Comment Boy (Score 1) 24
It's a good thing none of these industrial controls require IE 6 with an unsupported OS with updates turned off requiring a live internet connection or anything stupid. For a minute that would imply mass incompetence
It's a good thing none of these industrial controls require IE 6 with an unsupported OS with updates turned off requiring a live internet connection or anything stupid. For a minute that would imply mass incompetence
It might be interesting, not to mention somewhat obvious, to quantify how much things have changed in the last decade or two given the trend towards never being more than an arms length away from entertainment.
Which government has working days like that?
A better question is "which hackers have working days like that"? Why would anyone expect criminals to work 9-to-5 jobs? I'd expect something more along the line of noon-to-hey-let's-go-get-piss-drunk-and-sleep-in-until-noon.
This is true. I'm questioning that said patents are really such an "ace up the sleeve" if someone else is beating you to market with devices that already do what your patents purportedly cover. There's only a limited set of physiological sensors that are going to be useful in headphones and that aren't already in their phones, and LG just nailed the main one. Body temperature would be the next obvious.
IMHO, Apple's ace up its sleeve is the same thing it's always been... to ability to pump out a product that's just plain nicer than anyone elses product. Patents just muddy the water.
But Apple has an ace up its sleeve, in the form of patents for a set of headphones with 'one or more integrated physiological sensors' designed to help users keep track of their body stats.
You mean like these. Somehow, I have a feeling those patents might not be as useful as someone might think...
Vim is pretty much the standard vi/editor/$VISUAL on every Linux distribution I use.
It is for me too, after I type "apt-get purge nano".
I assure you, I mean lazy in a very complimentary way here.
;-)
Oh, I understand what you mean. But calling it "lazy" is... well, lazy.
Programmers are generally not lazy people. They're willing to work pretty hard at stuff that matters or that they care about. They just don't like to waste their time, nor do they like to do poor work.
Tedious manual error-prone processes that could be done more efficiently and correctly by making a machine to do it are exactly the sorts of jobs programmers don't like to do.
Granted, not wanting to do a job the way someone expects you to do it or the way it's always been done might *look* lazy...
More useful things have been invented out of an express desire to be lazy than I can even count.
Not so much a "desire to be lazy", but more about pre-empting laziness.
Laziness is like entropy; it's gonna happen.
Tedious manual processes are inherently error-prone. If everyone is conscientious and on-the-ball, things generally work, albeit less efficiently than we'd like. But that's not sustainable in the long term... eventually, people get into a groove and start getting sloppy.
Designing, writing, testing, and rolling out (usually against the inertia of an existing process) a program isn't lazy. It maybe allows the programmer to be lazy later, but in the short term actually a lot more up-front work. It's just a shedload more interesting that the actual work it's replacing, which is usually the main motivation for doing it at all.
Actually, if you read it carefully jcr was suggesting that the OP should harm himself or self-pleasure himself. Or, perhaps, smuggle his digs through a security checkpoint. The specific interpretation is entirely dependent on that individuals personal lifestyle choices.
What do you mean "third party apps"? The summary and TFA claim that this one is in the official Google Play store.
Good point. Mind you, that kinda makes anyone who installs it even dumber than I would have thought.
Easy: Don't. Fucking. Install. It.
This is yet another piece of software which the user needs to download, enable installation of third-party apps, and install. Or the user might've installed it from a dodgy app store (in which case their device is likely already a teeming mess of malware).
Either way, the user needs to do something we've spent the last umpteen years trying to indoctrinate people against.
Wake me up when someone starts injecting this stuff through advertisements in web pages.
This is not a free speech issue. You are allowed to say and write "redskin" anywhere you wish. You just can't trademark it.
Yes, you can. This decision explicitly doesn't revoke the team's right to use the trademark "Redskins". It removes it from the USPTO primary registry, but it doesn't revoke the trademark (in other words, what was an (R) is now a (TM)).
They can't. The plaintiffs were specifically chosen as people who had recently turned 18 and were still eligible to challenge.
They had a trademark on their brand. The feds decide they don't like the mark so they take it away. The owners end up being harmed economically all because the government didn't like the descriptive nature of the brand. They've effectively stifled the free speech of the owner by denying them the use of the mark.
Please read the decision. They have done no such thing, and haven't cancelled the trademark. They've removed it from the primary registry. The team still has full protected (TM) rights, and third parties won't be allowed to make knockoff jersey with the name on it or anything like that. It's just not a registered (R) trademark anymore.
From the decision:
This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks. See, e.g., In re Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 201 USPQ 662, 664 (CCPA 1979).
The trademark exists to protect their business interest in the brand name. The feds aren't canceling the mark because other business entities want to use it, they're canceling the mark because the feds don't like it.
This is wrong. The feds aren't canceling the trademark, period. They are canceling its presence on the USPTO primary registry (where it's not allowed to be under the Lanham act), but it'll still be a (TM) trademark with court protection (just not an (R) registered trademark).
From the decision itself:
This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks. See, e.g., In re Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 201 USPQ 662, 664 (CCPA 1979).
Memory fault - where am I?