There is something very crazy going on over there in the States. When was the last time a terrorist attacked, and killed, Americans on home soil? With chemicals?
The patent involves patenting things previously protected by trade secret, right? Wouldn't that mean conscious concealment of prior art is required?
No.
Some company does 'X'. How they does 'X' is a trade secret. You figure out a way to also do 'X'. You patent "a method to do 'X'". That some company does 'X' may very well be prior art, but there's no reason for you to conceal it. No one outside of some company knows how they do 'X' so no one is going to step forward to challenge your method of doing 'X'.
And that's the key. This patent is not for collecting license fees. This patent is for busting trade secrets. Some company wants to challenge your patent on a method to do 'X'? Then they'll have to reveal their method of doing 'X'.
Remember, 1) you don't patent 'X'. You patent a method of doing 'X'. And 2) the only thing you learn about patents from reading/. is that almost everyone who posts to/. regarding patents has no frigging clue what they are talking about.
Absolutely, once you take into account the potential loss of income for the parent who teaches the kids at home rather than works... for smaller families, this makes homeschooling typically very expensive per child.
Citation needed.
Once you take into account costs for child care, transportion, business attire, dry cleaning, meals away from home, taxes, etc, the net gain of having a second income is typically very small.
Lie on your resume...because it's the only way you'll ever get another technical job.
If you've been doing QA for several years but are still looking at entry level programming work, either your skills aren't growing or your evaluation of your skills isn't growing.
Either way, what's next? "I've been programming C++ for several years, how do I get an entry level job programming Java?"
Entry level is just that. Unless you completely jump fields, you should never have another entry level job again in your life. "I've been in IT, now I'm looking to be a lion tamer." Ok, entry level. But anything related to work you've already done, you should be past entry level.
But the real point is that even if the judge did think the recording was inadmissible, couldn't he have still said something like, "Well, if the court did admit this evidence, and if these defendants were here, then they could very well be arrested for perjury -- if they were here, I'd tell them that they just had a really close call."
Do you know what "inadmissible" means?
It's just as likely, and appropriate, for the Judge to say, "Well, if the defendant was found in a room holding a knife standing over a dead body which had just been stabbed to death, then they could very well be arrested for murder."
Did anyone even read the links? Did the submitter? Or the editor?
Why bother? You're pretending any one/. has the slightest clue in regards to patents.
We do not.
Example: Apple wants to patent foo. Application X already does foo!
If we had any clue, we'd notice no one patents "foo". One patents "a method to do foo". So even if foo is a common feature, Apple could come up with a novel, non-obvious method of achieving foo that may be worthy of a patent.
Example: when bucky balls were first created, those folks wanted to patent the method of creating them. Problem was, they didn't know what bucky balls could be used for, what the heck to do with them.
So they patented the process of creating bucky balls and putting them in solution to use as ink. Plenty of other folks had used carbon in solution as ink, but no one had thought of using that particular method of producing that particular form of carbon to put into solution to use as ink.
Foo can be as old as the wheel if your method of achieving foo is new.
His show was based off his stand-up. Simply put, it's comedy by observation. He see's something odd and then mentions it.
There's a show called 'Seinfeld' with a character named 'Jerry Seinfeld'. That show is not about that character.
I'm sure there's some formal term in literary criticism, perhaps in latin, for the use of a narrator to give us a peek into a world when the focus of that world is not the narrator, but some other character the narrator observes.
I don't know the term, but that is what we have here. In this case, Jerry is just a vehicle to transport into the world of George.
The show originated and was written primary (in the beginning) by Larry David. George is Larry's alter ego. The show is about George.
The show had very little to do with Seinfeld's comedy. The bits of stand up at the start and end of the shows was time filler.
[Comedian] is a little dull (particularly considering when it's about comedians) but there are some pretty true parts in it.
That sort of like saying a documentary about weight room workouts isn't as entertaining as a football game. Comedian, like The Aristocrats, is not a comedy. It is about the business of comedy. If you're only interested in what comedians do on stage, both these movies are dull. If you're interested in what happens before (and after) the short period of time comedians are on stage, they are not dull at all.
