I'd wonder how many zillions of examples of "prior art" we can dig up for something that is basically keeping a list of alternative protocols/routes, and selecting one of them.
Unfortunately, as of about a week ago, USPTO will no longer consider prior art as one of the tests of "obviousness" when deciding the validity of a patent claim. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.
Keep in mind you're just removing the dissolved oxygen, not atmospheric oxygen, so it's not like you're taking it out of the air tanks. If you could find a way to extract that prior the the fermentation process, it could even be a net gain.
You need that initial dissolved oxygen, as the aerobic phase is when the yeast cells multiply. Without it, you're liable to get a stuck batch.
The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.
It's great that atmospheric distortion can be largely eliminated, but just wait until we get some improved optics into space. Hubble has produced wonderful images, but the James Webb Space Telescope is going to be a phenomenal upgrade.
Just because the patent expired doesn't make it great. Some of the stuff rendered with BCI almost makes me want to go back to bitmapped fonts. Or maybe it works well, but only with non-free fonts. If that's the case, here's hoping that free operating systems that use FreeType do NOT make this the default immediately.
Is because Microsoft's source is closed, and a spy might have a chance to find a hole in the source code that's not obvious without the source code, or possibly would have a chance to plant something in the code. On the other hand, spies are welcome to contribute to open source. They won't be able to slip much past the massive peer review.
Science proved astrology wrong? I hadn't heard that. I thought proofs were in the realm of mathematics. Science tries to provides evidence for theories, but that does not prove them corrent, and science would have a hard time proving many things wrong. Prove you aren't a computer simulation.
Looking at the article blurb the bias towards the forgone conclusion is clear with words and phrases like "flawed mental shortcut", "nonsense", "otherwise highly logical", and "silly things". Couldn't astrology simply be so complex that science is unable to explain it?
Sure I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I'm also being skeptical of my skepticism, like a person of science should.
Reminds me of a quote:
If a man has a strong faith he can indulge in the luxury of skepticism.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
I lived in a house in Moorhead, MN from 1988 until 1999 when I moved to California. Shortly thereafter the ceiling in the living room caved in following a storm exposing 6 inches of Aspergillus growth. The house was sealed off by the EPA and had to have major cleanup.
In spite of this, I think at most this is a contributing factor. If I had an active aspergillus infection that would be a lot easier to find.
Oh, the fuel oil furnace in the house was also found to have a cracked heat exchanger that was allowing fuel oil vapor into the ventilation system. The ducts were choked with soot.
Seriously, if you kept yourself informed, you'd realise by now that Pat was _never_ self medicating, when he was on antibiotics it was always under perscription.
Exactly.
I'm also getting some people who are telling me that this whole issue was caused by antibiotics that weakened my immunity. However, from around 2/2003 to 11/2004, I did not take _any_ antibiotics. When I started to get really sick in October I hadn't had antibiotics in well over a year. I had only two short courses of antibiotics in 2002 and 2003 for what seemed to be bronchitis (though the docs never verified if it was bacterial or viral but just said, "here, eat some Cipro).
One more time:
I have not been "self-medicating".
I have never, ever, taken antibiotics until I felt better and then stopped them, allowing a resistant relapse to occur. I have, however, been given an insufficient initial course of antibiotics for prostatitis in 2001 (which is what then required a long course of Cipro).
For those who are making fun of my supposedly improper use of medical terms, or wrong context, or whatever: this is not my field of expertise and we both know it. I don't hassle people trying to get computer help from me when they use incorrect jargon. Maybe BMDFH should be a new acronym.
On the hypochondria theory: anyone who has ever spent any significant time with me in person would shoot that one down in an instant. The last two months have been highly unusual for me, and I've never been inclined to think that I'm sick, to worry about that, or to go see doctors. I hate being a pincushion.
Oh, and I know that seeing a new doctor causes a reinvent the wheel syndrome, and that when you tell them how many other doctors you've seen recently they tend to suspect you're crazy rather than physically ill. I know this all too well. However, if the antibiotics I've taken are suppressing the usual clinical evidence then I'm in a bit of a catch-22. As sick as I've been, the idea of using my body as a petri dish doesn't appeal to me much, comprende? Plus, some of these bugs (especially anerobes) simply don't culture well, and they won't go for the slam-dunk with a needle biopsy. At some point you'd think there would be a time for proactive treatment. Like in, say, a patient with no history of heart trouble who has complained of a recent fever and infection who has developed a new mitral valve prolapse.
I guess that's about it for now. I know some of you think I'm an behaving like an idiot, or whatever. I only hope that those of you who feel that way never find yourselves in my shoes.
To everyone who has offered well-wishes, thank you!
