I was merely pointing out the actions of a rather notable atheist, much like you were pointing out the antics of some rather notorious religious figures. It seems that neither Stalin nor his subjects were particularly happy with the choice. And I'd rather have a chapter of Westboro Baptist Church in my town than one such as he. To be clear, not because he was an atheist so much as he felt an overburdening desire to enforce his beliefs on others.
Fortunately, atheism is a viable alternative. In fact, let's make it a national requirement.
Chanting a long etcetera. Sounds more like Catholicism than Buddhism...
Based on what you're saying, it seems very possible to me that there are ranges at which the transponder signal can be receive but the skin paint has not.
Signals in both directions will attenuate according to the normal square-of-distance law. Suppose that the aircraft is at a distance from the radar such that the signal is attenuated to just below the detection threshold. That is the radar can not get a skin paint -- but barely. However, the strength of the radar signal that strikes the aircraft at that range is 4X (in an ideal world; in reality its probably even higher) the strength of the signal that arrives back at the radar receiver. This is because doubling the distance (which assumes perfect reflection; in reality it's not quite that good) will quarter the power.
Therefore, the transponder can very likely detect the incoming radar signal -- and respond to it -- at ranges beyond which the radar can get a skin paint, since it receives 4X as much power.
The question, then, is whether the transponder replies with greater energy than the reflection at those long ranges. If so, then there is a zone in which the transponder signal can be detected but the skin paint cannot. Turning off the transponder in that zone would make the plane instantly and completely disappear from radar.
No, it means Microsoft shareholders should buy some Google stock...
But Microsoft collect a "license fee" from all the major Android phone vendors for "patents" used in the Linux kernel.
I wonder what the various national courts around the world will make of this... giving your own OS away for free while running an extortion racket for protection money from your competitors?
Seems to depend on a case by case basis.
My math worked out great. Previously I paid 50% of the premium for my company's blue cross PPO group health insurance plan to the tune of $400/mo. It had a $60 copay, $60 drug copay, and $5000 annual deductible.
Now I pay $350/mo for a blue cross Silver PPO with the same doctors I had before. It has a $30 copay, $150 drug copay (the drug copay seems to be where the insurance companies are really jacking up prices, I guess since they can't stop you from signing up if you're already sick) and I think a $4000 annual deductible. Thanks to my employer not being an asshole and giving me the other $400/mo it used to contribute towards my insurance, I'm coming out on top even after the extra $150/mo for my meds.
See, there's the problem, right there. You could meet every point of that patent on a touchscreen phone using an image of a latch with "Slide to Unlock" written below it. But some legal pedant would still say the idea behind this, when combined with the concept of touch-style drag and drop, which I personally used in 1996 and is a simple extrapolation of the mouse interface which was designed before I was alive, is a new and novel concept. Hence, millions of patents that basically read "[Something people have been doing for some period of time between a generation and the beginning of recorded history] on a computer/the internet/a tablet/a touchscreen.
However, physical latches don't detect contact, nor do they present an image or move the image. So, those first two steps aren't taught by physical latches.
Um, yes they are. Physics instructs my physical latch that it has been touched, and physics causes the image I receive of it to move while I continue to maintain contact with it and move my hand. Physics may also cause it to move back to its original position if I remove my hand, depending on the design of the physical latch.
Now, the real thing is certainly relevant prior art - you couldn't get a patent claim to Mie scattering, since that's inherent in why the sky is blue; and you couldn't get a claim to having virtual smoke rise from a virtual fire.
If your 'simulation' is throwing so much computing power at it that you can use actual physics to design the fire, smoke, and atmosphere, and just let them interact with believable results, I don't think it deserves a patent. Your processor might, if it isn't merely a progression of currently-patented ideas. However, if your simulation is a bunch of special algorithms that effectively reproduce the effect of real life without having to calculate what all the pieces are doing, that's may be worthy of a patent, and will doubtless require something more than and 80-year-old physics reference.
The fact that computing power has improved to the point that we can track physical contact and move high-res images with a responsiveness that is indistinguishable from reality by the human mind doesn't make using physical analogs in that environment innovative - that just makes sense. If they want to patent the painful, almost-intuitive design of the quicktime interface, circa v5, feel free. There's nothing obvious there, from the setting panel that can't be used on a low-res screen on up.
It has been "in progress" for so long that stationary might be a better term.
Did you look at the link? The last update was in January, and described the current status as depending only on one other piece to be ready for launch.
I see. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the root of the problem. They have conflated a web-browser with an OS. No good will come from it except an unfocussed bloated browser and an anaemic OS.
I can see you've never used it.
i) They don't fix the appalling font rendering issues on Windows promptly and as a priority. Most of Google's own web fonts are unusable in production because of this.
I haven't used Windows since about 2000, so I have no comment on this. I will point out that it appears work is in progress: https://code.google.com/p/chro...
ii) They don't follow standard most-recently-used order when ctrl-tab between tabs and they don't see the problem and close any bug report as won't fix.
I disagree with this one. The Chrome tab ordering is better. most-recently-used sucks when you have 20 tabs and have bounced around between them somewhat randomly (as is normal). It makes ctrl-tab completely unpredictable unless you're just jumping back one or two levels. The Chrome way is better.
iii) They start adding animations to html elements you can't restyle with CSS e.g. the zoom ease-in they added to select elements in a recent Chrome.
Got a link to more information? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
There were wide-spread issues on their recent releases. You can only auto-update if you are rock-solid.
Link? I certainly never noticed any issues, but perhaps that's -- again -- because I don't use Windows.
v) They fork from the web-kit project, a once high-point in cross company collaboration for the betterment of the web. Now... beginning of the end.
Nonsense. There is still cross-collaboration between Blink and Webkit, and Google isn't the only company working on Blink.
I also fundamentally disagree with the common
I think the "we should all work on one implementation" theory has basically the same merits as the old Soviet one-gigantic-factory model for production of goods. On the face of it one would think that producing many different designs for one type of product and then building all of them in separate production facilities, distributed through different distribution networks, etc., is very inefficient. One design, one huge factory to maximize economies of scale should be better, right? But history showed that the opposite is true, that a competitive market produces more goods, better goods and does it at a lower cost. The issues in software are different, but at a high level the emergent properties are similar.
vi) And now they are going to spend their time re-implementing a cross-platform widget toolkit.
They already implemented it. It's been used in ChromeOS for a while. My guess is that they've decided it will take less engineer effort to port and maintain Aura than to keep up with Gtk+. I also wouldn't be surprised if a goal isn't to remove some unused cruft from Chrome on platforms (like Windows) that don't tend to have Gtk+ libs lying around. I doubt Chrome uses more than a tiny fraction of the Gtk+ functionality.
The copilot, Fariq Abdul Hamid, seems less than professional
When I was a kid, that's what all the cool captains did. And the cool kids got to go up there and watch.