, so if something causes harm, even if unforeseeable, the product producer is liable, period. Professional services such as architecture and engineering have liability only if the standard of care in developing the design was less than what a reasonable professional in the field would have used.
Actually, I think he is completely off on this. Without a contract, even if it is not considered a work for hire, there is an implied consent for the buyer to use the code as required for its' intended purpose, which probably includes the right to use, run, back-up, copy to different servers and/or clients, and maintain (read: modify and improve or at least bug-fix), the code. Without a contract, of course, both sides may be leaving their destinies to the whims of a judge or jury.
TFA author is wrong in this sense:
He keeps stating that he owns "the code". This is blatantly false. Depending on the law and the contract (there needs to be a contract if he expects to get paid, even if it isn't written down) he may or may not own the copyright; the buyer owns the code that is delivered. Even if the the buyer doesn't own the copyrights, they will own licenses to copy the code as required for its' intended use. Again depending on the law and the contract (and again, there should be a contract even if it's not written down) the buyer may own licenses to copy the code under other circumstances.
Also, TFA doesn't mention the fact that much of the code may have limited copyrights, as you cannot copyright code function and you cannot copyright where there are limited ways to say (or do) something, you can only copyright creative expression.
IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc.
Patents are for implementations. The title is just a description.
I read claim 1, and many of the following claims, but gave up because I could not find anything that could help anyone wanting to implement the idea of inputting and outputting different streams at the same time. IMO, this is a patent of an idea, not of an implementation, and should be invalid.
Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here. The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new
Being innovative does not rise the to level of being patentable. To be patentable, the "innovation" must be inventive. It must be novel, useful, and non-obvious to one skilled in the art. (I use "must" loosely, it doesn't seem the USPTO follows the criteria very well in many cases)
IANAL, YMMV, RTFP.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you assuming that you would be using the same resistance for different amps? Instead, you design in larger wires for more amps and better insulation for higher volts.
Have you ever tried to use an operating system without a built-in html renderer?
Get off my lawn, you little baby.
I'm not sure what construction issues means in this context . . .
It would be unreasonable to lug a computer display around a construction site, rather than just using sets of paper drawings. (And, no, laptops just won't do it for construction workers - their displays not big enough, they are too awkward, and they are not rugged enough.)
I find paper cumbersome, difficult to keep organised and generally useless for more than 10 minutes.
I find electronic documents cumbersome (most of my work uses electronic douments). This is mainly because I work with documents from 8-1/2"x11" to 48"x36" and larger, with multiple documents needing to be opened at once and that's hard with a single 21" monitor. It's also hard because a lot of the large documents are too slow on my computer, especially the tiffs from scans of old paper documents. If I had 2 or three monitors (not going to happen anytime soon) with at least one 36" or so (also not going to happen soon) and a faster computer that could handle it all (that might happen eventually) it would be a lot better. But it's also because it's much easier to spread out multiple documents on a desk, to quickly scan through documents, or to mark up documents when using paper.
Keeping paper documents organized only takes trying. You file electronic documents in particular folders and sub-folders - just do the same with the paper (and I can find the document among the loose papers on my desk, honest)
10 to 15 years ago, it was the electronic files - faxes, e-mails & their attachments, .pdfs or .docs of contracts - that were treated as temporary, to be printed and saved, and the paper documents were the permanent records. Now I find that most of the paper is printed out for temporary use - to be handy for reference while working on an electronic document, to spread out multiple documents at once, or to mark-up for changes, while the final products are the electronic CAD files, spreadsheets, and word processing files; and .pdfs are used for the permanent records.
history shows service industries to be the poor cusions[sic] of people with something to sell.
Citation needed.
In my limited personal experience (working almost 30 years for consulting engineering companies) service industries make more money for far less investment than product-producing companies.
And maybe Yahoo realized that the MS stock offered in the deal would have dropped greatly in price as a result of the deal.
Novell owns the copyrights to Unix. That's $4B right there.
I like Novell, for the most part.
But before evaluating the $ value of their copyrights for Unix, ask yourself (and the BSD guys, for one) just how much of Unix copyrights are held by Novell. (warning: there's no easy answer)
1. Windows in the server room?
2. No-one noticed the UPS with all its error lights on?
Those were my two main thoughts about TFA, exactly.
