...but when I read the subject line, I imagined a team of executives, military men and helicopters keeping a leopard at bay in the wild, while they looked for one of their prototype iPhones in the grass.
I'm going to patent the 'Double-Click', because unlike the '1-click' it didn't exist when Win95 came out. When you click once... nothing happens, but if you click again, your order is INSTANTLY placed.... gotta love the patent office.
Funny?! No it certainly isn't funny. I am pissed! Why couldn't they bomb the RIAA instead!?!? What a waste of a bomb! ----------------- X's and O's for all my foes.
The age old cliche still applies: Judge not a book (patent) by it's cover.
Simply stating the titles of the patents does not imply that any 'method' is a violation of it. The patent is for the method not the end result. The details of the patent must be openned up for inspection. To use another age old cliche: There is more than one way (method) to skin a cat. Only if the method is the same or very similar can we claim infringement.
This is exactly the point. To the uneducated eye, there's nothing there. You wouldn't let someone own a gun if they don't know how to use it. I don't care how much they bitch about it. If they don't know, they shouldn't touch. ========= X's and O's for all my foes... ^^
I'm not as smart as thermopile, but I will say that the definition of 'invisible' for the most part should be limited to the human visual range. While this may be the ultimate goal the truth is that our 'detection' of a massive range of frequencies across the spectrum is so advanced, that anyone hiding behind a 'vision inhibiting' cloak could still be detected by other methods. Again, I'm not a hard-core physicist, but I would assume if you do some sort of city-sweep with X-rays you should be able to pick up spectral anomolies since these cloaks presently work in the micro-wave range. Somebody please explain this better if you understand what I'm saying... LoL. ====== X's and O's for all of my foes... ^^
With or without bottlenecks in the pipeline, selling your product on a *pre-order* basis has an added benefit. Companies can always 'test sample' their marketing groups projections thru and graphs that are generated from pre-order purchases. These vital data points help steer the production volumes so they don't both over and under shoot production. In short, the pre-order data can be vital in finding that sweet spot where you are not too much over and under demand at launch.
=========== "The vital few X's and Y's" ~Manufacturing Proverb
Unfortunately, Jupiter will soon be clasified as a Multi-storma-toid and not a planet. By definition (which will be in an addendum, because they always are) can have a max of 1 (one!) red spot. Any subsequent spots forming will automatically disqualify it as a planet. Good bye babe, better luck next time. ============ I can put what I want here.
The difference, clearly, is that BT and RFID want the added range to be a side effect and don't filter for this in their product testing phase. With HP, the objective is to limit to 1mm, thus the test system would be setup to fail product that exceeds x amount of range. This in itself is the whole argument regarding the uselessness of this chip: Wireless is about how far, not how short. Again, as previous posters mentioned, if it's so short a range, why not make it a contact interface?
----
I'll change my Sig as I see fit!
Does anyone here even play the market? Who care if the argument makes sense? If Fujimori 'downgrades' Sony, the stock WILL go down. Same is true for every other company listed. Downgrade = immediate stock decline. Upgrade = immediate stock rise. If you don't think Fujimori is justified, then go buy the stock now that it's down 3%... if you're right, you'll make your 3% back...
=====
All above forward looking statements are non-legally binding and are simply projections based on known... oh who cares.
Sensation... Sensation... Sensation... I am so freggin glad scientist, because of the obscure nature of the unknown, are more like lawyers in their verbiage "Such a protein could have helped to define what makes our brains human, the scientists say, although they caution that that has not yet been proven, and probably won't be until they know what it does." Truth be told these DUFs could be something or they can be nothing. Hell, it could even equal how tall we should average on some universal measureing scale. What!?... it's in the brain? Maybe it's the amount of unused space since we appear to get dumber and dumber with every passing generation. I'd be intrested in finding out if these DUFs are in fish or reptiles or birds. It could just simply be the expected amount of memory allocation... WEEEEEEE! A reference to man vs machine... it's our RAM +/- a few random fab defects. I love it when a scientist says "It could..." and the media says "There's a link!!"
I'm sorry but I have to agree with 'The Living Fractal'. Why is it that the media always gets picked on for being biased/misleadin/political/scandalous? Stereotype? My arse -- this is a prime example of how the media twist data to their liking. 96.5% of the time IS NOT almost all the time. How would you like to get deliciously clean water 96.5% of the time? Media sucks.
If they can force it on to us, they will. Haven't you seen how technology always come with 'accessories' that screw us even further? Companies only consider backwards compatability if they know that exclusion will piss everyone off.
Quite impossible with regard to your "it's quite possible" comment. Read the article, the orgins had to be near each other.
Also, if they were both "thrown off" their 'original' suns, they would probably have too high an escape velocity to hook onto each other later on.
Good god if this wasn't filled with propaganda and superflous adjectives. Cite the credible sources for 'HD is stopping over Blu-ray'.
