We need a
You joke, but that domain is actually reserved per RFC 2606. ICANN has no authority to issue it, and the IANA would reject it, even if ICANN attempted to approve it. (The IANA is actually part of ICANN, but only the IANA portion can actual make changes to the root zone. The rest of the organization exists just to create a business model for registrars.)
At least geology, archeology and paleontology's theories are potentially falsifiable (i.e. we can and regularly do find things that cause us to discard previously accepted theories in those sciences).
It is unfortunate that many theories in those fields are not testable, and thus coupled with a finite amount of remaining evidence may settle on an incorrect theory if no evidence that contradicts it remains. However, use of the scientific method in forming and rejecting hypotheses does allow these to be called science
The tag was applied by the submitter. See the Original submission and notice the link to the original source, which is a letter the submitter wrote to Rackspace about this incident.
One of the biggest patent trolls in the world is acknowledged to be Intellectual Ventures. And they do original research of their own too.
Agreed.
Doing original research isn't sufficient to escape being considered a patent troll.
Also true.
As far as income, IV gets a lot from the companies that have bought a stake in their operations. They aren't solely funded by patent income either.
Also true.
Now CSIRO may be a research organization. But this business model of turning government funding into lawsuits around the world is patent trolling. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Here you go astray. You pointed out many similaries between IV and CSIRO, but failed to note the major differences.
This quote from Wikipedia shows the major difference (emphasis added):
Investigative journalism suggests that the company makes most of its income from lawsuits and licensing of already-existing inventions, rather than from its own innovation. Intellectual Ventures has been described as a "patent troll" by Shane Robison, CTO of Hewlett Packard and others, allegedly accumulating patents not in order to develop products around them but with the goal to pressure large companies into paying licensing fees.
I argue that a company is a patent troll if they are suing others using patents for technology they neither invented nor use. Basically patent trolling is the use of patents purchased from third parties for the sole purpose of suing other companies. Either invention or real use of the patent in question is enough to keep you from being categorized as a patent troll.
So here is what I have found so far:
Space needle,
empire state building,
statue of liberty,
St Luis's Gateway Arch
The white House,
The Washington monument
MLK Jr monument.
The smithsonian has a Panda Icon.
All Google offices have 2 little people.
The Google headquarters has the Giant android statue, as well as the T-Rex skeleton.
UK:
Nelson's Monument
Tower Bridge
Tate Modern
Other:
The Louvre
Eiffel tower
Arc de Triomphe
Pyramids of Giza.
The sphynx.
Taj Mahal
You are quite right that Windows 8 is two entirely different UIs mashed together.
The idea is simple: Microsoft wants tablet computers. Existing tablets that use the regular he regular windows UI have been tried but nevr caugh on. Tablets that use touch-specialized UIs have caught on.
Microsoft wants to be different from Apple. So instead of having a Windows tablet be a scaled up Windows Phone OS device (Like an iPad is a scaled up iOS device) Microsoft decided to make it a scaled down version of their Desktop OS. To do so, they decided to basically replace the existing OS UI with Windows Phone inspired UI. Of course, they needed to have backwards compatibility, as well as compatibility with their other major apps (like Office and Visual Studio), so they kept the old UI around too, albeit somewhat gutted.
Here is what I predict will happen: Desktop application developers will almost completely ignore the new Metro-style app options, and only lightly metro-fy their apps to blend in with the redesigned Office and Visual Studio apps.
Tablet application developers will create metro-style apps, but only care about the user experience on tablet devices, so the applications will really suck on a non-touchscreen Desktop PC.
Casual-game developers will target metro-style apps for both both platforms since they can wdo so with minimal effort.
I'm really not sure what traditional games developers will do. They may target Metro on the PC, which will piss off many gamers who like the option to have windowed games, rather than only full screen. Or they might target the traditional desktop style for the PC. If they target Metro, they may provide settings for a touch based control scheme and to drop the graphical quality substantially in order to allow for more-or-less unmodified tablet build. If they target traditional Windows, they may either ignore tablets, or treat they as a second class porting target, with the usual gutting of the game when they perform the port.
