.. especially considering that Lemelson is not a corporation.
Corporations are nothing more than representatives of individuals. Behind every "corporate interest" is an individual or collection of individuals who share the same interest.
We need laws against submarine patents and ridiculous IP enforcement but you lose a lot of credibility when you throw the "corporation" bogeyman on there.
Ok, I'll explain it to you again so maybe you will understand:
The article you pointed to claims that Microsoft didn't actually make the huge profits it claimed to. According to the article, a large portion of the salaries of employees was being paid as stock options which were not accounted for. Also according to the article, if these options were actually accounted for it would turn out that MS was actually losing money.
Now, the facts: MS has accounted for options for about the last 2 years now - inspite of reporting that, profits have been huge. MS has built up 50 billion dollars in the bank. If the article was correct, MS would not be able to do so since it would continue to lose money from employees exercising stock.
Now here's the part where you need to think for yourself: A vast majority of the stocks on the stock market are bought and sold by professionals. These are smart people who have dedicated their entire time to researching stocks and stock facts. The price stocks sell at is determined by the buying and selling decisions made by these people. Also, they do this without bias since profit is their only motivation. Yes, the experts have been wrong before but only in the case where a company flat out lied on its statements - as Enron did. An intelligent person would read the article, look at the stock price and realize that something didn't add up. The first thing to analyze would be whether the author knows something investors don't. A simple reading of the article does not share any knowledge that is not public. The obvious conclusion would be that the unbiased experts, when presented with the same facts came to an entirely different conclusion.
Exactly. MENSA is an association of people who are insecure about their own intelligence and therefore seek the validation of others to tell them they are smart and arrogant enough to want to "distinguish themselves" from "the masses".
Learn to think for yourself and you'll be able to see through the sham.
The article hasn't been updated since 1999. MS does report stock option exercises on its income statements now. They did that and guess what? They still look deep in the black. The $50 billion they have in the bank is proof of that. The doomsday scenario that Mr. Parish predicted hasn't panned out - actually that might explain why the article wasn't updated.
It's not bias. It was a hasty reading of data. Companies typically announce the big numbers and you have to dive down into the balance sheet before you get the true numbers. That's the reason why statements are released after close of trading - to allow the market to digest the data that is presented. The Reuters article was probably written before the data was digested.
Because it was a one-time thing where MS allowed employees who had "under-water" stock options to trade them for cash.
So if you were looking at trends you would know this number would not exist in next quarters balance sheet and would conclude that the prospects were positive. This is reflected in the fact that the stock went up 47 cents in Friday's trading.
If you get a company cell phone, does the company have the right control the rules on who may locate you?
Yes, during your "normal" hours of work. If your company requires you to carry a cellphone outside of your normal working hours you should make sure you have a contract that limits what they can do or find another job.
When you are talking about the oppression of half of the population, including your mother, grandmother, aunts and sisters how can you be motivated NOT effect change?
They probably look over at the US, see how the US attacks other countries, kills people in Iraq, etc. (that's their perception - regardless of the facts) and conclude that US geeks are majorly fucked up too.
No, they are not. Society and the culture around you play a huge part in forming the individuals mindset.
In India, for example, it is not considered a social disadvantage to be good at math and not so good at sports. On the other hand, the cool kids in school are the ones who get the better grades. Indian "geeks" are in general a lot better adjusted to the society around them - partly because society is more willing to adjust to them.
Other societies and other cultures create their own unique set of circumstances.
The multiple scans they did on the Spirit are slightly different. The multiple scans are not intended for exposure correction but rather because the CCD on the Spirit is not capable of taking multi-color images. The multiple exposures capture different parts of the spectrum.
It's in the interpolation stage that most consumer cameras turn to junk. The fact that the mars rover takes a picture using an identical array (rather than a very-similar-array) with 3 different filters is what makes the image crisp. It's totally impractical in the consumer arena, however, because people would need to stand exactly still while their camera took 3 pictures.
The other advantage of using the multi-filter technique is that the focal length of a lens depends upon the wavelength of light passing through it. What it means is that no lens is able to focus the entire spectrum perfectly. Of course this is something that affects even film-based cameras and there are ways to make lenses which seem like they don't have this weakness but the multi-filter technique will always yield superior images when the camera and the subject are perfectly still.
The patent application was filed in 1999. Reading through the text of the patent, it describes something completely different: an email-to-fax/telephone/snail mail gateway and not the idea of having blah@foo.bar
My guess is this is someone trying to prove how idiotic the USPTO is.