For those who didn't read the Cell Yield article and haven't the faintest clue about semiconductor manufacturing: Yields always start out low, and even more so for Processors. What I will say is stop looking at redundancy logic the end all to yield improvement since this was a known from the beginning to be required. If their yields are at 10-20% they have more on their hands than redundant logic. There are in many cases issues with the test simulation software that is buggy meaning there is nothing wrong with the processor itself. In my experience, at launch, test bugs account for about 60% of fallout. If this scenario holds, then retesting the processor will make it pass. The number I would be looking for is "How many processors are not saleable percentage wise?" I don't remember the price of these processors, maybe someone can post, but test equipment can be fairly affordable relative to the price of a processor, this certainly should not be the bottleneck.
I believe that in 'some' situations, ignorance is bliss. In this case, it's certainly the prefered option from my perspective. Look at what Microsoft migrated from. They used to announce the bugs, and not patch them until later which provided a flag to exploiters out there to 'go find' what Microsoft said was vulnerable. Therefore, 1) Notification 2) Hacker (Black Hatter) exploitation 3) Patch. Where as with McAfee, though misleading, did not raise that flag informing the Hacker (Black Hatter) community of something to exploit. Once the fix was in place they AT LEAST told us we were lied to, but in doing so we were protected from an onslaught of attempts to break in. Microsoft has since migrated to telling you the issue and patching on the same Tuesday, every month.
8 space stations converge on to a central space station. The center one's occupant has at this point filled his inflatable home with BEER and quickly releases the intake valve and mosie on over to his friends station. The 8 stations in the mean time will house 1 individual (with exception of visiting friend), and be 90% deflated... On the count of 3 the computer systems will simultaneously connect to the central beer system and initialize their beer intake cables. The beer would instantly shoot from the center station to the exterior ones and splash every where. At this point everyone would jump on IM and type "WOOT! DET WUZ SWEEETAH! Do it again!" to each other.
I'm not a physicist either... Electrical, but if they are using the gaseous clouds in their measurements, what makes them believe the gaseous clouds are not moving? I mean if you have different densities and different gasses moving at various different speeds... wouldn't all that contaminate the results? I mean I'm not at work all the time, when I'm there the 'lights' are 'on', and when I'm at home, the 'lights' at work are 'off'. Eh?
Slashdot Mirror
...but when I read the subject line, I imagined a team of executives, military men and helicopters keeping a leopard at bay in the wild, while they looked for one of their prototype iPhones in the grass.
"FOUNT IT!"
"Ok, you may now pass Mr. Kitty"
~A
--
X's and O's for all my foes.
Heh, anyone else empty their SPAM folder on Gmail and get RSS feeds for SPAM Recepies.... ahahahahaha... Morons!
~A
--
X's and O's for all my foes.
I'm going to patent the 'Double-Click', because unlike the '1-click' it didn't exist when Win95 came out. When you click once... nothing happens, but if you click again, your order is INSTANTLY placed.... gotta love the patent office.
~A
------------
X's and O's for all my foes.
Brings new meaning to the phrase, "You have got to be sh*tting me!"
~A
X's and O's for all of my foes.
Funny?! No it certainly isn't funny. I am pissed! Why couldn't they bomb the RIAA instead!?!? What a waste of a bomb!
-----------------
X's and O's for all my foes.
The age old cliche still applies: Judge not a book (patent) by it's cover.
Simply stating the titles of the patents does not imply that any 'method' is a violation of it. The patent is for the method not the end result. The details of the patent must be openned up for inspection. To use another age old cliche: There is more than one way (method) to skin a cat. Only if the method is the same or very similar can we claim infringement.
============
X's and O's for all my foes.
This is exactly the point. To the uneducated eye, there's nothing there. You wouldn't let someone own a gun if they don't know how to use it. I don't care how much they bitch about it. If they don't know, they shouldn't touch.
=========
X's and O's for all my foes... ^^
I'm not as smart as thermopile, but I will say that the definition of 'invisible' for the most part should be limited to the human visual range. While this may be the ultimate goal the truth is that our 'detection' of a massive range of frequencies across the spectrum is so advanced, that anyone hiding behind a 'vision inhibiting' cloak could still be detected by other methods. Again, I'm not a hard-core physicist, but I would assume if you do some sort of city-sweep with X-rays you should be able to pick up spectral anomolies since these cloaks presently work in the micro-wave range. Somebody please explain this better if you understand what I'm saying... LoL.
======
X's and O's for all of my foes... ^^
With or without bottlenecks in the pipeline, selling your product on a *pre-order* basis has an added benefit. Companies can always 'test sample' their marketing groups projections thru and graphs that are generated from pre-order purchases. These vital data points help steer the production volumes so they don't both over and under shoot production. In short, the pre-order data can be vital in finding that sweet spot where you are not too much over and under demand at launch.
===========
"The vital few X's and Y's" ~Manufacturing Proverb
=( I didn't say it was a storm... I said it was a spot (o.O)
=======
"Bah -- Humbug!"
Unfortunately, Jupiter will soon be clasified as a Multi-storma-toid and not a planet. By definition (which will be in an addendum, because they always are) can have a max of 1 (one!) red spot. Any subsequent spots forming will automatically disqualify it as a planet. Good bye babe, better luck next time.
============
I can put what I want here.
