Abstract from the linked patent page: "Electronic messaging systems, a machine-accessible medium, and methods for text-based electronic communication. In one embodiment, a plurality of databases are provided. The databases each define shorthand terms with one or more longhand terms. A shorthand term is targeted within a text message, and the databases are searched for corresponding longhand terms. The longhand terms are selected for display according to factors such as user preferences, the identities of participants to the text communication, and the context of the text message. Abbreviations, shorthand, and other jargon sent by one user is thereby interpreted. For example, one of the longhand terms may be substituted in-line with the text message. Alternatively, all matches for the shorthand term found in the databases may be listed in descending order according to relevancy. "
That is much more intelligent than just looking up an acronym in Google or at acronymfinder.com. And when combined with the cultural propensity of certain companies like Intel to make up acronyms on the fly that will never appear on a website because their use is limited to a couple of groups within a company, well, now this database seems pretty useful.
It isn't just a database. It also intercepts your messaging and provides you with the context that some developer in another department doesn't think to provide to you when he uses an acronym that everyone on his team uses but nobody else - anywhere - has ever heard of.
For those of you who didn't RTFA, they didn't patent LOL, but the process of using a database to tell you what LOL means, or something along those lines. Not quite as absurd, but still silly.
However, if you have ever worked for a huge company like Intel, you are swimming in a veritable alphabet soup of unrecognizable acronyms every day. They make an acronym for everything over there. So something like this database would be a godsend in an environment like that.
However they probably do own the equipment to copy their Playstation CD to PC, which just requires a CD-ROM drive. Curious that you forgot to mention that.
0.3 megapixel pictures are far easier to share and probably far easier for the ARM CPU to manipulate than 1.3 megapixel pictures. From a usability perspective the megapixel makes a lot more sense than trying to edit a much larger picture on such a small screen or trying to use such a small device to transmit the picture wirelessly to your friend's DSi.
An anonymous group of anonymous media sources is asking the British government to investigate the Guardian Media Group and other news reporters, claiming they reap the benefit of content from sources without contributing anything towards their costs.
The media sources group claims the old argument that 'news sites and other reporting media provide players like government and industry insiders with a bullhorn in return for the use of their content' doesn't hold water any more, and that it's 'heavily skewed' in Guardian's favor. It wants the government to explore new models that 'require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both to... blah blah blah you get the point.
Older analog televisions will no longer work without a converter box after February 17.
This is untrue. They will no longer be able to receive broadcasts over the airwaves. They will still be able to work with most cable services and such, game consoles, etc. I use my TV set with my Xbox Media Center and PS2 exclusively, and if i want television I'll order cable, which the vast majority or television users have.
Why is this news? ATMs don't have a reputation for being insecure devices, and considering the amount of money they handle on a regular basis there is a strong incentive to break into them. Further, any single ATM is in service every day out of the year, whereas voting machines are in service once or twice a year.
Diebold's voting machines have a deservedly bad reputation for bad security as well as major screwups (not necessarily security-related) but I don't recall anyone claiming they were built to be as secure as ATMs, or anyone expecting them to be so, for that matter.
Did you happen to notice from previous comments that the vote in the House was nearly unanimous, with only two members voting against? That sounds pretty non-controversial to me.
Did you also notice that, contrary to the bad summary, this bill doesn't criminalize free wifi operators, it just mandates they have to report if they discover that their AP is getting used for illegal activity. So the only "crime" being created is for knowingly allowing your network to be used for illegal activity - not for unknowingly allowing your network to be used for illegal activity as the summary would suggest. That sounds pretty reasonable and non-controversial to me.
Again, an unscrupulous submitter dupes the Slashdot community into making wildly false conclusions because the editors didn't do their jobs. *sigh*
Please don't mod me redundant, there's enough misinformation being spread because of that submitter that it needs to be fought vigorously, not just with one informative comment.
By my recollection the media has been pulling stories like this out of their ass for years. They've been talking about the "Wii bubble about to burst" since before it arrived on the market.
If Wii sales ever start to fall, or if the Wii is going to become less competitive relative to the PS3 and Xbox 360, it isn't going to be this winter. Look at the veritable fuckton of games that are being released for the Wii between now and December.