Before: Paintings were private and decaying. After: Paintings are private but not decaying. The images are gradually and painstakingly being digitized at great cost. The digital images will then be available for a fee.
Maybe Kodak won't, but others will. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply - especially since the infrastructure already exists.
And for the reasons you mention above, the demand will continue to exist. Digital has some ways to go before it can be completely superior to film, if it gets there at all. While film holds advantages over digital, there will continue to be a demand for film cameras and equipment.
1. The flag it raised with your credit card company is not a government security deal. It's your credit card company suspecting that your card was stolen and trying to protect you from fraud.
2. Read the article. Carrying cash does not raise any red flags. Paying for flights with cash does. Regardless, that's what CAPPS I does. The obvious weakness with CAPPS I is that the terrorists know how to beat it because they know what the red flags are.
3. CAPPS II would check passenger lists against lists of known terrorists - this is not something that happens right now because the list of known terrorists are not known to the airlines and the passenger lists are not known to the government.
The only reason Saddam didn't kill as many as Hitler did was ability. Hitler was able to put together one of the strongest armies of his time. Saddam's technological resources were vastly limited by comparison.
You mean like the FUD and fear-mongering that the ACLU and other left-leaning organizations are spreading about the governments security proposals so they can influence the next election?
I actually read the article and I have no problem with the government running passenger lists against an FBI list of known terrorists and felons - which is what CAPPS II is designed to do. We are not talking about suspicious people with weird behavior as CAPPS I does, we're talking about people on pre-existing lists.
Slashdot Mirror
.. especially considering that Lemelson is not a corporation.
Corporations are nothing more than representatives of individuals. Behind every "corporate interest" is an individual or collection of individuals who share the same interest.
We need laws against submarine patents and ridiculous IP enforcement but you lose a lot of credibility when you throw the "corporation" bogeyman on there.
WARNING: Some people might find the following joke offensive. If you are one of those people, you should stop reading now.
Q: What's the difference between a Mercedes Benz and a Yugo?
A: You couldn't catch Princess Di dead in a Yugo.
Ok, I'll explain it to you again so maybe you will understand:
The article you pointed to claims that Microsoft didn't actually make the huge profits it claimed to. According to the article, a large portion of the salaries of employees was being paid as stock options which were not accounted for. Also according to the article, if these options were actually accounted for it would turn out that MS was actually losing money.
Now, the facts: MS has accounted for options for about the last 2 years now - inspite of reporting that, profits have been huge. MS has built up 50 billion dollars in the bank. If the article was correct, MS would not be able to do so since it would continue to lose money from employees exercising stock.
Now here's the part where you need to think for yourself: A vast majority of the stocks on the stock market are bought and sold by professionals. These are smart people who have dedicated their entire time to researching stocks and stock facts. The price stocks sell at is determined by the buying and selling decisions made by these people. Also, they do this without bias since profit is their only motivation. Yes, the experts have been wrong before but only in the case where a company flat out lied on its statements - as Enron did. An intelligent person would read the article, look at the stock price and realize that something didn't add up. The first thing to analyze would be whether the author knows something investors don't. A simple reading of the article does not share any knowledge that is not public. The obvious conclusion would be that the unbiased experts, when presented with the same facts came to an entirely different conclusion.
Exactly. MENSA is an association of people who are insecure about their own intelligence and therefore seek the validation of others to tell them they are smart and arrogant enough to want to "distinguish themselves" from "the masses".
Learn to think for yourself and you'll be able to see through the sham.
The article hasn't been updated since 1999. MS does report stock option exercises on its income statements now. They did that and guess what? They still look deep in the black. The $50 billion they have in the bank is proof of that. The doomsday scenario that Mr. Parish predicted hasn't panned out - actually that might explain why the article wasn't updated.
It's not bias. It was a hasty reading of data. Companies typically announce the big numbers and you have to dive down into the balance sheet before you get the true numbers. That's the reason why statements are released after close of trading - to allow the market to digest the data that is presented. The Reuters article was probably written before the data was digested.
Because it was a one-time thing where MS allowed employees who had "under-water" stock options to trade them for cash.
So if you were looking at trends you would know this number would not exist in next quarters balance sheet and would conclude that the prospects were positive. This is reflected in the fact that the stock went up 47 cents in Friday's trading.