The difference, clearly, is that BT and RFID want the added range to be a side effect and don't filter for this in their product testing phase. With HP, the objective is to limit to 1mm, thus the test system would be setup to fail product that exceeds x amount of range. This in itself is the whole argument regarding the uselessness of this chip: Wireless is about how far, not how short. Again, as previous posters mentioned, if it's so short a range, why not make it a contact interface?
----
I'll change my Sig as I see fit!
Does anyone here even play the market? Who care if the argument makes sense? If Fujimori 'downgrades' Sony, the stock WILL go down. Same is true for every other company listed. Downgrade = immediate stock decline. Upgrade = immediate stock rise. If you don't think Fujimori is justified, then go buy the stock now that it's down 3%... if you're right, you'll make your 3% back...
===== All above forward looking statements are non-legally binding and are simply projections based on known... oh who cares.
Sensation... Sensation... Sensation... I am so freggin glad scientist, because of the obscure nature of the unknown, are more like lawyers in their verbiage
"Such a protein could have helped to define what makes our brains human, the scientists say, although they caution that that has not yet been proven, and probably won't be until they know what it does."
Truth be told these DUFs could be something or they can be nothing. Hell, it could even equal how tall we should average on some universal measureing scale. What!?... it's in the brain? Maybe it's the amount of unused space since we appear to get dumber and dumber with every passing generation. I'd be intrested in finding out if these DUFs are in fish or reptiles or birds. It could just simply be the expected amount of memory allocation... WEEEEEEE! A reference to man vs machine... it's our RAM +/- a few random fab defects. I love it when a scientist says "It could..." and the media says "There's a link!!"
~~ Correct my speeling and I'll kick your butt ~~
I'm sorry but I have to agree with 'The Living Fractal'. Why is it that the media always gets picked on for being biased/misleadin/political/scandalous? Stereotype? My arse -- this is a prime example of how the media twist data to their liking. 96.5% of the time IS NOT almost all the time. How would you like to get deliciously clean water 96.5% of the time? Media sucks.
If they can force it on to us, they will. Haven't you seen how technology always come with 'accessories' that screw us even further? Companies only consider backwards compatability if they know that exclusion will piss everyone off.
Floating space junk is not the same as 'thrown objects', but I see your point... May the impossiblities actually be 99.99999999% unlikely. Woohoo!
Quite impossible with regard to your "it's quite possible" comment. Read the article, the orgins had to be near each other. Also, if they were both "thrown off" their 'original' suns, they would probably have too high an escape velocity to hook onto each other later on.
Good god if this wasn't filled with propaganda and superflous adjectives. Cite the credible sources for 'HD is stopping over Blu-ray'. For those who didn't read the Cell Yield article and haven't the faintest clue about semiconductor manufacturing: Yields always start out low, and even more so for Processors. What I will say is stop looking at redundancy logic the end all to yield improvement since this was a known from the beginning to be required. If their yields are at 10-20% they have more on their hands than redundant logic. There are in many cases issues with the test simulation software that is buggy meaning there is nothing wrong with the processor itself. In my experience, at launch, test bugs account for about 60% of fallout. If this scenario holds, then retesting the processor will make it pass. The number I would be looking for is "How many processors are not saleable percentage wise?" I don't remember the price of these processors, maybe someone can post, but test equipment can be fairly affordable relative to the price of a processor, this certainly should not be the bottleneck.
Hit the refresh button. Comes with every browser on all OS's, and it won't download malware automatically.
I believe that in 'some' situations, ignorance is bliss. In this case, it's certainly the prefered option from my perspective. Look at what Microsoft migrated from. They used to announce the bugs, and not patch them until later which provided a flag to exploiters out there to 'go find' what Microsoft said was vulnerable. Therefore, 1) Notification 2) Hacker (Black Hatter) exploitation 3) Patch. Where as with McAfee, though misleading, did not raise that flag informing the Hacker (Black Hatter) community of something to exploit. Once the fix was in place they AT LEAST told us we were lied to, but in doing so we were protected from an onslaught of attempts to break in. Microsoft has since migrated to telling you the issue and patching on the same Tuesday, every month.
How could you not know? The article you quoted specifically said it. It was the first WORD in the quote you used. "US"
Wholly Cow! I just thought of the potential for bongs.... YOU'RE LIVING IN A VACUUM!!
8 space stations converge on to a central space station. The center one's occupant has at this point filled his inflatable home with BEER and quickly releases the intake valve and mosie on over to his friends station. The 8 stations in the mean time will house 1 individual (with exception of visiting friend), and be 90% deflated... On the count of 3 the computer systems will simultaneously connect to the central beer system and initialize their beer intake cables. The beer would instantly shoot from the center station to the exterior ones and splash every where. At this point everyone would jump on IM and type "WOOT! DET WUZ SWEEETAH! Do it again!" to each other.
I'm not a physicist either... Electrical, but if they are using the gaseous clouds in their measurements, what makes them believe the gaseous clouds are not moving? I mean if you have different densities and different gasses moving at various different speeds... wouldn't all that contaminate the results? I mean I'm not at work all the time, when I'm there the 'lights' are 'on', and when I'm at home, the 'lights' at work are 'off'. Eh?