Compare that to the launch lineup it had last year, which wasn't exactly stellar but was probably better than what the PS3 and Xbox 360 had at launch, and it's clear the games lineup Nintendo has for the Wii this winter is going to sustain its popularity, if not catapult it.
So Google is asking to make the spectrum cheaper. And AT&T is complaining about that. Why? Nothing is stopping AT&T from competing in the auction. If they can compete in the auction for expensive spectrum they can compete in an auction for cheap spectrum.
You know what this really sounds like? AT&T is whining because what Google is suggesting means that AT&T actually has to compete for a change.
Even though the iPhone has already been released into the wild, the amount of excitement surrounding this device doesn't seem to be subsiding by any measurable degree.
And when did the product come out? Oh that's right - yesterday! I know it's just an introduction and it's just tech "reporting" (read: hummers) but stupidity like that should be painful. Should the general population become bored with a product as soon as it has launched? No, and we would all prefer it if the tech media wasn't either.
I, for one, am sick of seeing all hype and no follow-up. How does it actually work? How did people who actually tried using it like it? What was their overall experience so far? Heaven forbid anybody keep track of that in case some of us may want to consider the product based on real-world experiences rather than OMG-factor.
"It's actually an interesting read and worth your time."
That's one of those statements that, as soon as they are said, invalidate themselves. I'm sure there's a word for it but I don't know what it is...
What makes you think George W. Bush is a bungling fool rather than simply an evil, manipulative, deceptive liar?
Not to start whole other debate which I realize I run the risk of doing, but Bush knew damn well before we went to war that there was no basis for it. By that point, all the inspectors and intelligence except what was ginned up by the White House had found nothing - Bush claimed this was evidence Saddam was hiding his capability rather than evidence Saddam had destroyed his capability. The only ones that said Saddam was dangerous were in the White House.
Anyone who wants to act in good faith will be misled by someone who intentionally abuses that faith, as Bush did. This says nothing about Hillary's ability to deal with intelligent world leaders, except for those who intend to deceive and take advantage of us.
I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that includes everybody or almost nobody:)
The Politico, a right-wing news site, ran this same scam ahead of one of the GOP debates a few months back. They held a contest to have the most popular question submitted be asked during the debate they were sponsoring.
This questions topped the heap at the end of the contest.
* Should the President have power to imprison U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime and without providing them a judicial forum in which they can contest the accusations against them, as the Bush administration did to American Jose Padilla?
* Do you think the process of waterboarding -- where the U.S. takes prisoners, straps them to a chair, and pours water on their face so they are in terror of drowning to death -- is a practice consistent with America's moral credibility in the world?
* A recent worldwide poll showed that under the Bush presidency, America has become the third most unpopular country in the world -- right behind Iran and just ahead of North Korea. Why do you believe that has that happened?
The winner never got asked, nor any of the other top vote-getting questions. Instead we had them asking inane questions about whether the candidates believed in evolution and a bunch of cheap shots at Bill Clinton.
In addition to what the first to claim bullshit on your argument said, of course the wiretapping is illegal. The law (FISA) says they need a court order. They aren't getting them, they haven't been getting them for the entire existence of the program. Your argument is as absurd as murdering a man in broad daylight and claiming to the witnesses that you didn't murder him and didn't break the law because a court hasn't ruled that you did.
Here's an idea. How about suing them and forcing them to stop? They've already demonstrated don't care about the law. They've broken FISA blatantly and repeatedly. And when they were caught they proved shameless enough to openly continue breaking the law. There is no reason to believe they will stop if we write more laws. Impeach them and sue them. Throw them out of office and in jail. It's the only way to restore the rule of law.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't the technology being patented.
