ALL of that audiophile stuff sounds good (pun intended).
I've seen nonsense about inductance and capacitance. And then it'll be stranded. Oy.
Most people are using it to make a permanent connection in their homes with stranded wire... so endurance, fatigue, corrosion are all non-issues. I would wager a very high sum of money that double-blind testing would result in no perceptible difference.
They aren't scare quotes - they are there to differentiate people who think they can hear things that they really can't from people who truly chase better sound. If I hear anything about oxygen in your speaker wire, you'll get the quotes.
Even blind testing would be an improvement.
Ah, yes, well I should have said "possibly"
Climate change... [ducks].
This gives you a way to affect RAM outside of a sandbox.
I'm not sure whether I more bothered by "benchmark queens" or people who flame over their subjective opinions. The latter are a lot like "audiophiles", unwilling to believe in blind testing.
But how does that change my point? (and I know you don't necessarily disagree...)
Assign the patent to the corporation sponsoring the patent, fine, I agree with that. Just don't allow it to be transferred to another of those corporate peoples. Or hell, maybe if the corporation is bought outright, you could consider transferring *all* patents, etc. But the fact is many patent trolls just pick and choose absurd patents that their lawyers end up finding an angle that's good enough for the ignorant juries who decide the outcomes...
You are totally correct in that. And even 20+ years later, my mom was working in admissions at a major university and was passed up for promotion because she "was probably getting married soon, and would just have kids and leave" (which she did, ie. ME, but I still don't agree with that any more than "preexisting conditions").
But 60 years later, that argument is just not true any more (especially at Stanford, my alma mater), and should be put to bed. The GP comment was what I would call "totally douchey" but the article is also absurd in somehow claiming gender bias started at a single school in a single year. Bullshit sensationalistic headlines... because anyone who actually READ the article would probably find it interesting, and not particularly biased or inflammatory (besides the fact that, yes, Peter Thiel and David Sacks were total a-holes back then).
I was in Stanford class of 1994 - which means, yes, I started in 1990. And, yes, we barely knew what real "email" was, since pretty much no 18 year old in high school had it. I had been on BBSs for 4-5 years before that, but at that point for even the leading edge outside of academia it was private BBS or CompuServe, etc.
By 1994 email was ubiquitous, Usenet was already long in the tooth, the Mosaic browser had been released, and we all had wired Ethernet in our dorm rooms (which still was definitely NOT the norm for college campuses - but it was nice). I wrote the first TCP/IP driver for DOOM so we could play multiplayer in the dorms once they blocked IPX after the initial DOOM IPX driver killed a lot of campus networks
Anyway, the point is that range of 1990-1994 was in fact one of the critical periods for those developing the *commercial* Internet, and Stanford was at ground zero of a lot of it. And another point of the article is (if you read the whole thing) while at Stanford, Peter Thiel and David Sacks were not just the total dicks described in the article - they were WORSE. They basically started the Stanford Review to counter/insult any effort at racial or gender diversity/progress on campus. Even they apologized (according to the article) for the crap they wrote at the time (and Thiel came out of the closet eventually) and at the time it was BAD...
All that being said, the title of this slashdot post is FUCKING STUPID. It's in NO way what the article said, and as you know it's ridiculous to claim tech or ANY OTHER gender gap in business, engineering, or whatever somehow started in *1990* (more like 1790? 1690? 1690BC?) or at a single location...
Patents should be granted to an individual or their assigned company - and then NOT allowed to be transferred. If it's really intellectual property, require that it be used by the intellectual who came up with it, not randomly sold to some giant team of lawyers who try to "monetize" it 10 years after the fact.
That would allow any person - or company that person worked for at the time - to take full advantage of the patent for its original purpose (since almost all patent trolls are not the original inventors) while preventing the soul-sucking leeches on innovation who just want to buy up a bunch of "intellectual property" and speculatively sue anyone who might be doing something remotely similar.