If you get a company cell phone, does the company have the right control the rules on who may locate you?
Yes, during your "normal" hours of work. If your company requires you to carry a cellphone outside of your normal working hours you should make sure you have a contract that limits what they can do or find another job.
When you are talking about the oppression of half of the population, including your mother, grandmother, aunts and sisters how can you be motivated NOT effect change?
They probably look over at the US, see how the US attacks other countries, kills people in Iraq, etc. (that's their perception - regardless of the facts) and conclude that US geeks are majorly fucked up too.
No, they are not. Society and the culture around you play a huge part in forming the individuals mindset.
In India, for example, it is not considered a social disadvantage to be good at math and not so good at sports. On the other hand, the cool kids in school are the ones who get the better grades. Indian "geeks" are in general a lot better adjusted to the society around them - partly because society is more willing to adjust to them.
Other societies and other cultures create their own unique set of circumstances.
Don't confuse the views of the vocal minority for those of the silent majority.
The multiple scans they did on the Spirit are slightly different. The multiple scans are not intended for exposure correction but rather because the CCD on the Spirit is not capable of taking multi-color images. The multiple exposures capture different parts of the spectrum.
It's in the interpolation stage that most consumer cameras turn to junk. The fact that the mars rover takes a picture using an identical array (rather than a very-similar-array) with 3 different filters is what makes the image crisp. It's totally impractical in the consumer arena, however, because people would need to stand exactly still while their camera took 3 pictures.
The other advantage of using the multi-filter technique is that the focal length of a lens depends upon the wavelength of light passing through it. What it means is that no lens is able to focus the entire spectrum perfectly. Of course this is something that affects even film-based cameras and there are ways to make lenses which seem like they don't have this weakness but the multi-filter technique will always yield superior images when the camera and the subject are perfectly still.
Why don't you post a link, so that we are able to verify your assertion?
Uhh.. the story contains a link to the patent.
The patent application was filed in 1999. Reading through the text of the patent, it describes something completely different: an email-to-fax/telephone/snail mail gateway and not the idea of having blah@foo.bar
My guess is this is someone trying to prove how idiotic the USPTO is.
Ok, so it holds 1/20th of the Library of Congress. I still need more information:
- Size: How many football fields big is it?
- Price: How many cups of coffee does it cost?
Before: Paintings were private and decaying.
After: Paintings are private but not decaying. The images are gradually and painstakingly being digitized at great cost. The digital images will then be available for a fee.
The net change is positive.
Oh bulllshit. BillG and Corbis are only in it for the money.
Firstly, that's irrelevant. The point is they are saving the images not destroying them.
Secondly, I highly doubt he is so desperately in need of the extra cash.
Maybe Kodak won't, but others will. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply - especially since the infrastructure already exists.
And for the reasons you mention above, the demand will continue to exist. Digital has some ways to go before it can be completely superior to film, if it gets there at all. While film holds advantages over digital, there will continue to be a demand for film cameras and equipment.
Get your facts straight. Bill Gates and Corbis are the ones saving the images for historical record - not the ones destroying it.
Some points:
1. The flag it raised with your credit card company is not a government security deal. It's your credit card company suspecting that your card was stolen and trying to protect you from fraud.
2. Read the article. Carrying cash does not raise any red flags. Paying for flights with cash does. Regardless, that's what CAPPS I does. The obvious weakness with CAPPS I is that the terrorists know how to beat it because they know what the red flags are.
3. CAPPS II would check passenger lists against lists of known terrorists - this is not something that happens right now because the list of known terrorists are not known to the airlines and the passenger lists are not known to the government.
Congratulations! You have just triggered Godwin's Law. Whatever argument you were trying to make, you've lost.
This discussion will now terminate.
The only reason Saddam didn't kill as many as Hitler did was ability. Hitler was able to put together one of the strongest armies of his time. Saddam's technological resources were vastly limited by comparison.
Score: -1, Conservative
You mean like the FUD and fear-mongering that the ACLU and other left-leaning organizations are spreading about the governments security proposals so they can influence the next election?
I actually read the article and I have no problem with the government running passenger lists against an FBI list of known terrorists and felons - which is what CAPPS II is designed to do. We are not talking about suspicious people with weird behavior as CAPPS I does, we're talking about people on pre-existing lists.
Try Projector Central. Review the list of highly recommended home theater projectors and then search for someone who sells them on google.