Abstract from the linked patent page: "Electronic messaging systems, a machine-accessible medium, and methods for text-based electronic communication. In one embodiment, a plurality of databases are provided. The databases each define shorthand terms with one or more longhand terms. A shorthand term is targeted within a text message, and the databases are searched for corresponding longhand terms. The longhand terms are selected for display according to factors such as user preferences, the identities of participants to the text communication, and the context of the text message. Abbreviations, shorthand, and other jargon sent by one user is thereby interpreted. For example, one of the longhand terms may be substituted in-line with the text message. Alternatively, all matches for the shorthand term found in the databases may be listed in descending order according to relevancy. "
That is much more intelligent than just looking up an acronym in Google or at acronymfinder.com. And when combined with the cultural propensity of certain companies like Intel to make up acronyms on the fly that will never appear on a website because their use is limited to a couple of groups within a company, well, now this database seems pretty useful.
It isn't just a database. It also intercepts your messaging and provides you with the context that some developer in another department doesn't think to provide to you when he uses an acronym that everyone on his team uses but nobody else - anywhere - has ever heard of.
For those of you who didn't RTFA, they didn't patent LOL, but the process of using a database to tell you what LOL means, or something along those lines. Not quite as absurd, but still silly.
However, if you have ever worked for a huge company like Intel, you are swimming in a veritable alphabet soup of unrecognizable acronyms every day. They make an acronym for everything over there. So something like this database would be a godsend in an environment like that.
The linked article is by Fox News, the media arm of the Republican party. That alone should make you question every word of the article.
I hope the kid gets to keep the meteorite. I mean, if it struck him before it hit the earth, how can it not be his property?
So if I were to download Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7? Ultimate? Professional? Home starter?
However they probably do own the equipment to copy their Playstation CD to PC, which just requires a CD-ROM drive. Curious that you forgot to mention that.
"which could be leftovers from a Mars-sized planet that formed billions of years ago"
I wonder which planet that could be!
I find your signature ironic since the post you responded to explains why it makes sense to use a smaller camera.
0.3 megapixel pictures are far easier to share and probably far easier for the ARM CPU to manipulate than 1.3 megapixel pictures. From a usability perspective the megapixel makes a lot more sense than trying to edit a much larger picture on such a small screen or trying to use such a small device to transmit the picture wirelessly to your friend's DSi.
An anonymous group of anonymous media sources is asking the British government to investigate the Guardian Media Group and other news reporters, claiming they reap the benefit of content from sources without contributing anything towards their costs. The media sources group claims the old argument that 'news sites and other reporting media provide players like government and industry insiders with a bullhorn in return for the use of their content' doesn't hold water any more, and that it's 'heavily skewed' in Guardian's favor. It wants the government to explore new models that 'require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both to... blah blah blah you get the point.
Older analog televisions will no longer work without a converter box after February 17.
This is untrue. They will no longer be able to receive broadcasts over the airwaves. They will still be able to work with most cable services and such, game consoles, etc. I use my TV set with my Xbox Media Center and PS2 exclusively, and if i want television I'll order cable, which the vast majority or television users have.
Why is this news? ATMs don't have a reputation for being insecure devices, and considering the amount of money they handle on a regular basis there is a strong incentive to break into them. Further, any single ATM is in service every day out of the year, whereas voting machines are in service once or twice a year.
Diebold's voting machines have a deservedly bad reputation for bad security as well as major screwups (not necessarily security-related) but I don't recall anyone claiming they were built to be as secure as ATMs, or anyone expecting them to be so, for that matter.
Did you happen to notice from previous comments that the vote in the House was nearly unanimous, with only two members voting against? That sounds pretty non-controversial to me.
Did you also notice that, contrary to the bad summary, this bill doesn't criminalize free wifi operators, it just mandates they have to report if they discover that their AP is getting used for illegal activity. So the only "crime" being created is for knowingly allowing your network to be used for illegal activity - not for unknowingly allowing your network to be used for illegal activity as the summary would suggest. That sounds pretty reasonable and non-controversial to me.
Again, an unscrupulous submitter dupes the Slashdot community into making wildly false conclusions because the editors didn't do their jobs. *sigh*
Please don't mod me redundant, there's enough misinformation being spread because of that submitter that it needs to be fought vigorously, not just with one informative comment.
This reminds me of some political purges of other supposedly-apolitical professional bureaucracies like the DOJ. I hope nobody at JPL is a Democrat.
By my recollection the media has been pulling stories like this out of their ass for years. They've been talking about the "Wii bubble about to burst" since before it arrived on the market.
