I always assumed that the people that still used AOL simply didn't remember to cancel their service years ago or were deceased (somehow still paying the bill)
Further proof that Apple is evil. Actually, it's just a pentalobular screw. Many tool vendors already have these You just have to look a bit. If you have some patience, you can make one yourself.
This is troubling. The poster makes it seem that it's the number of patents that protects IP. It isn't. Also, all because something has a weak patent doesn't mean that someone else has a patent for it. It may just already be well known those skilled in the art. Of course in the US, the test for obviousness in software patents is almost completely absent.
So, the only real novel thing here is utilizing solar energy to heat the backwards fuel cell. The "reactor" isn't really new. Anyhow, If they can make it work reliably, efficiently, and cost effectively, they may be on to something.
The gigantic ball of "burning energy" is the sun. It doesn't show up every day---we do, as we rotate around the globe, alternating being in the shady side and the sunny side of the earth.
Also, the resource may be free, but the cost of utilizing it isn't. It's like the gold and other precious metals dissolved in the ocean water. This "free" resource is there. You could extract more gold than your most wild dreams. The cost of extracting the precious metals from the seawater, however, will be quite significant---especially compared to the value of what you extracted.
Well, now we are really getting into the improbable. I cannot envision very many college graduates that have mastered skill sets that aren't already available elsewhere. Unless the individual developed these by himself (back to the "jewel of a programmer" scenario) the company's management either didn't cast a net wide enough for their search or there is something else going on.
I know of many impatient managers & directors that fixate on "NOW" and waste resources and burn bridges because they are spoiled, whiny, "I want it now" brats. This has the stink of this kind of impatience and incompetence all over it.
Life is not fair? Compared to what? I am sure we don't know all of the facts. The new hire is either an exceptional jewel of a programmer or the management is smoking something. Either way, the older developer does indeed need to find a new job---to get a raise and tell management to kiss his ass. Maybe---if the programmer is *that good*---the older developer could stay to learn something.
Since the news media likes to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over, just about anything that hits the national press is either over-hyped or about to be over-hyped. That's just the way it is. Cyberwar is no different.
"525 children recovered" Does anyone know the basis of this statistic? Do they simply claim that, since an Amber alert was issued, if the person is found it must be the result of the Amber alert, regardless of its relevance to the recovery? Also, how may amber alerts have been issued or what is their success rate?
I think the problem with "to google" is bigger than that. This verb has been in the Oxford English Dictionary for quite some time, and they cite their earliest reference from 1909. (Anyone have an old copy of the Westminster Gazette from 5 July?)
Pronunciation:/gug()l/ Etymology: Back-formation googly n. Cricket. intr. Of the ball: to have a ‘googly’ break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball)
It's not about company's usage of the term, it also applies to colloquial usage as well. If *anyone* was using the term in this context it should not be a defensible trademark and should not have been issued at all. Look at Google. There have been many companies that used the word "Google" in the past as servicemarks, trademarks, and wordmarks.
So, in your opinion, can any words that are in the dictionary have a tradmark? At least in the US, trademarks depend on context. It doesn't need to be unique words. Of course, if you pick a single word, like "Windows" you are really at risk at having a indefensible trademark. Unfortunately, in the US the USPTO system is broken. In some other countries, it's even worse.
As an example of how broken the system is, have you checked out RadioShack's brand icon. IMHO it's way too similar to the actual registered trademark symbol itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I always assumed that the people that still used AOL simply didn't remember to cancel their service years ago or were deceased (somehow still paying the bill)
Further proof that Apple is evil.
Actually, it's just a pentalobular screw. Many tool vendors already have these You just have to look a bit. If you have some patience, you can make one yourself.
OMG, I just don't know where to start with how lame this is.
I don't know what I was thinking.
This is troubling. The poster makes it seem that it's the number of patents that protects IP. It isn't.
Also, all because something has a weak patent doesn't mean that someone else has a patent for it. It may just already be well known those skilled in the art.
Of course in the US, the test for obviousness in software patents is almost completely absent.
Honestly, does anyone check spelling anymore?
They are undoubtedly trying to cash in on the publicity they received from the WikiLeaks scandal.
So, the only real novel thing here is utilizing solar energy to heat the backwards fuel cell. The "reactor" isn't really new.
Anyhow, If they can make it work reliably, efficiently, and cost effectively, they may be on to something.
The gigantic ball of "burning energy" is the sun. It doesn't show up every day---we do, as we rotate around the globe, alternating being in the shady side and the sunny side of the earth.
Also, the resource may be free, but the cost of utilizing it isn't. It's like the gold and other precious metals dissolved in the ocean water. This "free" resource is there. You could extract more gold than your most wild dreams. The cost of extracting the precious metals from the seawater, however, will be quite significant---especially compared to the value of what you extracted.
Well, now we are really getting into the improbable. I cannot envision very many college graduates that have mastered skill sets that aren't already available elsewhere. Unless the individual developed these by himself (back to the "jewel of a programmer" scenario) the company's management either didn't cast a net wide enough for their search or there is something else going on.
I know of many impatient managers & directors that fixate on "NOW" and waste resources and burn bridges because they are spoiled, whiny, "I want it now" brats. This has the stink of this kind of impatience and incompetence all over it.
Forget the older programmer. I want to find the recruiter and give them my resume!
Let me see...what buzzwords are popular today...
Life is not fair? Compared to what?
I am sure we don't know all of the facts. The new hire is either an exceptional jewel of a programmer or the management is smoking something. Either way, the older developer does indeed need to find a new job---to get a raise and tell management to kiss his ass. Maybe---if the programmer is *that good*---the older developer could stay to learn something.
Maybe SPI and SPII? I guess they would use Roman numerals.
Don't forget the First and Second Vatican Councils! They are like SP1 and SP2. The other Catholic Ecumenical Councils are like the regular updates.
Being a celebrity has no ON/OFF switch, and most "news" is not newsworthy.
Since the news media likes to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over, just about anything that hits the national press is either over-hyped or about to be over-hyped. That's just the way it is. Cyberwar is no different.
Well, it may be immoral, but I guess that Google doesn't think it's "evil". I wonder where Eric Schmidt sets the bar on the whole evil/immoral thing?
Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush
Thanks!
"525 children recovered" Does anyone know the basis of this statistic? Do they simply claim that, since an Amber alert was issued, if the person is found it must be the result of the Amber alert, regardless of its relevance to the recovery? Also, how may amber alerts have been issued or what is their success rate?
Just curious.
Well, to be fair. To a dog, that's 42 years.
I think the problem with "to google" is bigger than that. This verb has been in the Oxford English Dictionary for quite some time, and they cite their earliest reference from 1909. (Anyone have an old copy of the Westminster Gazette from 5 July?)
Pronunciation: /gug()l/
Etymology: Back-formation googly n.
Cricket. intr. Of the ball: to have a ‘googly’ break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball)
It's not about company's usage of the term, it also applies to colloquial usage as well. If *anyone* was using the term in this context it should not be a defensible trademark and should not have been issued at all.
Look at Google. There have been many companies that used the word "Google" in the past as servicemarks, trademarks, and wordmarks.
What about "L'App Store". Makes it more defensible---because it's like French or something.
So, in your opinion, can any words that are in the dictionary have a tradmark? At least in the US, trademarks depend on context. It doesn't need to be unique words. Of course, if you pick a single word, like "Windows" you are really at risk at having a indefensible trademark.
Unfortunately, in the US the USPTO system is broken. In some other countries, it's even worse.
As an example of how broken the system is, have you checked out RadioShack's brand icon. IMHO it's way too similar to the actual registered trademark symbol itself.