If somebody comes up with a novel patent compression algorithm, why shouldn't they be able to patent it? I read the argument about math not being patentable, but I don't really understand why. A new data compression algorithm that is truly novel seems like it should deserve some protection so that the inventor can get rewarded for her work. No?
Why pay book value for new models when the 3 year old model will last you as long
No, I'm pretty sure that, on average, it will last you about 3 years less.
If you are correct that taxes collect themselves, then why couldn't billing use the same technology?
I think the point is that there is a tax collection system in place already. Adding a line item on the form to cover water is not going to increase the cost and complexity of the system.
Or a road has a new road layout. The lanes have moved around. Perhaps a two way street has become a one way street. This is clearly signposted. Can your car read these signs? Will it just dumbly drive up the street the wrong way until someone thinks to update the map?
Why do you have the impression that computers these days can still only do the same things they did in the 90s?
Yes, the car can read the signs, easily. It's trivial for it to see the sign that says "one way, do not enter" and to recalculate its route. It's also easy for the first car that spots the sign that doesn't match its map to update other cars and let them know what's going on.
And, why wouldn't it have a special bus queue length algorithm, if that was important to know? How hard of an algorithm would it be? It could even query the average wait time for a particular bus stop and adjust to be even more precise. I bet it could predict the waiting time better than you would.
Yeah, it is. "Disguised", my ass.
For the next month, I arrived at my desk at 0800, took a 15 minute break at ten and 2, left at 12 for exactly 1 hour, and left at exactly 5 p.m. Even though they got the message very clearly after the first week.
Wow, you worked regular work hours and coworkers could find you during the day... you really showed them.
If you're going to be working odd hours and come and go whenever you want, then that should be a "work from home" job. But, since somebody complained that they couldn't find you at 10am, it sounds like it wasn't that kind of a job.
Believe me, 9 out of 10 companies would prefer you to work 40 hours a week and during regular hours than this "I stay very late" BS.
I guess it's all about managing your toothpaste shopping habits. I can always easily find $25+ worth of things that I need for the house that are cheaper or same price as my local grocery store, so I just buy a bunch of things I need altogether.
Toothpaste, paper towels, garbage bags, coffee, cat litter... those are things you always need in regular intervals. Just get them together in appropriate quantities.
I figured that, like most people on
/., I'm not in the target demographic.
I don't think you figured "like most people on
Screw the delayed gratification. When I go to store to buy something, I get it right then and there. Online was always a pain because of the delay... Prime makes the delay very manageable.
Thanks for the link. The score in the finals was 19-8, as the played in the rain on a muddy court and neither team could dribble the ball!
and actually you as well have taken the time to type out a response to something you think is "irrelevant"
You missed my point. You made "alot" the subject at hand, and the actual point you were trying to make on the topic became irrelevant. We're all talking about your spelling instead of whatever you were trying to say in the discussion.
If your desire is only to get noticed and get replies correcting your spelling, then saying "alot" a lot
I make my words a bit grating precisely for that reason. I *want* people to pay attention...I am not making the same point everyone else has made. I **DO** believe we can all agree and move forward and I have had some very interesting conversations this way.
That doesn't make any sense. The conversation ended up being about spelling instead of your point, which is completely opposite from what you wanted it to be.
You don't make your words "grating" by misspelling them, you make them irrelevant... unfortunately.
Following that up with an argument that you did it on purpose certainly doesn't help your cause. It only leads it us even further astray from the topic.
What we need is for the protocol to be reverse-engineered
The "protocol" seems to be a simple POST with fields like "channel=32&antenna=no", etc.
That better not take too long to reverse-engineer.
You are ignoring the reality that people drive far more often than they skydive.
I was not ignoring it, I was addressing it head on. I believe that if it takes 100+ times of doing one thing vs. once of another thing to bring them into comparable death probabilities, then the thing you can do 100+ times is clearly safer.
People don't understand that most fatalities from skydiving involve stunts of some sort: hook turns, base jumping, wingsuits.
That calculation is completely flawed. You can't compare the lifetime chance of death for something that is done occasionally vs something that is done multiple times a day, and say that they are equally safe.
In 100,000,000 miles traveled, at least a few million trips were made, vs. 150,000 jumps. Clearly, getting into a car and driving to a destination is an order of magnitude safer than jumping out of a plane.