I also heard it called Comma-toy and Commode-door, at the time.
What could possibly go wrong? Ask my friend Sue, Sue Nami. What else would happen when you create a "void" under the ocean floor? I know it's not really a void, but I'm equally sure that the freshwater in that porous stone is part of the strength of the stone, just like the aquifers under Florida.
(Putting "tsunami" here in case anyone else searches for the word and doesn't see it. Credit to Larry Norman's "So Long Ago, the Garden" for Sue Nami.)
Who knows, it could even happen, "The Day After Tomorrow". I wonder how busy Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal are.
Slightly more seriously, on the recent risk report, fresh water stopping the Gulf Stream was rated quite low-risk. (I forget the adjective.)
Yes, trucks have always been around
In the context of FAT file systems, "short file names" has a very specific technical meaning. It's a name of exactly 8.3 upper case ASCII letters which is baked into the file system format.
We're not talking about just using short strings for the arbitrary file names supported by modern file systems. Your data set wouldn't even begin to fit on an old DOS machine that only understands short FAT filenames.
You typically need cooling water to efficiently generate electricity, no matter what source of heat is used to drive the boilers. You have to be able to condense the steam coming from the turbines to create a near vacuum, which requires a vast heat sink. That's why coal-fired stations are also often put next to rivers or lakes.
You wouldn't forego the interoperability. It's fine to continue using FAT.
I was simply saying that the patent system should be changed so that the patent on the short file name feature should have been revoked long ago (even if it had not been found to be obvious), due to the fact that nobody needs to interoperate with DOS machines any more, which was the original point of the invention. Having to use the patented feature so that FAT can interoperate with FAT is just a tautology that provides no benefit to a patent licensee. Thus, people should be free to use FAT today without worrying about this patent.
Sorry, but I'm unable to parse your question in its entirety, nor do I see how any of its fragments are relevant to the discussion.
I would like to pretend that DOS is not still with us today, but that would be false. There's still people out there using short file names today. They're useful to someone.
Ok, so there are a few embedded industrial controllers still running DOS, and a few dorks running retro games in their moms' basements.
That doesn't mean that any of them are loading media files off of today's hardware gadgets into these relics. (In fact, a single one of these media files typically exceeds the entire addressable storage capacity of a DOS machine.) Yet Microsoft extracts royalties from the gadget manufacturers as if compatibility with short file names were an essential feature of the media libraries of everybody on the planet.
Link to Original Source
Whether it's relevant any more or not is neither here nor there.
I was arguing that it should be.
If I invent a way to make a clockwork mechanism work more efficiently, that's still an invention, still patentable.
And it's useful to someone. People still buy mechanical timekeeping devices, often at a very high price premium.
Short file names aren't useful to anyone in this day and age.
The network effect is similar to begging the question.
Something is popular because it's popular.
One of the important requirements for a patentable invention is that it must be "useful".
This patent originally covered a way to provide compatibility between short and long file names. But nobody has used short file names in decades.
So now, the "feature" continues to be necessary only so that FAT can provide compatibility with itself. That's like begging the question. The feature no longer has any intrinsic usefulness, and in fact just serves to make the file system format more convoluted and less efficient.
The patent system ought to be changed so that any patent should be revoked once it is no longer useful for its intended purpose. This particular patent has recently been "useful" solely as a way to give Microsoft leverage in the media device market. The covered feature provides zero benefit to end users.
Microsoft's FAT (File Allocation Table) patent, which concerns a "common name space for long and short filenames" was invalidated on Thursday, a spokeswoman for the Federal Patent Court said in an email Friday. She could not give the exact reasons for the court's decision before the written judicial decision is released, which will take a few weeks."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source