In summary, my prediction is that except for Casual games there will be minimal overlap between Metro-style apps that work well on a tablet, and those that work well on a desktop, which is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft is counting on.
It is important to understand though that what Google means by SEO is things like having an XML Sitemap, ensuring each page has a unique title that reflects the content of the page, providing alt text, using descriptive anchor text (i.e. not "click here"), and providing friendly urls. Those things are easy, and most of them also inherently improve the quality of the site for humans too.
What all too many people understand by SEO is things like getting more pages to link to your site, making sure every imaginable keyword appears on every page, and similar tactics that do nothing to improve the page for humans, nor do they really help Google determine if your site is relevant for a given query.
A website can request a list a available NPAPI (i.e. Netscape-style) plugins, however they cannot directly request other browser add-ons like active-x controls, or extensions.
As an aside:
Not being able to enumerate Active-x controls is a very good thing, since that would imply either listing every COM object installed on the system, (which effectively includes a list of all major applications installed on your system), or it would require that IE attempt to load each of them that implements the IObjectSafety interface, since those objects need to be asked if they are safe for initialization and scripting. The latter option would be terribly slow.
The key though is that programmers will generally take the path of least resistance. So while it is theoretically possible to write C++ code that uses the same concurrency model as erlang, it is far more work to do so than the "simpler" shared variables/shared memory based communication commonly found in C++ programs (which generally requires complex locking logic, and has somewhat higher risk of bugs).
Also it does not help that C++ does not make it easy to enforce strict adherence to the erlang concurreny model (or pretty much any model except the raw shared variables/shared memory model), and thus it is easy to inadvertently end up with a prrogram that has mixed models and thus has difficult to track down bugs.
"0 g" is a specifier of acceleration magnitude (gravitational acceleration included).
Except tidal forces[1] an object in an orbiting spacecraft experiences an external acceleration (relative to the craft) of exactly zero magnitude. When not ignoring them we get really small accelerations on the order of
Furthermore for the purposes of local experiments, it is correct to treat the craft as a proper inertial reference frame, despite appearing substantially non-internal by a distant observer. (This is the Einstein equivalence principle.)
[1] and things like the very small air resistance of the near-vacuum
[2] the "u" should be micro, but I cannot convince slashcode to not strip that out, even html encoding seems to not work.
Odd. I find that for communication with parties I already know, voice is by far the fastest. Textual communication is often more convient though, especially when dealing with companies or unfamiliar individuals.
With if there is a clear distinction between sources and sinks, then surely the same thing applies. If your current routing patterns cannot handle the incoming packets, you drop some of the sources, while you reconfigure to handle routing to a destination (if possible), then start accepting data from the sources again.
The problem though is that in data networks the very same connections are both. In Power networks that cannot be the case since they cancel, but incoming packets do not cancel out outgoing packets. Also unlike the power network which is likely to be able to quickly heal if they go down, with BGP it is all too common to have have plenty of restrictions on permitted routes between distinct networks, so all too often a break takes a long time to heal because somebody has to manually reconfigure
The problem is not the F, it is the ND. Non-discriminatory pricing that is non-zero discriminates against work developed in any any non-commercial setting. Even if we were talking about absurdly low prices (fractions of a cent per unit), work developed academically or by individuals utilizing the patent cannot be distributed widely since an academic or individual would not have the resources to track distribution, and if work is popular would not have the money to pay the royalties in the first place. Basically FRAND forces commercialization.
For better or worse you don't need to lie to get out of jury duty. You just need to convince either party that leaving you on the jury is too risky, and thus be removed by peremptory strike. Intelligence alone can be a reason for being dismissed. Otherwise things like mannerisms or word choice may cause you be removed without ever once lying.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
