You should suppose that, because it did occur to me, and I had to read the statement several times to be clear about who was saying what. The statement is slightly ambiguous, but the context in which it appears strongly implies that the licensing solution they're seeking is either a cross-licensing solution or the simple licensing of TomTom's patents. From the context, I think any other interpretation is much less likely, though poor reporting or a lack of clarity on Microsoft's part does make it possible.
Also, from the article, Microsoft "remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year." So Microsoft has known about this patent violation for a year, and rather than stopping the violation while seeking a license, they continued to infringe. It would be hard to find a clearer case of willful infringement.
Re:Were nerds here... use the f'ing metric system
on
The 100 Degree Data Center
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is 20 Celsius twice as hot as 10 Celsius? No. Twenty Kelvin, though, is twice as hot as ten.
This is just flat out false. The scale was purposefully defined so that a 1 degree change in Kelvin is the same magnitude as 1 degree change in Celcius. That is why there is still a 100 degree difference between the freezing point of water (273K) and it's boiling point (373K). All in all, this is some mega fail.
A mass at 20K has twice as much thermal energy as 10K. A mass at 20C has about 3.5% more thermal energy as 10C. Therefore, 20K is twice as hot as 10K, 20C is not twice as hot as 10C, if you define 'hot' as the thermal energy embodied in the mass.
"I'm guessing you recently watched the Maine episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern."
If he lived anywhere in New England for 20 years then his statement is pretty much common knowledge, though "apprentice" could also be replaced with "servant" or "prisoner". Lobster was so plentiful in Revolutionary times that they became considered the food for the masses, and thus no longer a delicacy. Now that we've harvested them to scarcity, they're a delicacy again.
Episodes 1 & 2, as shown on fox you mean? Episode 1 was a last-minute rewrite of a new pilot when Fox decided not to air the actual pilot that introduced the series. And because Fox aired the episodes out of order, and Joss Whedon really writes shows that have a running plotline, the show was very difficult to get into, so you were left trying to watch each episode as stand-alone, so some things just never made sense. If you could even figure out when the next episode would air.
I buy used games because they charge too much for new games, and almost every new game is a crappy (albeit shinier) copy of a game that came out 10 years ago.
Plus that game that it's a remake of that came out even 5 years ago required the latest and greatest hardware. My latest modest PC makes those old games shine like new again.
The "operator" is the casino, or bank. They trust themselves, if they make a mistake they're the ones that lose money. The "operator" of the ballot box is a member of the government who may have an axe to grind.
Actually, I think OP was thinking of Powerline Networking. If this were powerline networking enabled, then you could plug it into any of your home wiring and jack in a webcam and not have to run ethernet. If you added on a software controllable plug to the other side of this, so you could plug a light into this and then plug this into the wall, you could control all sorts of devices with home automation. Most homes don't have ethernet jacks next to every plug outlet in the wall, and running them could get annoying.
As far as needing two, you'd need one of these and at least one bridge capable of enabling your power lines to handle data. Technically two, I think, as you'd need one for each side of your breaker box.
I don't understand where logging the DHCP data connecting the IP address to the MAC address for a particular timeframe even gets you anything in a home environment. If the home user's wifi is assigning the IP address then its almost certainly an IP masquerading system. So I record that 00:21:91:21:12:19 got assigned 192.168.1.121 on my LAN. So what? Its not like that IP address, or even that MAC address ever gets shown to anyone. Unless I misunderstand, the router passes on the request as if it came from itself, and knows where to pass the conversation back to via which ports and IP address in the outside world the packets come back from. The other server isn't going to ever see 192.168.1.121 in their logs, so they're not going to know which machine to request info on. As far as they know, the connection originated from somewhere in my network, but that doesn't narrow down where at all.
The caller ID is not the AIN. While it should obviously forward the caller ID, the AIN is the billable phone number. So, does it forward the original AIN or the forwarder's AIN, and if it forwards the original AIN, who gets billed for the call?
If you were a judge would you heavily sentence another judge? (Not that I know this is the case, there could be maximum sentencing guidelines at work here.)
Hell yes, if he's guilty of a crime, he made my job ten times harder because the trust in judges in general is tainted. Unfortunately, I think the sentence length is a part of the plea bargain and the case will never see real prosecution.
