I was wondering the same...
1275 posts • joined 22 May 2007
I was wondering the same...
"It's the kind of suit we're becoming too familiar with: a previously unknown company with no product, lassoing a bunch of fat tech companies and a couple of big-name end users, claiming damages plus injunction against sale of the companies products or services in the US."
The only way I can see to stop things like this happening with patents is a "Use it or Loose it" clause: If the holder of a patent makes no effort to use said patent, they loose it and the patented material is released public domain.
Noone should be allowed to hold back human advances by patenting something they never have any intention of using. Give them a reasonable amount of time, but if they sue down the line and cannot prove that they have been actively seeking to utilise the patent (whether by developing it, developing a product around it, or something similar), throw it out of court, invalidating the patent.
I am not defending them. I am sure that they have been dodgy. I am only passing on what he told me, the opinion of one former employee (who I suspect was too honest, which is why he wasn't with them very long)
As for my assertion that it's for lazy people, I stand by that. I consider selling to a dealer even more so in most instances, but sites such as webuy are a very quick method of getting shut of a motor, where they (or more precisely the dealers they sell the car on to) take on the hassle of trying to get a good price for your car. Yes, you must fill in details about your car and drive it to them. But if you were to sell privately, you will likely have to spend more time putting several adverts out there, showing potential buyers your car, haggling, and generally putting in effort. Selling your car privately will most often bring you the best price (eventually), but it is a much more laborious process. Webuy (or part-exing at a dealer) is a quick and easy method of getting shut, but they will never give you what the car is really worth (they need to make a profit, even the honest ones!)
I know someone who used to work for webuyanycar.
Although I am not saying their practices are right, fair or even legal, he told me the main problem was that people failed to mention defects on the online valuation. They would not mantion the scratched bumper, dented wing, chipped windscreen etc. then complain that they weren't offered the same price. Let's be honest, if you sold your car on ebay, for instance, and you didn't mention the faults correctly, you can't expect the buyer to want to pay as much (most often they will cancel as the car is not as described).
The other point is that they are making money from people's laziness. You know they will never offer full market value, because they need to make a profit. It saves you time, so you can accept a lower price, but you will get more if you put in the effort to sell privately.
Once again, I'm not saying they are right... Just that people slag them off more than they deserve sometimes.
"The unauthorised access was detected and traced back to an internet connection at the home Dinh shares with his mother in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania."
This is what has become of present day "hackers"?
There are now so many easy ways of disguising where an attack came from, but it looks like he wasn't even intelligent enough to use Tor. The guy deserves jail for his stupidity more than for his "hacking".
If it was done to bash the company, they are twats.
If it was done to highlight the stupidity of the UK copyright law (which it has), it's rather clever really.
I had no choice but to downvote your post...
YOU'VE GOT THAT ******* SONG STUCK IN MY HEAD!
Pretty much shows what I though of myself: Quite middle-of-the-road economically but reasonably libertarian.
It's an interesting experiment, and I support the way it seems to be being used to broaden the people's political horizons (voting for those who most closely match your position, rather than "we're a Labour/Conservative family"). I doubt it will work, though, and it is an oversimplification, but interesting non-the-less.
They should "use more Apple products" during an "efficiency drive"?!
We recently had a similar experience. One of our higher-ups decided that, for the upgraded systems we were putting in place, he wanted Macs.
Not only did they cost more than twice the price of the faster hardware we specced for him, the software *wouldn't even run natively* on Mac OSX. We would have had to either boot them into RHEL or run RHEL in a VM to make it work.
He just wanted Macs.
In the end we managed to slap him with a wet kipper (well, go over his head explaining the massive waste of resources he wanted to engage in) and he got a bunch of generic very fast workstations (the sort that starts tingly feelings in unmentionable areas) for half the cost, but he wasn't happy (I WANT A MAC WAH WAH WAH!!)
E ~= 1KW/m^2
e(leaf) ~= 2%
e(art leaf) ~= 10e(leaf) ~= 20% = 0.2
so for the artificial leaf, you get 0.2*1000 = 200W/m^2
for 0.005544m^2, you get 1W, not 0.01W
unless I have missed something (I am as prone to error as anyone else)
"In short, in a fight, humans would easily win an air war against the robots - at the moment."
Would it not be a good idea to keep it that way?
Engineering at it's best. Very simple, elegant and original solution.