I've been getting some mail over this, and most of it is positive stuff that has me feeling better right now. Thanks.:-)
One thing I'd like to clear up is that I am not now, nor have I ever been self-medicating with Cipro or any other antibiotics. I've always taken them under the advice of and with a prescription from a qualified medical doctor.
Again, I'm feeling better and hope it continues. Thanks for the well wishes!
Let LinuxWorld know what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.
Good idea. However, since sys-con (the company behind this) has supported Maureen's spamming operation, I can't say I think they all that much in the way of "integrity". Complaining to them about anything has been a waste of time for me.
Allow me to explain. About two years ago I started getting "newsletters" from Maureen. To my knowledge, I never signed up for them or gave sys-con my primary email address. These were sent using a mailer by Lyris (according to their site "Lyris develops opt-in email marketing software"... oh, great), and were as spammy as can be. 10K to 20K of HTML marketing. Here's a partial sample:
To: "linuxgram" From: "Linux Business Week"
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram Maureen is single-handedly the reason why most companies in the software have abandoned having press conferences !... Linuxgram is published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc.
Send press releases to: news@g2news.com
Subscription price per year: $195/?140 individual reader.
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram Breaking News
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-linuxgram-2307683E@mailbox.sys-con.com
I will assure you that, for me, sending the blank unsubscription email was about as effective as pissing in the wind. I complained to every address I could think of @sys-con.com but the garbage continued to arrive. I finally had to resort to adding this block to sendmail:
207.178.67.103 ERROR:"550 known spammers (sys-con) blocked by SPOO database"
Suffice to say that I've (whenever possible) avoided doing business with sys-con ever since, and have lost most of the respect I might have had for them. So now they're spreading lies about the SCO case? Big surprise. Maybe there was some cash in it for them.
It may suprise you, but something as simple as a name can make a world of difference to business people, you know, the types that you want to purchase "UserLinux?"
Plenty of people have said the same thing to me about "Slackware" over the years (at nearly every trade show), and at this point I'd have to concede that it hasn't made it any easier to sell it to the PHBs. They'd all feel much more comfortable running "Trustix" on the company servers. However, sysadmin types don't usually have any problem with "Slackware".
Name matters, and you have to think about who the name is going to appeal to. If your focus is business, it should appeal to the executives, the tech department, or both. I'm not sure the name "UserLinux" will accomplish this.
While in theory this is a great idea, in practice it's likely to be less great. I commonly get sent reports that.ZIP files used in ZipSlack (which have never seen a Windows machine in handling by me), are infected with viruses. This is because "signatures" thought by virus scanning companies to be unique are a lot less unique than they imagined.
If something like this is ever implemented on a wide scale, expect the system to refuse to allow random non-malware files to be used, transferred, or handled, in those cases where they happen to match a banned bit-pattern. Files and emails might even be silently dropped with no notification at all, depending on the implementation (and with an eye to history).
Newsflash genius, most people don't use slackware.
Most people use Windows.
In addition not having pam normally is not something to be proud of!
No, normally it is. A quick glace through the BugTraq archives will show how often there are vulnerabilities having something to do with PAM. By comparision, sendmail looks mighty bug free.
It's possible to create insecure 'security' products just as readily with open-source as with closed-source software.
This sentence can be reduced to "It's possible to create insecure security products" without losing any important content.
The question should be, is it possible to create a truly secure product when there's no opportunity for public code review? My answer would be "no". I shudder to think of how many critical holes would be found in most popular closed source network products if people like Michal Zalewski were allowed to review the source code.
Re:Mo Money! Mo Money! Mo Money!
on
Windows ATMs by 2005
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They already run off the shelf software and have for quite some time. At least one major national bank runs NT on their ATMs, while most other ATMs in the country run OS/2.
I saw an out-of-order ATM a while back displaying a black screen with a C:\ prompt! Now maybe we can get the BSOD instead.
Now, if I recall properly, Red Hat was derived from the BOGUS Linux distribution by Rik Faith. Rik later wrote the package utilities PMS and PM for Red Hat, and Erik Troan and Marc Ewing used those as the basis for RPM version one.
I doubt BOGUS was a Slackware fork -- the structure was quite a bit different. But I'd like to think that Slackware might have helped them accompish their first compiles, and maybe given them some ideas. Several config files did make it over, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/02464211754/us-patent-office-makes-it-harder-to-reject-patents-for-obviousness.shtml
I'd wonder how many zillions of examples of "prior art" we can dig up for something that is basically keeping a list of alternative protocols/routes, and selecting one of them.
Unfortunately, as of about a week ago, USPTO will no longer consider prior art as one of the tests of "obviousness" when deciding the validity of a patent claim. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.
Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does Satan ever have a trident. But this is Slashdot... sigh let the Christian bashing begin if it must! :(
Perhaps you should explain that to the Evangelical Christians in Brazil.
Maybe he cares about kernel bloat.
Maybe he cares that a feature that few people would use might have side effects for all.
LD_AUDIT anyone?
Keep in mind you're just removing the dissolved oxygen, not atmospheric oxygen, so it's not like you're taking it out of the air tanks. If you could find a way to extract that prior the the fermentation process, it could even be a net gain.
You need that initial dissolved oxygen, as the aerobic phase is when the yeast cells multiply. Without it, you're liable to get a stuck batch.
Anyone who was actually using Linux in 1993 knows the manifesto came a couple of years before anything else.
Another nice feature would be randomizing the location by _x_ mi/km.
Ah, the treachery of images. This is not a galaxy.
The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.
It's great that atmospheric distortion can be largely eliminated, but just wait until we get some improved optics into space. Hubble has produced wonderful images, but the James Webb Space Telescope is going to be a phenomenal upgrade.
Just because the patent expired doesn't make it great. Some of the stuff rendered with BCI almost makes me want to go back to bitmapped fonts. Or maybe it works well, but only with non-free fonts. If that's the case, here's hoping that free operating systems that use FreeType do NOT make this the default immediately.
Is because Microsoft's source is closed, and a spy might have a chance to find a hole in the source code that's not obvious without the source code, or possibly would have a chance to plant something in the code. On the other hand, spies are welcome to contribute to open source. They won't be able to slip much past the massive peer review.
Science proved astrology wrong? I hadn't heard that. I thought proofs were in the realm of mathematics. Science tries to provides evidence for theories, but that does not prove them corrent, and science would have a hard time proving many things wrong. Prove you aren't a computer simulation.
Looking at the article blurb the bias towards the forgone conclusion is clear with words and phrases like "flawed mental shortcut", "nonsense", "otherwise highly logical", and "silly things". Couldn't astrology simply be so complex that science is unable to explain it?
Sure I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I'm also being skeptical of my skepticism, like a person of science should.
Reminds me of a quote:
If a man has a strong faith he can indulge in the luxury of skepticism.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
I lived in a house in Moorhead, MN from 1988 until 1999 when I moved to California. Shortly thereafter the ceiling in the living room caved in following a storm exposing 6 inches of Aspergillus growth. The house was sealed off by the EPA and had to have major cleanup.
In spite of this, I think at most this is a contributing factor. If I had an active aspergillus infection that would be a lot easier to find.
Oh, the fuel oil furnace in the house was also found to have a cracked heat exchanger that was allowing fuel oil vapor into the ventilation system. The ducts were choked with soot.
Seriously, if you kept yourself informed, you'd realise by now that Pat was _never_ self medicating, when he was on antibiotics it was always under perscription.
/.,
Exactly.
I'm also getting some people who are telling me that this whole issue was caused by antibiotics that weakened my immunity. However, from around 2/2003 to 11/2004, I did not take _any_ antibiotics. When I started to get really sick in October I hadn't had antibiotics in well over a year. I had only two short courses of antibiotics in 2002 and 2003 for what seemed to be bronchitis (though the docs never verified if it was bacterial or viral but just said, "here, eat some Cipro).
One more time:
I have not been "self-medicating".
I have never, ever, taken antibiotics until I felt better and then stopped them, allowing a resistant relapse to occur. I have, however, been given an insufficient initial course of antibiotics for prostatitis in 2001 (which is what then required a long course of Cipro).
For those who are making fun of my supposedly improper use of medical terms, or wrong context, or whatever: this is not my field of expertise and we both know it. I don't hassle people trying to get computer help from me when they use incorrect jargon. Maybe BMDFH should be a new acronym.
On the hypochondria theory: anyone who has ever spent any significant time with me in person would shoot that one down in an instant. The last two months have been highly unusual for me, and I've never been inclined to think that I'm sick, to worry about that, or to go see doctors.
I hate being a pincushion.
Oh, and I know that seeing a new doctor causes a reinvent the wheel syndrome, and that when you tell them how many other doctors you've seen recently they tend to suspect you're crazy rather than physically ill. I know this all too well. However, if the antibiotics I've taken are suppressing the usual clinical evidence then I'm in a bit of a catch-22. As sick as I've been, the idea of using my body as a petri dish doesn't appeal to me much, comprende? Plus, some of these bugs (especially anerobes) simply don't culture well, and they won't go for the slam-dunk with a needle biopsy. At some point you'd think there would be a time for proactive treatment. Like in, say, a patient with no history of heart trouble who has complained of a recent fever and infection who has developed a new mitral valve prolapse.