But really, what's the point? What do I get from this site I can't find with usenet and Google groups?
With the issue of researching a question regarding foo v3 and getting burried with out of date data on foo v1, what is being done here to resolve that issue?
For the moment I expect the site to have details of the latest and greatest, but only because it is a new site. If it lasts a few years, it will be full of the same stale information as other sites.
Will they remove any questions/responses regarding old releases? If so, what about folks who don't update every system on every release?
Other than being a new Q-and-A site, how is this different than any old Q-and-A site?
Seriously, why do people seem to get off on being as much of a danger as possible to others on the road?
I don't know. Tell us.
For most roads in the USA, the right lane is the travel lane and the left lane is the passing lane. If you're getting passed on the right enough to complain about, maybe you should get out of the passing lane.
Some hypermiling techniques, such as rolling through stop signs, are just as illegal and dangerous as speeding.
..and in fact said idiot came an inch from my rear bumper, high-beamed (and blinded me, since he was in an SUV at night) and then swerved around me and back in front of me an inch from my FRONT bumper -- enjoy MY high beams, jackass...
So the other guy is an ass for being in such a hurry, and you're an ass for being self-righteous about your driving habits. Do you see my point?
This is akin to saying "a bank manager would never be able to work as a loan officer because of the bank's constantly changing interest rates".
No, it's akin to saying someone with a PhD in Comp Sci isn't necessarily the best pick to do your application development because developing software isn't the same as Comp Sci.
Oh wait! Comp Sci IS NOT the same as software development, just like an EE isn't necessarily the best person to wire your house.
Hmmm, maybe the GP didn't have such a good point after all.
% of all adults who look online for news about the campaign...
Spring 2000 16%
Fall 2000 23%
Spring 2004 31%
Fall 2004 34%
Spring 2008 40%
Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project Surveys. Margin of error is ±2%.
Sure, even this election, it's less than half. But considering the greater depth of information the internet provides, it's certainly not inconcievable that online coverage & political debate forums might be the deciding factor in various states.
Voting may be the hardest way (as a group) to make a difference because it requires a lot of people to do it and mostly on the same day.
But it's the only thing that will make a difference. You can voluteer as a poll worker, speak out locally against faulty voting technology, join advocacy groups on issues that matter to you.
When the usual bunch of idiots win at the end of the day, all your efforts will be for naught.
The one upside to historically low voter turnout in the USA is, you can sway an election without getting a large number of current voters to change their mind--if you can get enough non-voters to show up on Tuesday.
Worked for Bush in 2000 and 2004 by getting the evangelicals to vote in large numbers.
So vote. Vote. Vote. I'm sure there are many other very good suggestions in this thread. But they won't have any results if folks do not vote.
Seriously, consider this. When I pirate, I've never been kept out of a product I steal. Never. Not once. However, I've lost thousands of dollars in software to stupid copy protection schemes as a legitimate customer. They are disincentivizing ownership. I'm acually better off stealing than paying for it.
I'm honestly do not mean to troll or flamebait, but it seems there's some Ayn Randian lesson there about the trouble with ruling honest people.
Some regimes require criminals. If there aren't enough, they keep making laws until there are.
Your average libertarian (including many conservatives) believes that everything but national defense and a few other services should be privatized, period (Bob Barr included). Hell, the entire basis of the philosophy is that taxation is fundamentally evil (as you yourself espouse).
But that's not your original statement. What prompted my reply was:
the private sector will do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing
I think you've got it backwards. It's not, the private sector will do it, therefor government funding is wrong. Rather it's, government funding is wrong, therefor private sector is the only legitimate option.
Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. You want the government deciding what research gets done and which areas get funding? If there's any group worse than than CEOs who can't see past next quarter's results or the next shareholders' meeting, it's the politicians who can't see past the next election.
Yes, there are many exceptions, many cases of great breakthroughs made on the dole. And they all pretty much fall into two categories: bragging rights (space race) and blowing shit up (Manhattan project, internet).
