Most algorithms are not patentable in the US either, post-Alice. I don't doubt thousands of patents have been issued, but that doesn't automatically make them valid.

The only time I ever used a flame thrower was to put out a forest fire. I don't doubt that the deer were frightened of me, but in my defense I was trying to protect their home.

Why are NRA members so dim-witted? Do you even understand your own propaganda, or do you just spew it like a mindless zombie? It isn't the flame-thrower that scares people, it is the asshole waving it around.

Gravel may be all you can grow, but that isn't a garden. That isn't even a rock garden.

When the big changeover from SVN being the #1 VCS to git taking the crown happened, SVN did not have those features. You couldn't check in changes without talking to the server. If the server was down, you'd have to wait and check in all your changes at once. That was one of the big features of git that had people excited; they could still do local checkins. The only thing they were missing when the server was down was sharing the code and handling any conflicting changes. But actually checking the changes in doesn't get messed up.

Sure, after "everybody" switched, then SVN finally added the needed parts of de-centralization. I actually enjoyed using svn more than git, but I sure don't regret switching. If nobody had switched, we'd still be without modern features...

Reminds me of Carmageddon, the traffic disaster that finished ahead of schedule and without any disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Get better road workers. I recommend putting the engineers in charge.

This is an example of what I get:

http://oregon.apwa.net/PageDet...

The general theory is that if it costs them more than they think the policy saved them, then it will moderate their behavior because they'll have wished they made more money, and they would have.

The problem with small penalties isn't related to the company being able to survive them, but to the fact that the penalties for things are often smaller than the perceived profit from having done it. Here, there is no obvious large profit. If they reduced turnover by some percent that would save them money, but not huge amounts. It might not have to be a huge fine.

That presumes that they have a worker shortage, and if they could just hire more workers, they'd make more money. It is highly unlikely for that to be true.

More likely, they already hire the number of workers they want, they could hire more workers at the same pay rate, and keeping unhappy people from quitting doesn't actually increase their profits at all.

Companies don't wait for a cost/benefit analysis to put asshole bullshit into the contract. A lot of companies start off with that sort of thing just because the lawyer said it is a standard practice, without ever having a business analysis, or even an actual legal concern.

If the company actually sues you, these types of cases are easy to get a lawyer for on contingency for the counter-suit.

It is a tort to cause somebody to be unable to work. Trying to ban them from the industry they have experience in, when they're not a worker with specialized knowledge about the company's professional whatthewhat, is a giant counter-suit.

And, did they give these workers a pay raise when they added the clause, that they can argue in court was worth 18 months of work? No? Then it isn't enforceable in any state, because of the basic common-law requirement for contracts to be based on a "consideration" given. If they argue some tiny amount counts as consideration, they'll be admitting to an unfair business practice that denies somebody the right to work.

They wouldn't just lose, they'd get shafted on the counter-suit. Except that they would actually just pay lots of money and settle.

This is a clause added entirely because Amazon's lawyers are assholes. Luckily, asshole lawyers don't get to file suits without the permission of the senior execs.

I predict somebody will quit, and then sue them for 18 months of pay because they're only experienced in warehouse work. They'll not only get an easy settlement, (these contracts are only legal for professional employees, not for laborers) they'll also throw it out for everybody else. They'll still probably have to pay settlements to a bunch of people who quit or were fired during the policy, and then didn't find work immediately afterwards.

They should really hire some competent lawyers instead of these "full asshole" guys, because they're creating a giant pile of needless liability for nothing.

If it was really semantic content, then your client (browser) could walk the graph of related (advertised) documents from those links and provide all sorts of information. For the advertising to be semantic, it would need to be wrapped in some sort of standard API or descriptive (semantic) access method that flagged it as advertising. You could then, in a good client, turn off all the advertising links, and even substitute dictionary entries with the same keyword.

Semantic access is exactly that; providing the data for the client to make decisions based on, so that you can choose between different things that have the same keywords, depending on their meaning. If it isn't associated with a new browser feature, it probably isn't a semantic document at all, unless it is just a REST-based catalog that is easily client-walkable. Then it might be primitive "semantic web."

Well, if it was actual semantic content provided as such to an aware browser, then it would decrease annoyance by giving the user more control.

Unfortunately for the summary, links are not in fact semantic content. You can have more, or less, links, and you haven't done anything with regards to semantic content. What you need is computer-understood meta-data, including links, that is separate from the main content, follows standard conventions, and can be used by the client software to give semantic information to the user.

Links at the end of a story... that is just links at the end of a story. I know it is amazing, but the jargon in this case is actual jargon, not just a meaningless fluff word.

Because the average person can't think for themselves.

Oh wait, you're right, they also don't care if anybody is thinking.

Perhaps only the above average care.

The part you're missing is that google's algorithms don't attempt to understand the words. That is why they actually can index and search foreign language pages effectively. My wife searches for stuff in Thai all the time. Google didn't have to add any special Thai support for that. All they do identify strings and substrings. It is all based on what patterns exist. It is all just identifying lexical units and what other lexical units are used in relation to them, with no attempt at all at semantic understanding. So in your example, it tells you that in English it is more common to talk about "male scientists" than "female scientists." Indeed, even news articles reporting on the gender imbalance in science is likely to use the term "male scientists" and not the phrase "female scientists." Even without any sexism, just the nature of having an imbalance means that in many cases you would pair one group with the position that lacks parity, and the other group with the people not choosing that position. So you might talk about "male scientists," and then about "female students" not choosing a career in science. Once you understand that, then you can just click on the link and get to your results without embarrassment.

In the old days when google had a clear and literal search syntax, you could avoid those problems by just quoting phrases or word groups, but that doesn't work well anymore.

Your "can not"s are made up entirely by you, those aren't the rules here in the USA, where this story is from.

If the problem is that the competition is inferior, you should be blaming the competition. It is like when the loser of the race complains, "gosh, he shouldn't have won, he's so fast it just isn't fair!"