I once worked this out to try to save money. I have moved further from a train station now, so these figures are not accurate any more.
If I took the train to work, I would need to be on the first applicable train from my local station, at about 6am. I would need to change 3 times, and would arrive at the station nearest where I work at 9:30am, giving a total of 3 and a half hours travelling. The situation is the same on the way back. Therefore, I have spent a total of 7 hours out of my day, nearly a full working day, just travelling.
If I could work on the train, then things become a little better. Time I could work on the train, taking into account the changes and some time to get set up on the train, would be approx 2.5 hours each way. Assuming I can get a suitable seat, of course. This then leaves me with only 2.5 hours to do at work, but it leaves you thinking "Why didn't I just work from home in the first place?"
In the car, the journey takes me 30-45mins. It makes for a simple choice.
Specifically with respect to these trains, one of the often-quoted advantages to using public transport is the ability to get work and/or other things done while travelling, which you cannot do while driving (at least, you shouldn't, although I know a few people who check their emails, update client notes etc. while driving). If there is barely enough space for you to sit, there is no chance of you being able to get your laptop out.
"hardly worth a fawning two page article on El Reg"
I count 3 pages.
"Why oh why are we still developing technology that requires combustable fuel"
Maybe because it's the only technology we have which is currently usable in this situation?
I would LOVE to see someone try to power a hypersonic aircraft with batteries. At this point in time, it is just not possible.
Cars, I can see the point. We are nearly at the stage where an electric car could replace one with an ICE for more than short distance use. It's already there with hybrid tech (although I don't see why they are all petrol, diesel seems a better fit for most).
But aircraft still have a LONG way to go, and spacecraft will be in the "distant" future. For now, we still need combustion-based technology for these applications.
How could they think they could get away with it?
"I'll take a copyrighted work, remove the copyright notice and a couple of bits I don't need, and it is not longer copyrighted so I can do what I want"
If you tried that with anything else, you would be laughed at.
I don't think that's quite true.
I do not know if the judge can make Crossley pay the actual court costs, although I hope he can.
I think the people who will be most out-of-pocket are those who chose to defend themselves. They will have huge fees for their lawyers. They are the main costs which need to be recouped.
I think, in this case, Crossley (or at least someone involved in this despicable extortion racket) should pick up all the costs involved. It would send a message to anyone thinking of doing the same in future.
"These displays are one of the few ways that tobacco manufacturers can work to recruit new younger smokers."
I think the main way they recruit is by a school kid, one of the tough, cool kids, getting their hands on a pack. Their friends then see it as cool, so start.
I remember reading somewhere that this will just generate more revenue for Tobacco companies.
Tobacco co's saved a hell of a lot when they were no longer allowed to advertise, and this was not passed on to the consumer.
The same will happen with packets: They will cost the co's a substantial amount less.
It will not discourage smokers. It is unlikely to stop people from starting smoking, as most start in their teens before they are legally allowed, so can't buy them from a shop anyway.
I haven't seen the figures (so don't take this as fact), but someone told me that the tax the govt collects from tobacco exceeds the NHS budget.
This was a few years back. It may be that NHS costs have gone up and smokers, therefore tax revenues, have gone down. It also may just be incorrect.
I what Vodafone is saying is correct, and they have not used "tax avoidance" (perfectly legal) to lower their tax bills, they are actually in trouble anyway.
A company's main responsibility is, AFAIK, to bring value to shareholders. This is done by generating the maximum possible profit.
If they have not exploited tax loopholes to lower their tax bill, they have not done their duty towards shareholders and could face action from them.
Rock, meet Hard Place.
Had the same problem with my insurance. Not such an easy solution though (I am still fighting it, without much success as yet...)
"Athiests KNOW there is nothing. It's not about a belief in something which cannot be proven."
Do you wish to prove that there is no god?
But I don't get it.
There seems to be a lot of argument (here and elsewhere in this thread) about that phrase.
"An Atheist believes there is no god."
As far as I have always been aware, that is the definition of an Atheist. Not someone who doesn't believe in any of the religions, not one who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god. The whole premise is the belief that there is no god.
Of course we can go into definitions of god, but apart from that I fail to see the flaw. Is my definition of Atheism that wrong?
As to faith... I was brought up in a religious household. Faith, in a religious context, is accepting an idea as fact without proof. There may be much evidence to support the idea, but not enough to stand up to a full logical argument. This is where faith comes in.
