How about this, people who experience hearing loss are more likely to have a /diagnosis/ of dementia? Because hearing loss causes them to underperform on the verbally administered evals.
My father in law got a dementia diagnosis, after this my wife and I started going with him to his appointments - and discovered why he had such a diagnosis. He's the type of person who'll nod and pretend to hear/understand when he doesn't. We know this just from our interactions with him. The tool they use to eval is verbal question/answer and he did much better on the evals when we were with him and keyed the doctor in on that they ensure he hears the question or they give it to him in written form.
Just did some napkin math on this, just the carbon footprint of the crew for this ship nets out to almost the total carbon footprint of 16.14g-co2/ton/km for container shipping..
Take the average person's footprint of 7co2-ton/yr, math that out with the 80 ton cargo capacity, the short daily distances ~250km/day, 14 crew, and you come out with about 12g-co2/ton/km just for crew for these schooners. easy to see another 4g-co2/ton/km being in just upkeep for a vessel of wood and canvass. So yeah if someone wants to virtue-signal, then go for it ship your stuff this way but don't think you are actually netting out a smaller carbon footprint then a container ship here.
You can probably add some extra also from it not being standard container ship so loading and unloading it is likely to be less efficient than containers.
Wow. glad y'all enjoyed that little walk down memory lane.
I am still around and still working in tech -- although nowadays work involves poking API's to launch servers and related infrastructure vs. the time that this article was written where someone in my line of work had to drive to the datacenter whenever a server needed an upgrade or became unresponsive. My roommate at the time is still around too, his work is in the realm of reducing internet latency in routers by doing clever things with their packet buffers.
Some 5 or 10 years after the howto was written Cisco/Belkin reached out to us. Someone had patented putting a wireless card in a router, and they wanted our help with showing there was prior art. That process opened my eyes because to a couple guys like us it seemed like an obvious thing to do to put a wireless card in and network with it, like any other network card at the time it just had an antenna instead of a cat5 cable. Nothing 'inventive' about doing it, its just a logical step. I think they ended up settling so maybe that original patent-holder gets a couple cents on every wireless router, not sure.
I remember the hostname that document was served from when it was written, a tower PC hostname 'screamingslave' (NiN reference), and it served that document from the Redwood Estates (remote) side of the wireless link. 'for work' my work is all cloud infra, I still run my own personal server -- something I built and configured to run openstack, to be a "cloud in a box" -- hostname 'mantaro' (a reference to the river that is the source of the amazon), and that document is served from a VM running within, hostname 'immora' (doom reference).
It seems to be surviving the HN hug-of-death so far, but it was written in what was state-of-the-art for 1998, just a plain html doc, with maybe a css style sheet (did the original even have that?). Yeah no Nuxt/Vue SPA with some nosql backend.
If you wanna see another of my efforts in 98, I was also involved in bringing 'directory services' to Linux, tldr something more modern (at the time) than NIS, using LDAP for managing your users and other directory objects. That doc can be found here http://www.rage.net/ldap/ldapns-howto/
I never found out if they settled the case or not... I was quite irked at everyone about a patent that seemed so obvious...
Since then a lot of folk have come out to me about how we ALL were in just those few months, inventing the wifi future. We all invented it together, and you and I wrote enough of our bit down so everyone could invent more.
For those here that don't know my work on bufferbloat, I have kept on fixing wifi, with the outputs of the make-wifi-fast project finally the default in the linux kernel, and fq_codel/sqm/cake also covering the world.
https://lwn.net/Articles/705884/
wish it was taking less time for the news and implementations of that to spread than it has.
Ah, wow, a blast from the past! I wrote RFC2307 and {nss,pam}_ldap (which, to be fair, weren't the most robust bits of code, but I was a pretty green C programmer back then).
My 980 2TB crossed the river styx over the holiday break. Failure mode exactly as described. Nice Christmas present for me. Took 3 weeks to get the warranty replacement from Samsung.
The US used to have a great First-To-Invent patent system. It disappointingly switched to First-To-File in 2013 and these patents you are seeing are the result. With FTI Google could use the compression technique without filing because if someone else later filed Google could show that they had reduced it to practice first.
However with FTF, any technology Google might potentially use in the future, they must file a patent for - this compression tech, or one of the DNN techs they've recently developed. Otherwise they could start using the technology and another company could copy the technology, file a patent, and be granted the patent because of FTF. They could then pursue Google for patent infringement.
In FTI they could develop and use tech without patenting it. in FTF they have to patent it because if they don't they'll lose the ability to use the tech to the first copycat who files.
FTF is just continuing the trend in the US of making it harder and harder for IP to be in the public domain - moving more towards the privatization of IP.
Sure. But it’s untrue that someone can simply file a patent for an existing invention and effectively steal it from the inventor. Filing the patent can minimize legal headaches, though.
(To the extent that a bad actor can “steal” an invention, FTF vs FTI is irrelevant.)
I have in mind a case noted by the ipwatchdog site, I believe. The following isn't the case I had in mind, which was more extreme still, and much more recent, but here's a start:
A reference “is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that [the reference] has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
…
For instance, in Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Board determined that when a reference was only temporarily publicly available via a URL but no longer exists at that URL, the petitioner must show that the reference can be found through another source not including the URL. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC, IPR2014-00070, Paper 21 at 22 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2014) (Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review).
[Note that the information being up somewhere where most people wouldn't be able to find easily enough doesn't suffice. "Reasonable diligence" isn't defined, but clearly isn't intended as a high bar.]
Printed publications can be an exception - but both those words are highly subject to interpretation.
Sure. Essentially the courts are affirming that the system is “first to file” and not “first to invent”. You cannot quietly invent something and then claim ownership after someone else patents the same idea. If prior art could be private, then the system would still be de facto “first to invent”.
How well known something must be is obviously going to be subject to interpretation. If you tell your co-worker at the bar, that’s probably not sufficient. If you publish on your blog that no one knows about, that’s probably also not sufficient. If you publish in a journal, that probably is more than sufficient. If you cannot reasonably claim that the other inventor should have been able to find your prior art, then the courts will rule against you.
Just pointing out that this article features a drone pilot complaining that this is a race to the bottom when his 2k/day drone business is displacing a vastly more expensive helecopter-based video/inspection industry.
Gliffy as part of confluence (save often!) Dia for personal projects. Would be interesting to see what folks suggest re tools that are code-review friendly.
The mini Cooper, who's AC vents are optimized to freeze your knuckles while leaving the rest of the interior baking. The placement of the exhaust pipes optimally located to cause 2nd degree burns on your shins when loading groceries. The design that screams form-over-disfunction.
yes. and run my own mailserver, although the overhead is hard to justify. But the alternative just seems icky.. I mean folks pitch a fit at what data they give to facebook, but don't blink about the mountain of stored private communication they've outsourced to google microsoft and yahoo.
alpine isn't my primary - evenly spread between it, thunderbird on the desktop and k-9 mail on the phone.
My father in law got a dementia diagnosis, after this my wife and I started going with him to his appointments - and discovered why he had such a diagnosis. He's the type of person who'll nod and pretend to hear/understand when he doesn't. We know this just from our interactions with him. The tool they use to eval is verbal question/answer and he did much better on the evals when we were with him and keyed the doctor in on that they ensure he hears the question or they give it to him in written form.