Take the space race for example. Certainly the progress made in the 1960s was incredible, and I doubt any private sector effort can match. But what have we done since then? How many of us remember a man walking on the moon?
Meanwhile, you've got libertarians like Bob Barr telling us that the private sector will do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing. Interesting how that's working out... oh well, just yet more proof that, like communism, libertarianism is an amusing fantasy and little else.
Wow. There are so many things wrong with that statement.
First, one company (or even many) cutting back on basic research does not mean all such research has stopped.
Second, are you suggesting companies like AT&T and HP not be free to cancel these programs? Should they be compelled at gun point to perform research?
Third, the issues with government funding exist without regard to what private industry does.
"you've got libertarians like Bob Barr telling us that the private sector will do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing"
I doubt very much that is what libertarians are telling you. Let's take Soviet-style (now Chinese-style) nationalized althetics. Taking children away from their families, putting them into training gulags, giving them who-knows-what performance enhancing drugs, without their knowledge, these things are bad.
It doesn't matter if the private sector is an alternative or not. It doesn't matter that in a free, capitalistic society you have things like endorsement contracts. Even if there was no other alternative to producing a large number of olympic level athletes, the Soviet-style of athletics is wrong.
Even if the private sector does not do these things, it is still wrong to take money from people at the point of a gun to support these programs.
So, on some computers which (A) have been there for years, and (B) have no network connection over which to download virus signature updates, somehow miraculously that AV software would be up to date and able to recognize the newest trojans. I don't know what AV software that is, but I want it too;)
If those computers are so isolated, so cut off from all other computers, how did the virus get there?
There must have been some connection to some network at some point. How else would the virus get in? Could the same connection be used for AV updates?
Slashdot Mirror
So what do you call what Cisco hardware is used for? (Hint: the people "networking" was well defined before the computer "networking")
"I know how his car ended up with 4 flat tires the morning of an important interview."
So Danger is your middle name?
There is something very crazy going on over there in the States. When was the last time a terrorist attacked, and killed, Americans on home soil? With chemicals?
1995?
The patent involves patenting things previously protected by trade secret, right? Wouldn't that mean conscious concealment of prior art is required?
No.
Some company does 'X'. How they does 'X' is a trade secret. You figure out a way to also do 'X'. You patent "a method to do 'X'". That some company does 'X' may very well be prior art, but there's no reason for you to conceal it. No one outside of some company knows how they do 'X' so no one is going to step forward to challenge your method of doing 'X'.
And that's the key. This patent is not for collecting license fees. This patent is for busting trade secrets. Some company wants to challenge your patent on a method to do 'X'? Then they'll have to reveal their method of doing 'X'.
Remember, 1) you don't patent 'X'. You patent a method of doing 'X'. And 2) the only thing you learn about patents from reading /. is that almost everyone who posts to /. regarding patents has no frigging clue what they are talking about.
My company's internet has been down all day, with only half the websites working. I wonder if the Sprint/Cogent tiff has anything to do with that?
And yet you still have bandwidth to get to slashdot.
Absolutely, once you take into account the potential loss of income for the parent who teaches the kids at home rather than works ... for smaller families, this makes homeschooling typically very expensive per child.
Citation needed.
Once you take into account costs for child care, transportion, business attire, dry cleaning, meals away from home, taxes, etc, the net gain of having a second income is typically very small.
Lie on your resume...because it's the only way you'll ever get another technical job.
If you've been doing QA for several years but are still looking at entry level programming work, either your skills aren't growing or your evaluation of your skills isn't growing.
Either way, what's next? "I've been programming C++ for several years, how do I get an entry level job programming Java?"
Entry level is just that. Unless you completely jump fields, you should never have another entry level job again in your life. "I've been in IT, now I'm looking to be a lion tamer." Ok, entry level. But anything related to work you've already done, you should be past entry level.
But the real point is that even if the judge did think the recording was inadmissible, couldn't he have still said something like, "Well, if the court did admit this evidence, and if these defendants were here, then they could very well be arrested for perjury -- if they were here, I'd tell them that they just had a really close call."
Do you know what "inadmissible" means?