I guess that's about it for now. I know some of you think I'm an behaving like an idiot, or whatever. I only hope that those of you who feel that way never find yourselves in my shoes.
To everyone who has offered well-wishes, thank you!
Best regards to
Pat
Although he doesn't come out and say it, it appears that he was treating himself with antibiotics.
I didn't say it, because I didn't do it. All of the antibiotics I've had were prescribed by qualified physicians who had seen me personally.
I've been getting some mail over this, and most of it is positive stuff that has me feeling better right now. Thanks. :-)
One thing I'd like to clear up is that I am not now, nor have I ever been self-medicating with Cipro or any other antibiotics. I've always taken them under the advice of and with a prescription from a qualified medical doctor.
Again, I'm feeling better and hope it continues. Thanks for the well wishes!
Pat
Good idea. However, since sys-con (the company behind this) has supported Maureen's spamming operation, I can't say I think they all that much in the way of "integrity". Complaining to them about anything has been a waste of time for me.
Allow me to explain. About two years ago I started getting "newsletters" from Maureen. To my knowledge, I never signed up for them or gave sys-con my primary email address. These were sent using a mailer by Lyris (according to their site "Lyris develops opt-in email marketing software"... oh, great), and were as spammy as can be. 10K to 20K of HTML marketing. Here's a partial sample:
To: "linuxgram"
...
From: "Linux Business Week"
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram
Maureen is single-handedly the reason why most companies in the software have abandoned having press conferences !
Linuxgram is published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc.
Send press releases to: news@g2news.com
Subscription price per year: $195/?140 individual reader.
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram Breaking News
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-linuxgram-2307683E@mailbox.sys-con.com
I will assure you that, for me, sending the blank unsubscription email was about as effective as pissing in the wind. I complained to every address I could think of @sys-con.com but the garbage continued to arrive. I finally had to resort to adding this block to sendmail:
207.178.67.103 ERROR:"550 known spammers (sys-con) blocked by SPOO database"
Suffice to say that I've (whenever possible) avoided doing business with sys-con ever since, and have lost most of the respect I might have had for them. So now they're spreading lies about the SCO case? Big surprise. Maybe there was some cash in it for them.
1) Uses less resources than KDE
It seems to be using a lot more resources here.
It may suprise you, but something as simple as a name can make a world of difference to business people, you know, the types that you want to purchase "UserLinux?"
Plenty of people have said the same thing to me about "Slackware" over the years (at nearly every trade show), and at this point I'd have to concede that it hasn't made it any easier to sell it to the PHBs. They'd all feel much more comfortable running "Trustix" on the company servers. However, sysadmin types don't usually have any problem with "Slackware".
Name matters, and you have to think about who the name is going to appeal to. If your focus is business, it should appeal to the executives, the tech department, or both. I'm not sure the name "UserLinux" will accomplish this.
While in theory this is a great idea, in practice it's likely to be less great. I commonly get sent reports that .ZIP files used in ZipSlack (which have never seen a Windows machine in handling by me), are infected with viruses. This is because "signatures" thought by virus scanning companies to be unique are a lot less unique than they imagined.
If something like this is ever implemented on a wide scale, expect the system to refuse to allow random non-malware files to be used, transferred, or handled, in those cases where they happen to match a banned bit-pattern. Files and emails might even be silently dropped with no notification at all, depending on the implementation (and with an eye to history).
Newsflash genius, most people don't use slackware.
Most people use Windows.
In addition not having pam normally is not something to be proud of!
No, normally it is. A quick glace through the BugTraq archives will show how often there are vulnerabilities having something to do with PAM. By comparision, sendmail looks mighty bug free.
It's possible to create insecure 'security' products just as readily with open-source as with closed-source software.
This sentence can be reduced to "It's possible to create insecure security products" without losing any important content.
The question should be, is it possible to create a truly secure product when there's no opportunity for public code review? My answer would be "no". I shudder to think of how many critical holes would be found in most popular closed source network products if people like Michal Zalewski were allowed to review the source code.
They already run off the shelf software and have for quite some time. At least one major national bank runs NT on their ATMs, while most other ATMs in the country run OS/2.
I saw an out-of-order ATM a while back displaying a black screen with a C:\ prompt! Now maybe we can get the BSOD instead.
Now, if I recall properly, Red Hat was derived from the BOGUS Linux distribution by Rik Faith. Rik later wrote the package utilities PMS and PM for Red Hat, and Erik Troan and Marc Ewing used those as the basis for RPM version one.
I doubt BOGUS was a Slackware fork -- the structure was quite a bit different. But I'd like to think that Slackware might have helped them accompish their first compiles, and maybe given them some ideas. Several config files did make it over, at least.