But you have to remember that a cop has to press the charges to be heard before the judge, and a prosecutor argue the case. So I would think if the case was worth trying or pressing charges, then the crime did happen.
I think you're mixing up with what you say to the attorneys to get out of jury duty with real life.
New York wanted to reclassify affiliate programs so that Amazon (and anyone else with an affiliate in New York) would need to collect NY state sales tax.
s/wanted/did/
I now get sales tax included on my amazon purchases, regardless of whether they're from a New York affiliate or not.
Taxes are going to drive me and my family out of this state, the trouble is saving enough to move and getting a new mortgage in this climate in, say, NH.
Regarding faithless electors as a reason to keep the electoral system, the way you worded your earlier phrase was unclear and sounded overinclusive. Personally, I think the fact that it hasn't happened but the possibility remains just in case isn't a bad thing, it's a bit of a null reason, neither for nor against the system.
I think there are some states who would revolt (I'm thinking NH and VT, for example) and treat the change as a broken covenant. Of course, the only two ways to break the covenant are to amend the constitution, by a method which they did in fact agree to, or to create a coalition of states willing to allocate their electors in a common way, in which case they're merely a victim of the system. And in the latter case, they're free to lobby some of those states to cancel their agreements, rendering the method fragile. In neither case do they really have a leg to stand on.
Interestingly, the electoral college could be warped in this way if only the most populous 11 states were to pass such a law, and thereby invalidate the methods of elector selection chosen by the other 39 states. So if the argument truly boils down to the most populous states wanting the election to hinge on them, then a coalition of a minority of the states housing a slight majority of the people could override the system and impose a popular vote. It would certainly be an interesting result.
In my view of democracy one person is one vote, but since we don't actually have a democracy, but a representative republic, this is of limited usefulness. My vote is well applied at the local level, but at the national level where it is mixed with a hundred million more, I don't necessarily think that strict democratic parity is useful. Our founding fathers decided to use this system to strike a balance between a person and their vote and the needs of the nation.
Would you happen to have an example, citation, or photograph of this event?
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of all 158 of them. They range from accidents (flipping the VP/Pres votes), protest votes, and changing of votes because the candidate died between the election and the electoral college vote, to outright just plain voting for the other side. The entry has a few citations to sources, but in general these are pretty well known.
The system is a complete joke and serves absolutely no purpose.
You appear to be making that judgment based solely on this example, which misses the larger picture.
The ability of the electoral college to go against the public will is only one reason of many the founders created it. The electoral college is a compromise that was forged that allowed the less populous states to come to an accord with the more populous states, much like congress is divided into the house and senate, in one the votes are population proportional and in the other they are fixed per state. This illustrates another purpose for the electoral college, that of fair representation. Representation in the US is not actually about one person one vote, it is about the people, and the states having a say in the direction of the nation and as a result less populous regions tend to have a disproportionately large say in comparison to more populous regions, but that's the compromise struck so that they can have any say at all.
The parties each put up a slate of electors, each pledged to vote for a particular president and vice president. The voters then cast their ballots, in general they're voting for a president/vice president but in particular they're actually deciding which electors will cast their votes. The electors then get together in each state at an appointed time and cast their votes. About 1 tenth of a percent of the time these days an elector will vote in a manner other than in which they pledged to vote.
How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, allowed to happen?
Seriously, I want to know. This one sentence has pretty much verified and vivified my contempt and hatred of American politics, and its people for putting up with it.
The constitution says the states can elect their electors any way they see fit. The electors exist for quite a few reasons, one of them is because the electorate can't be trusted to tie their own shoes most of the time and if an elector decides a candidate truly isn't in the nation's best interests, he can cast his vote the other way. There are fairly severe political repercussions for this to the elector, but it happens. The states can say "you're legally obliged to cast your vote in this way", and enforce that with penalties. I was slightly incorrect earlier, in that apparently due to the process by which the electoral college actually casts its votes some states (very few) take the opportunity to cancel the vote of a faithless elector, but I think that merely reduces the count of electoral votes by one rather than replacing the elector with a new elector. Most states merely punish the faithless elector.