It's just as likely, and appropriate, for the Judge to say, "Well, if the defendant was found in a room holding a knife standing over a dead body which had just been stabbed to death, then they could very well be arrested for murder."
Did anyone even read the links? Did the submitter? Or the editor?
Why bother? You're pretending any one /. has the slightest clue in regards to patents.
We do not.
Example: Apple wants to patent foo. Application X already does foo!
If we had any clue, we'd notice no one patents "foo". One patents "a method to do foo". So even if foo is a common feature, Apple could come up with a novel, non-obvious method of achieving foo that may be worthy of a patent.
Example: when bucky balls were first created, those folks wanted to patent the method of creating them. Problem was, they didn't know what bucky balls could be used for, what the heck to do with them.
So they patented the process of creating bucky balls and putting them in solution to use as ink. Plenty of other folks had used carbon in solution as ink, but no one had thought of using that particular method of producing that particular form of carbon to put into solution to use as ink.
Foo can be as old as the wheel if your method of achieving foo is new.
And here is your head. *woosh*
His show was based off his stand-up. Simply put, it's comedy by observation. He see's something odd and then mentions it.
There's a show called 'Seinfeld' with a character named 'Jerry Seinfeld'. That show is not about that character.
I'm sure there's some formal term in literary criticism, perhaps in latin, for the use of a narrator to give us a peek into a world when the focus of that world is not the narrator, but some other character the narrator observes.
I don't know the term, but that is what we have here. In this case, Jerry is just a vehicle to transport into the world of George.
The show originated and was written primary (in the beginning) by Larry David. George is Larry's alter ego. The show is about George.
The show had very little to do with Seinfeld's comedy. The bits of stand up at the start and end of the shows was time filler.
[Comedian] is a little dull (particularly considering when it's about comedians) but there are some pretty true parts in it.
That sort of like saying a documentary about weight room workouts isn't as entertaining as a football game. Comedian, like The Aristocrats, is not a comedy. It is about the business of comedy. If you're only interested in what comedians do on stage, both these movies are dull. If you're interested in what happens before (and after) the short period of time comedians are on stage, they are not dull at all.
But really, what's the point? What do I get from this site I can't find with usenet and Google groups?
With the issue of researching a question regarding foo v3 and getting burried with out of date data on foo v1, what is being done here to resolve that issue?
For the moment I expect the site to have details of the latest and greatest, but only because it is a new site. If it lasts a few years, it will be full of the same stale information as other sites.
Will they remove any questions/responses regarding old releases? If so, what about folks who don't update every system on every release?
Other than being a new Q-and-A site, how is this different than any old Q-and-A site?
Seriously, why do people seem to get off on being as much of a danger as possible to others on the road?
I don't know. Tell us.
For most roads in the USA, the right lane is the travel lane and the left lane is the passing lane. If you're getting passed on the right enough to complain about, maybe you should get out of the passing lane.
Some hypermiling techniques, such as rolling through stop signs, are just as illegal and dangerous as speeding.
So the other guy is an ass for being in such a hurry, and you're an ass for being self-righteous about your driving habits. Do you see my point?
Imagine if you got a phishing email that included your home address.
You mean like the spam that shows up in the actual mail box most days?
That stuff has my address on it, yet I still recognize it as spam. How is this any different?
Must be a web 2.0 thing.
Wow. The mods are on their game today.
A trite "ZOMG m$ is teh suxorz" gets insightful.
A response of, "Yes, some folks do run critial apps on dot net, and BTW, we don't know the root cause of this particular downtime" gets flamebait.
This is akin to saying "a bank manager would never be able to work as a loan officer because of the bank's constantly changing interest rates".
No, it's akin to saying someone with a PhD in Comp Sci isn't necessarily the best pick to do your application development because developing software isn't the same as Comp Sci.
Oh wait! Comp Sci IS NOT the same as software development, just like an EE isn't necessarily the best person to wire your house.
Hmmm, maybe the GP didn't have such a good point after all.
All I can say to that is...
Pew! Pew pew pew!
(Imagine finger-gun motions.)
Couldn't resist.