No, I'm just saying that those here who keep saying "any 16 year old with a computer" could have done it are way underestimating it. Since I'm assuming most here are older than 16 and have a computer, are you all saying you could do this trivially given a few hours, a pizza, and a couple Mountain Dews? Bullshit.
Oh, do tell... please name one of these "many models".
So they know their service is crappy. But instead of improving it, which would require actual work, they hide it from the people who make decisions. Every person that accepts one of these cards and does not put it online for public use is corrupt. But I guess being corrupt is normal in the US.
I spent 10-15 hair-pulling minutes yesterday with my 71 year old stepfather (whom I otherwise love dearly) as I, well, let me start from the beginning.
He called and said "We've broken flash on both Macs and can't watch youtube videos now. I've installed it twice on your mom's Mac but it didn't help."
So, I explained that 1) they didn't break anything, flash quits working automatically when it's outdated and waits for you to update it and 2) he didn't "install" it, he merely downloaded it and these two actions are not the same thing.
He apparently couldn't figure out where to download it from and I didn't want him to wander to some web site that would purport to give him flash while giving him something else so I sent him the official link from Adobe. So he went to that link.
I did, too, just so I would know what he would see. I asked if it popped up the box about downloading flash and he assured me that it didn't. He started getting frustrated around this point. (Note that it actually had downloaded and he hadn't paid attention to what he clicked). It was here that he claimed that his only option was to pay $9.99/month for "something called PS and LR - I have no idea what that is" (it's "Photoshop and Light Room" for those wondering).
I'll spare you some pain and just say that he finally found the download, which is in some popup thing on the dock at the bottom. He couldn't figure out how to open it and claimed that when he clicked it it wouldn't do anything. I tried to get him to drag it to the desktop but it finally just opened. I doubt he clicked on it the first 10 times he claimed that he did.
Now, at this point he is looking at the installer for the easiest piece of software in the world to install. He cannot proceed as there is no option to proceed. I ask him to tell me what he sees and (it's different than mine - no idea why - maybe because I have Yosemite) he says something about some license and there's a quit button. Oh, wait, there's an install button but it's black and I can't use it. So he clicks "quit" and says "well, it went away and isn't doing anything".
I asked him what he did and he said "I clicked the quit button, I couldn't do anything else and that doesn't seem to be doing anything".
I convince him to open it back up. I tell him there has to be something else to click. Then he says "there's a bunch of stuff!". I ask him if the browser is open and he replies "well, I don't know but there's a bunch of stuff." I suspect that he's clicked on the license stuff and it's showing it in a browser and he then begins reading the section headings for the license. I tell him "you're in the browser, you need to close it" but he's frustrated and pissed at this point so he begins talking louder over me as he continues to read section headings and then starts to tell me the url. I tell him again "you're in the browser and need to close it" and he finally listens and closes it.
At this point my blood pressure is "high over dangerous". He's back at the window where he can only quit. I ask him "isn't there a box to check to say you've agreed to their license?" and he finally says "oh, yeah" and clicks it and then "I can click install now". I actually expect it to not work but he clicks it and it works.
I cannot get my 10 minutes back.
Imagine that over and over and over and over again for 8 hours.
It doesn't make sense for Comcast to put experienced tech support people on the front lines because dealing with crap like that doesn't require a lot of knowledge. Comcast has a pretty good monitoring system and they know when their stuff isn't working 99% of the time. Most of their calls are probably stupid stuff where rebooting might actually fix it.
We who are computer savvy tend to think that people have problems like we do but that's just not the case. I still deal with my mom calling to tell me that her mail isn't working. I ask her if she can get to cnn.com and she asks "why do I care about that? I want my email to work". Then she says "oh, cnn isn't working, either". People here would understand "it's not email, it's my network connection". Comcast doesn't have to deal with us for a lot of stuff that we can fix - but they do have to deal with people like my folks.
God help them.