How does this take into account the veracity of the vote? If there's a dispute right now because the vote was different by less than half of one percent is knife edge, then under the current system when a particular state has a 13,000 vote difference there's legal wrangling for months to straighten it out. If you're taking into account all the votes of all states, then a difference of 660,000 votes becomes knife-edge. One of the things the electoral college helps insulate against is funny business in a particular state, because the damage is localized unless the election is already very close. Under a popular system, each state has to fully trust the certification of another state's voting system from its ballots or machines on up through the final count. We don't have a centrally mandated federal voting system (nor should we) and without one I don't see this working.
Slashdot Mirror
You should suppose that, because it did occur to me, and I had to read the statement several times to be clear about who was saying what. The statement is slightly ambiguous, but the context in which it appears strongly implies that the licensing solution they're seeking is either a cross-licensing solution or the simple licensing of TomTom's patents. From the context, I think any other interpretation is much less likely, though poor reporting or a lack of clarity on Microsoft's part does make it possible.
Also, from the article, Microsoft "remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year." So Microsoft has known about this patent violation for a year, and rather than stopping the violation while seeking a license, they continued to infringe. It would be hard to find a clearer case of willful infringement.
A mass at 20K has twice as much thermal energy as 10K. A mass at 20C has about 3.5% more thermal energy as 10C. Therefore, 20K is twice as hot as 10K, 20C is not twice as hot as 10C, if you define 'hot' as the thermal energy embodied in the mass.
Oh no, which bucket do we classify that in?
"I'm guessing you recently watched the Maine episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern."
If he lived anywhere in New England for 20 years then his statement is pretty much common knowledge, though "apprentice" could also be replaced with "servant" or "prisoner". Lobster was so plentiful in Revolutionary times that they became considered the food for the masses, and thus no longer a delicacy. Now that we've harvested them to scarcity, they're a delicacy again.
Episodes 1 & 2, as shown on fox you mean? Episode 1 was a last-minute rewrite of a new pilot when Fox decided not to air the actual pilot that introduced the series. And because Fox aired the episodes out of order, and Joss Whedon really writes shows that have a running plotline, the show was very difficult to get into, so you were left trying to watch each episode as stand-alone, so some things just never made sense. If you could even figure out when the next episode would air.
And even when you're alleged to be driving unsafely you get a day in court, but if you're alleged to be copying files, you're presumed guilty.
Plus that game that it's a remake of that came out even 5 years ago required the latest and greatest hardware. My latest modest PC makes those old games shine like new again.
The "operator" is the casino, or bank. They trust themselves, if they make a mistake they're the ones that lose money. The "operator" of the ballot box is a member of the government who may have an axe to grind.
Actually, I think OP was thinking of Powerline Networking. If this were powerline networking enabled, then you could plug it into any of your home wiring and jack in a webcam and not have to run ethernet. If you added on a software controllable plug to the other side of this, so you could plug a light into this and then plug this into the wall, you could control all sorts of devices with home automation. Most homes don't have ethernet jacks next to every plug outlet in the wall, and running them could get annoying.
As far as needing two, you'd need one of these and at least one bridge capable of enabling your power lines to handle data. Technically two, I think, as you'd need one for each side of your breaker box.
I don't understand where logging the DHCP data connecting the IP address to the MAC address for a particular timeframe even gets you anything in a home environment. If the home user's wifi is assigning the IP address then its almost certainly an IP masquerading system. So I record that 00:21:91:21:12:19 got assigned 192.168.1.121 on my LAN. So what? Its not like that IP address, or even that MAC address ever gets shown to anyone. Unless I misunderstand, the router passes on the request as if it came from itself, and knows where to pass the conversation back to via which ports and IP address in the outside world the packets come back from. The other server isn't going to ever see 192.168.1.121 in their logs, so they're not going to know which machine to request info on. As far as they know, the connection originated from somewhere in my network, but that doesn't narrow down where at all.
The caller ID is not the AIN. While it should obviously forward the caller ID, the AIN is the billable phone number. So, does it forward the original AIN or the forwarder's AIN, and if it forwards the original AIN, who gets billed for the call?
Oh, that was a tidbit I wasn't aware of. In that case, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Sentence him to the max allowed after accepting his plea!
Hell yes, if he's guilty of a crime, he made my job ten times harder because the trust in judges in general is tainted. Unfortunately, I think the sentence length is a part of the plea bargain and the case will never see real prosecution.