If Wii sales ever start to fall, or if the Wii is going to become less competitive relative to the PS3 and Xbox 360, it isn't going to be this winter. Look at the veritable fuckton of games that are being released for the Wii between now and December.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26233#more-26233
Compare that to the launch lineup it had last year, which wasn't exactly stellar but was probably better than what the PS3 and Xbox 360 had at launch, and it's clear the games lineup Nintendo has for the Wii this winter is going to sustain its popularity, if not catapult it.
So Google is asking to make the spectrum cheaper. And AT&T is complaining about that. Why? Nothing is stopping AT&T from competing in the auction. If they can compete in the auction for expensive spectrum they can compete in an auction for cheap spectrum. You know what this really sounds like? AT&T is whining because what Google is suggesting means that AT&T actually has to compete for a change.
Even though the iPhone has already been released into the wild, the amount of excitement surrounding this device doesn't seem to be subsiding by any measurable degree.
And when did the product come out? Oh that's right - yesterday! I know it's just an introduction and it's just tech "reporting" (read: hummers) but stupidity like that should be painful. Should the general population become bored with a product as soon as it has launched? No, and we would all prefer it if the tech media wasn't either. I, for one, am sick of seeing all hype and no follow-up. How does it actually work? How did people who actually tried using it like it? What was their overall experience so far? Heaven forbid anybody keep track of that in case some of us may want to consider the product based on real-world experiences rather than OMG-factor.
"It's actually an interesting read and worth your time." That's one of those statements that, as soon as they are said, invalidate themselves. I'm sure there's a word for it but I don't know what it is...
'Let us resist the politicization of science...
You first. Shut the hell up, you stupid politician. It's not the scientists who are acting politically here, it's the politicians. Like yourself.
What makes you think George W. Bush is a bungling fool rather than simply an evil, manipulative, deceptive liar?
:)
Not to start whole other debate which I realize I run the risk of doing, but Bush knew damn well before we went to war that there was no basis for it. By that point, all the inspectors and intelligence except what was ginned up by the White House had found nothing - Bush claimed this was evidence Saddam was hiding his capability rather than evidence Saddam had destroyed his capability. The only ones that said Saddam was dangerous were in the White House.
Anyone who wants to act in good faith will be misled by someone who intentionally abuses that faith, as Bush did. This says nothing about Hillary's ability to deal with intelligent world leaders, except for those who intend to deceive and take advantage of us.
I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that includes everybody or almost nobody
Exactly one of those? How exactly would one leave and not have also chosen one of the other three?
The Politico, a right-wing news site, ran this same scam ahead of one of the GOP debates a few months back. They held a contest to have the most popular question submitted be asked during the debate they were sponsoring.
This questions topped the heap at the end of the contest.
* Should the President have power to imprison U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime and without providing them a judicial forum in which they can contest the accusations against them, as the Bush administration did to American Jose Padilla?
* Do you think the process of waterboarding -- where the U.S. takes prisoners, straps them to a chair, and pours water on their face so they are in terror of drowning to death -- is a practice consistent with America's moral credibility in the world?
* A recent worldwide poll showed that under the Bush presidency, America has become the third most unpopular country in the world -- right behind Iran and just ahead of North Korea. Why do you believe that has that happened?
The winner never got asked, nor any of the other top vote-getting questions. Instead we had them asking inane questions about whether the candidates believed in evolution and a bunch of cheap shots at Bill Clinton.
Given that FISA warrants can be filed up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, I don't see how the current law was the failure in this situation.
In addition to what the first to claim bullshit on your argument said, of course the wiretapping is illegal. The law (FISA) says they need a court order. They aren't getting them, they haven't been getting them for the entire existence of the program. Your argument is as absurd as murdering a man in broad daylight and claiming to the witnesses that you didn't murder him and didn't break the law because a court hasn't ruled that you did.
Here's an idea. How about suing them and forcing them to stop? They've already demonstrated don't care about the law. They've broken FISA blatantly and repeatedly. And when they were caught they proved shameless enough to openly continue breaking the law. There is no reason to believe they will stop if we write more laws. Impeach them and sue them. Throw them out of office and in jail. It's the only way to restore the rule of law.