If only common sense was more common.
Voting may be the hardest way (as a group) to make a difference because it requires a lot of people to do it and mostly on the same day.
But it's the only thing that will make a difference. You can voluteer as a poll worker, speak out locally against faulty voting technology, join advocacy groups on issues that matter to you.
When the usual bunch of idiots win at the end of the day, all your efforts will be for naught.
The one upside to historically low voter turnout in the USA is, you can sway an election without getting a large number of current voters to change their mind--if you can get enough non-voters to show up on Tuesday.
Worked for Bush in 2000 and 2004 by getting the evangelicals to vote in large numbers.
So vote. Vote. Vote. I'm sure there are many other very good suggestions in this thread. But they won't have any results if folks do not vote.
Vote.
Seriously, consider this. When I pirate, I've never been kept out of a product I steal. Never. Not once. However, I've lost thousands of dollars in software to stupid copy protection schemes as a legitimate customer. They are disincentivizing ownership. I'm acually better off stealing than paying for it.
I'm honestly do not mean to troll or flamebait, but it seems there's some Ayn Randian lesson there about the trouble with ruling honest people.
Some regimes require criminals. If there aren't enough, they keep making laws until there are.
If you want to run windows update without IE:
http://windizupdate.com/
I suppose you could use it to update without installing WGA.
Your average libertarian (including many conservatives) believes that everything but national defense and a few other services should be privatized, period (Bob Barr included). Hell, the entire basis of the philosophy is that taxation is fundamentally evil (as you yourself espouse).
But that's not your original statement. What prompted my reply was:
the private sector will do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing
I think you've got it backwards. It's not, the private sector will do it, therefor government funding is wrong. Rather it's, government funding is wrong, therefor private sector is the only legitimate option.
Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. You want the government deciding what research gets done and which areas get funding? If there's any group worse than than CEOs who can't see past next quarter's results or the next shareholders' meeting, it's the politicians who can't see past the next election.
Yes, there are many exceptions, many cases of great breakthroughs made on the dole. And they all pretty much fall into two categories: bragging rights (space race) and blowing shit up (Manhattan project, internet).
Take the space race for example. Certainly the progress made in the 1960s was incredible, and I doubt any private sector effort can match. But what have we done since then? How many of us remember a man walking on the moon?
Meanwhile, you've got libertarians like Bob Barr telling us that the private sector will do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing. Interesting how that's working out... oh well, just yet more proof that, like communism, libertarianism is an amusing fantasy and little else.
Wow. There are so many things wrong with that statement.
First, one company (or even many) cutting back on basic research does not mean all such research has stopped.
Second, are you suggesting companies like AT&T and HP not be free to cancel these programs? Should they be compelled at gun point to perform research?
Third, the issues with government funding exist without regard to what private industry does.
"you've got libertarians like Bob Barr telling us that the private sector will do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing"
I doubt very much that is what libertarians are telling you. Let's take Soviet-style (now Chinese-style) nationalized althetics. Taking children away from their families, putting them into training gulags, giving them who-knows-what performance enhancing drugs, without their knowledge, these things are bad.
It doesn't matter if the private sector is an alternative or not. It doesn't matter that in a free, capitalistic society you have things like endorsement contracts. Even if there was no other alternative to producing a large number of olympic level athletes, the Soviet-style of athletics is wrong.
Even if the private sector does not do these things, it is still wrong to take money from people at the point of a gun to support these programs.
The one posted by emoreau on 05.16.2008 at 04:04PM PDT?
Either way, Experts-Exchange should not get listed if they hide the answers from the public but not the Google bot.
Yes, but answers seen by the bot are also seen by the public.
If you don't see the answers on the E-E page, try the Google cache.
So, on some computers which (A) have been there for years, and (B) have no network connection over which to download virus signature updates, somehow miraculously that AV software would be up to date and able to recognize the newest trojans. I don't know what AV software that is, but I want it too ;)
If those computers are so isolated, so cut off from all other computers, how did the virus get there?
There must have been some connection to some network at some point. How else would the virus get in? Could the same connection be used for AV updates?