I think you're mixing up with what you say to the attorneys to get out of jury duty with real life.
s/wanted/did/
I now get sales tax included on my amazon purchases, regardless of whether they're from a New York affiliate or not.
Taxes are going to drive me and my family out of this state, the trouble is saving enough to move and getting a new mortgage in this climate in, say, NH.
Some of us thought we were preferring the latest research.
Regarding faithless electors as a reason to keep the electoral system, the way you worded your earlier phrase was unclear and sounded overinclusive. Personally, I think the fact that it hasn't happened but the possibility remains just in case isn't a bad thing, it's a bit of a null reason, neither for nor against the system.
I think there are some states who would revolt (I'm thinking NH and VT, for example) and treat the change as a broken covenant. Of course, the only two ways to break the covenant are to amend the constitution, by a method which they did in fact agree to, or to create a coalition of states willing to allocate their electors in a common way, in which case they're merely a victim of the system. And in the latter case, they're free to lobby some of those states to cancel their agreements, rendering the method fragile. In neither case do they really have a leg to stand on.
Interestingly, the electoral college could be warped in this way if only the most populous 11 states were to pass such a law, and thereby invalidate the methods of elector selection chosen by the other 39 states. So if the argument truly boils down to the most populous states wanting the election to hinge on them, then a coalition of a minority of the states housing a slight majority of the people could override the system and impose a popular vote. It would certainly be an interesting result.
In my view of democracy one person is one vote, but since we don't actually have a democracy, but a representative republic, this is of limited usefulness. My vote is well applied at the local level, but at the national level where it is mixed with a hundred million more, I don't necessarily think that strict democratic parity is useful. Our founding fathers decided to use this system to strike a balance between a person and their vote and the needs of the nation.
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of all 158 of them. They range from accidents (flipping the VP/Pres votes), protest votes, and changing of votes because the candidate died between the election and the electoral college vote, to outright just plain voting for the other side. The entry has a few citations to sources, but in general these are pretty well known.
You appear to be making that judgment based solely on this example, which misses the larger picture.
The ability of the electoral college to go against the public will is only one reason of many the founders created it. The electoral college is a compromise that was forged that allowed the less populous states to come to an accord with the more populous states, much like congress is divided into the house and senate, in one the votes are population proportional and in the other they are fixed per state. This illustrates another purpose for the electoral college, that of fair representation. Representation in the US is not actually about one person one vote, it is about the people, and the states having a say in the direction of the nation and as a result less populous regions tend to have a disproportionately large say in comparison to more populous regions, but that's the compromise struck so that they can have any say at all.
The parties each put up a slate of electors, each pledged to vote for a particular president and vice president. The voters then cast their ballots, in general they're voting for a president/vice president but in particular they're actually deciding which electors will cast their votes. The electors then get together in each state at an appointed time and cast their votes. About 1 tenth of a percent of the time these days an elector will vote in a manner other than in which they pledged to vote.
The constitution says the states can elect their electors any way they see fit. The electors exist for quite a few reasons, one of them is because the electorate can't be trusted to tie their own shoes most of the time and if an elector decides a candidate truly isn't in the nation's best interests, he can cast his vote the other way. There are fairly severe political repercussions for this to the elector, but it happens. The states can say "you're legally obliged to cast your vote in this way", and enforce that with penalties. I was slightly incorrect earlier, in that apparently due to the process by which the electoral college actually casts its votes some states (very few) take the opportunity to cancel the vote of a faithless elector, but I think that merely reduces the count of electoral votes by one rather than replacing the elector with a new elector. Most states merely punish the faithless elector.
See wikipedia to read about faithless electors.
How does this take into account the veracity of the vote? If there's a dispute right now because the vote was different by less than half of one percent is knife edge, then under the current system when a particular state has a 13,000 vote difference there's legal wrangling for months to straighten it out. If you're taking into account all the votes of all states, then a difference of 660,000 votes becomes knife-edge. One of the things the electoral college helps insulate against is funny business in a particular state, because the damage is localized unless the election is already very close. Under a popular system, each state has to fully trust the certification of another state's voting system from its ballots or machines on up through the final count. We don't have a centrally mandated federal voting system (nor should we) and without one I don't see this working.
That doesn't mean they will, what it means is they'll be criminally charged when they get home if they don't.
Like the one at Thinkgeek?