So, by all the information I have at hand, my argument was logical. I am not "exploiting the multiple meanings that English words and phrases can have in the service of a bullshit argument".
An Atheist believes there is no god.
There is no solid evidence that there is no god (just as there is no solid evidence that there is a god).
Faith is a belief in something for which there is no solid evidence.
Therefore, an Atheist has Faith that there is no god.
Atheists believe that a god does not exist.
Those who are Agnostic do not believe that a god exists.
There is a difference. Atheism is a postitive belief. Agnosticism(?) is a lack of belief.
"If we all believed in pure Darwinism/Evolution then it would be perfectly acceptable to run small children over on the way to work. Going for a new job? Gun down your rivals as they arrived for their interviews. Selfish Gene and all that, survival of the fittest. Perfectly justifiable."
This is pure bull!
We are social animals. We have "known", since long before religion, that in order for the species to continue we must work together. We must support and defend our offspring, our family, our social group.
Morals did not grow from religion, they were incorporate into religion. Religion grew from a desire to understand the universe (from science, you could say). Instead of saying "we don't know", we formulated theories, for example an all-powerful being. Religion grew because, firstly, it gave easy explanations to what seemed unexplainable, and secondly, people realised it was a great tool by which to control people.
Although I hate to disagree with our all-powerful Moderatrix, I would say yes, you can be a fundamentalist Atheist.
Your problem here appears to be that you define Atheism as a lack of belief, which is not the case. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. It would be all too possible for a group of Atheists to say, for example, "Anyone who follows a religion is stupid and must be killed", and launch a war on religion.
I am Agnostic. I would say a person without beliefs would be Agnostic, but I don't believe that.
I have been using this on my Motorola Dext for quite a while now, and it is great. Very responsive and stable, I wouldn't have a 'droid without it!
If you are using your phone as a wireless hotspot for the PC, you are breaking GiffGaff's T's & C's. Don't be surprised if you get booted.
On GiffGaff, the T&C's state that tethering is not allowed. This is because they offer unlimited usage, but only from a phone. Let's face it, a phone is not going to be easily able to download as much as a PC. They are quite happy for you to do whatever you want from your mobile, not imposing any caps. It is unreasonable for them to allow you to use it as a replacement for home broadband.
The GG £10 bundle is for 150mins, but they are currently running a promo giving 100 extra = 250. At the end of the month that drops back to 150.
I would be curious to know if the three deal allows tethering. It's one thing GG don't allow at the moment.
That makes it an even more effective weapon.
Just make sure the dust goes in the same direction as the bullets.
When the bullets run out, as mentioned above, whack the enemy over the head with 1100 degC stick.
This weapon is sounding better all the time!
"Most attempts to solve the problems with government IT have treated the symptoms rather than resolved the underlying system-wide problems. This has simply led to doing the wrong things 'better'"
This sounds like most of the companies I have worked for.
Seeing the cost of an ebook being more than the price of the paperback riles me. I'm just glad I have Calibre to convert ebooks from other formats so I can shop around, but even then prices are way too high.
But let's not jump straight onto Amazon as the source of the high prices. If the publishers are charging that much, they can't be expected to sell them at a loss.
The other thing that pisses me off is VAT on ebooks.
I half wish my other half never bought me my Kindle... But then again it's a lovely bit of kit, and has transformed my oppinions of ebook readers. All they need to do is sort the pricing (the ex VAT price should be no more than the cost of the cheapest edition new. So while it's only in hardback, use the hardback price. Once it's in paperback, drop to paperback price. Simples.)
This is the first step of such a project.
It may be that the results don't come as a surprise, but in order to gauge the problem, you need to perform controlled, scientific tests.
The next stage, which he has said he will be doing, is to find a way round the problem. This is much easier when you have accurate measurements to start with.
It would be incredibly usefull for several projects I am working on. Any change of details of the co you used?
The AVX mode sounds like something I have been wondering about for a while now. I have been wondering why it hasnt been done before.
Most workloads are mainly integer, so sharing an FPU and allowing 1 core to use all of it sounds like a logical step.
With a bit of luck, this should in itself see a performance boost. It should also allow, say, a 1-thread video encoder to run near the performance of a 2-thread, without the "normal" loss of quality associated with multi-threaded compression.