No, you can copyright a specific expression of an idea, if it (the expression, that is, not the idea) is original and creative.
You can patent a specific implementation of an idea, if it is novel, non-obvious, and useful.
The idea itself is neither copyrightable nor patentable
IANAL, YMMV
Do you (or anyone else in this thread) realize just how little energy is in noise, from which this crystal can only extract 18% at best, and that a large percentage of the noise will radiate in directions that don't pass through the crystals, let alone be absorbed by them?
RTFA, it was related. OP was responding to TFA's characterization of some of the ballot browsers being poor because they were outdated.
If the spec is wrong, it might not be the programmer's fault, but it's still a software fault.
Still, MS could really sock it to us consumers and they don't.
It costs less than 5 dollars to make and ship the next copy, and MS makes about 80% profit on Windows (after subtracting R&D and advertsing, their only significant costs). I'd say that they do really sock it to us consumers.
This may do it: Options View Windows in taskbar The way to get there may depend on your MS Office version. It's probably still in the same window, techincally, but you can now switch by clicking on the separate taskbar items, or shortcut thereof.
What I inferred was that the real problem wasn't that they failed - complete failure they would have recovered from. Unfortunately, they did not understand what their state was when only some of them failed, and did not figure out how to recover.
Except that the author wasn't a reporter.
Also, igonring the absolute way he presented his points as predictions, he actually pointed out some valid issues.
The internet is not a necessity in the sense that food and shelter are necessities.
But it is a necessity in the sense that automobiles and refrigerators are necessities of modern life.
In the construction industry "Value Engineering" is a well known euphemism for cutting construction costs of the engineered systems, usually performed after the design is complete (or almost complete) and bid, and usually resulting in a return of about 50 cents savings on each dollar actually removed from the cost to the contractor. So, while well established, maybe engineering is not so focused on getting the job done properly, after all.
You start off implying that the GP was talking about the efficiency of the solution, then you seem to contradict that in your last sentence and talk about the efficiency of the process of writing the code. So which is it?
This is why architects try to retain ownership of the drawings they produce, for instance.
Large clients often write contracts specifically calling the work as a work for hire.
Not to mention that even when they don't own the copyrights, the client does own the drawings, and does have the right to use them for the purpose for which they were created, which does involve copying and modifying
Also, no architect's insurance would ever allow them to produce a product (in the US anyway). Products have strict liability attached, so if something causes harm, even if unforeseeable, the product producer is liable, period. Professional services such as architecture and engineering have liability only if the standard of care in developing the design was less than what a reasonable professional in the field would have used.
Actually, I think he is completely off on this. Without a contract, even if it is not considered a work for hire, there is an implied consent for the buyer to use the code as required for its' intended purpose, which probably includes the right to use, run, back-up, copy to different servers and/or clients, and maintain (read: modify and improve or at least bug-fix), the code. Without a contract, of course, both sides may be leaving their destinies to the whims of a judge or jury.
TFA author is wrong in this sense:
He keeps stating that he owns "the code". This is blatantly false. Depending on the law and the contract (there needs to be a contract if he expects to get paid, even if it isn't written down) he may or may not own the copyright; the buyer owns the code that is delivered. Even if the the buyer doesn't own the copyrights, they will own licenses to copy the code as required for its' intended use. Again depending on the law and the contract (and again, there should be a contract even if it's not written down) the buyer may own licenses to copy the code under other circumstances.
Also, TFA doesn't mention the fact that much of the code may have limited copyrights, as you cannot copyright code function and you cannot copyright where there are limited ways to say (or do) something, you can only copyright creative expression.
IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc.
Patents are for implementations. The title is just a description.
I read claim 1, and many of the following claims, but gave up because I could not find anything that could help anyone wanting to implement the idea of inputting and outputting different streams at the same time. IMO, this is a patent of an idea, not of an implementation, and should be invalid.
More accurately (but not exact) milk weighs about 8 lbs per gallon (US)
Water weighs about 8.34 lbs. per US gallon, depending on temperature.
Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here. The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new
Being innovative does not rise the to level of being patentable. To be patentable, the "innovation" must be inventive. It must be novel, useful, and non-obvious to one skilled in the art. (I use "must" loosely, it doesn't seem the USPTO follows the criteria very well in many cases)
IANAL, YMMV, RTFP.