Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

[greenaum]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:04:28 -0500, Peter Flass
<Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> sprachen:

Maybe a thud a it's chopped up for paper to produce copies of a 6000
page standard no one will read.

They tried to read it but it was in a language noone understands. It
isn't really 6000 pages long, just 5 when you actually read it. And it
contains 7 previous versions, bits of other standards, and the credit
card details of most of the committee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
sorted." #

 

[Rod Speed]

greenaum wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Your flaming skillz are rubbish, btw.

You wouldnt know what a real flame was if your lard arse was on fire.

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

greenaum@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) writes:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> sprachen:

The whole episode has left the ISO itself in a very bad light indeed,
with calls for revising the procedures that let this happen.

Still, the ISO have lots of standards, they don't all stick. That's
the great thing about standards etc.

Can you have an ISO standard that only one company would be allowed to
implement? Or does this mean they're publishing their hidden APIs and
file specifications?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that an ISO
standard not rely on patented technologies, nor any requirement that a
company with patented technologies make them available to implementers.
So yes, it's possible to have an ISO standard that only one company can
implement.

Of course, OOXML serves as an example of an ISO standard that *no*
company has been able to implement at present.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <4d641660.8693406@nntp.aioe.org>, greenaum@yahoo.co.uk
(greenaum) writes:

I have to wonder why there isn't a Norton for Linux. No I don't. It's
because they designed in security from the start. Security's almost a
side-effect of the structure of the thing. In Windows security is
something you add on. As an application with a few dark tendrils into
mysterious unknowable bits of the workings.

Dark tendrils are a part of the Windows philosophy, from overly-complex
installation procedures to the Registry.

Maybe it's a plan. Perhaps one day the botnets will evolve
consciousness, as they integrate more semantic processing to get
through anti-spam measures. The perfect spam-sneaker would speak
English like a person, to get through protection. Markov chains have
already been used. Perhaps it already has happened, and a bunch of
computers are Bill Gates's dark master.

Let's just hope that its name isn't Skynet.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

 

[Scott Lurndal]

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:

greenaum@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) writes:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> sprachen:

The whole episode has left the ISO itself in a very bad light indeed,
with calls for revising the procedures that let this happen.

Still, the ISO have lots of standards, they don't all stick. That's
the great thing about standards etc.

Can you have an ISO standard that only one company would be allowed to
implement? Or does this mean they're publishing their hidden APIs and
file specifications?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that an ISO
standard not rely on patented technologies, nor any requirement that a
company with patented technologies make them available to implementers.
So yes, it's possible to have an ISO standard that only one company can
implement.

Of course, OOXML serves as an example of an ISO standard that *no*
company has been able to implement at present.

Is that an ISO standard? I thought it was ECMA...

scott

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
greenaum@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) writes:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> sprachen:

The whole episode has left the ISO itself in a very bad light indeed,
with calls for revising the procedures that let this happen.

Still, the ISO have lots of standards, they don't all stick. That's
the great thing about standards etc.

Can you have an ISO standard that only one company would be allowed to
implement? Or does this mean they're publishing their hidden APIs and
file specifications?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that an ISO
standard not rely on patented technologies, nor any requirement that a
company with patented technologies make them available to implementers.
So yes, it's possible to have an ISO standard that only one company can
implement.

Of course, OOXML serves as an example of an ISO standard that *no*
company has been able to implement at present.

Is that an ISO standard? I thought it was ECMA...

ISO/IEC 25900 (apparently it was first standardized by Ecma; the ISO
standard is a later version).
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Charles Richmond]

On 1/31/11 12:02 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

greenaum@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) writes:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> sprachen:

The whole episode has left the ISO itself in a very bad light indeed,
with calls for revising the procedures that let this happen.

Still, the ISO have lots of standards, they don't all stick. That's
the great thing about standards etc.

Can you have an ISO standard that only one company would be allowed to
implement? Or does this mean they're publishing their hidden APIs and
file specifications?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that an ISO
standard not rely on patented technologies, nor any requirement that a
company with patented technologies make them available to implementers.
So yes, it's possible to have an ISO standard that only one company can
implement.

Of course, OOXML serves as an example of an ISO standard that *no*
company has been able to implement at present.

Perhaps the OOXML had a double oophorectomy... ;-)

--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+

 

[Morten Reistad]

In article <nZI1p.3433$0Y6.2886@news.usenetserver.com>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
greenaum@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) writes:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> sprachen:

The whole episode has left the ISO itself in a very bad light indeed,
with calls for revising the procedures that let this happen.

Still, the ISO have lots of standards, they don't all stick. That's
the great thing about standards etc.

Can you have an ISO standard that only one company would be allowed to
implement? Or does this mean they're publishing their hidden APIs and
file specifications?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that an ISO
standard not rely on patented technologies, nor any requirement that a
company with patented technologies make them available to implementers.
So yes, it's possible to have an ISO standard that only one company can
implement.

ISO is notoriously weak on this point. ITU at least requires patent
holders to either enter their patents into the public domain, or make
a standard-wide consortium selling patent rights without prejudice.
So you can buy rights for e.g. G.729 from one place at a fixed price.
ITU also bans patent renewals. So on January 7th 2015 all the G.729
era stuff is free.

IETF does not accept patent enforcement in standards.

Of course, OOXML serves as an example of an ISO standard that *no*
company has been able to implement at present.

Is that an ISO standard? I thought it was ECMA...

Both.

-- mrr