QUOTE: When the "users" are the CEO and his gaggle of supporting lackeys
This is the most likely explanation. I hate to think "backhander" (although it was the first thing which came to mind) but the most likely causes are:
* Higher-ups don't like Linux, miss being able to play games on their work machines or similar, or
* Custom VB macros don't work in OO, and noone has the expertise (or time) to rewrite them
Old computer (or even something like a Sheevaplug/Guruplug) hooked up to monitor, keyboard and mouse.
Boot optimised Linux environment, possibly running completely from RAM.
Load X and a web browser.
Done! You have duplicated what ChromeOS is supposed to do. (Plus you still have the option of real local programs for specific porpoises or dolphins)
That will only fill the REPORTED disk size with zeros. SSDs are over provisioned, and when new data is written, it often just remaps the block and puts the new data in a new location. Hence, looking at the chips themselves, you could recover a potentially large amount of data.
I had not considered this from a security point of view before.
But do drives not have an "Erase everything" now? I have heard them mentioned alot for performance reasons (i.e. as performance degrades due, you can backup, fully erase, and restore, setting the drive back to "factory" performance levels) and I was fairly sure that this performed an erase on all flash chips in the device.
One thing I do think should be done is allow the drive to be set as a "pure" flash device, maybe using an extension to the ATA/SCSI command set. That way, these devices could be managed using traditional flash filesystems. Or something similar... I'm sure ZFS could easily be tweaked to work well on semi-raw flash. It would be nice if we were given the option, at least, to have more control below the emulated-hard-disk layer (and if drives would stop pretending to have 512b sectors, reporting the true sector size or page size to the OS),
Get a Pirate film, in a standard DVD player, and you can normally watch the film you didn't pay for straight away.
Buy a legit copy, and you have no choice but to sit through adverts and lectures on piracy. So you pay more for an inferior product.
That's insulting to the sheep!
I am not making judgements by posting that, I am just passing on another piece of information.
But for what it's worth, I'll play devil's advocate. How do you know it is not the other way around? The majority content with the status quo, a minority who want change and are going to extreme lengths to get it? From what I have seen, not everyone is out protesting. While it is possible that many do not want to protest out of fear for their safety, it is equally plausible that they support the King but are too afraid of the violence to come out in his support.
Once again, I am not expressing my opinion here, only playing devil's advocate.
All the coverage of Bahrain has been one-sided. I am not suggesting it is wrong, or that the deaths caused by the police/security forces are right, but I suggest this for a read:
This has been written by someone living in Bahrain, and represents an alternative viewpoint. It is always best to hear all sides of any disagreement.
I do not make any judgements here, I am just pointing out a source of information which may be of interest to those with an open mind.
The point I was trying to make was not that the calculation was ambiguous from a programming point of view, as I know rules of precedence define this strictly (although these do vary at times between languages).
The point is just that it is one of my pet peeves, as it takes very little extra effort to add them, and saves a lot of effort in reading it. Also, you cannot be certain that a person knows the rules of precedence, or is following them the same as you.
Either structure your equations in an easily -understandable way or use brackets.
So, do you mean:
194 = ( 4e6 / 14 ) * ( 4.2 / 3600 )
194 = ( 4e6 / (24 * 4.2) ) / 3600 = 4e6 / ( 24 * 4.2 * 3600 )
194 = ( 4e(6/24) * 4.2 ) / 3600
I know I could figure it out by working through the calculation myself, but why should I?
Sorry, rant over. It just riles me when people don't make their equations or calculations clear, especially in programming (I know the orders of precedence are set in stone for a particular language, but a few brackets make the thing SO much easier to read!)
exactly what you mean by this, but Debian has been able to upgrade in place for a long time.
I normally specify the version name (e.g. etch/lenny/squeeze/sid) in my repository sources, to make sure I don't accidentally upgrade, but if you specify "stable" then, when a new version comes out, all you need to do is "apt-get dist-upgrade" and it will upgrade everything*. All it would need is a reboot (or kexec) to load the new kernel and you are away. It's one of the things I have always loved about Debian, and why I run all servers on it (when I have the choice).
*When I say everything, there are occasions when it doesn't work, for example a package has been dropped from the new release. It sometimes needs a bit of care to do this, so doing a dry-run first is a good idea, as well as checking there are no configuration changes needed.
I used to HATE that with a passion. For many search terms you had to go to page 3+ to find anything which was not a price comparison. An attempt to find the support page for a laptop, for instance, required me to try 6 different queries before it appeared on page 1, and then right at the bottom.