Slashdot Mirror

Funny, as you can already do this on any rooted Android and the Netflix app. It didn't stop netflix from making the Android app. Your point is invalid. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ms.screencast&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5tcy5zY3JlZW5jYXN0Il0.

How about the Chrome Web Store?
  https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon
  I run Angry Birds under linux in google chrome. Which apps did you want?

he wanted android apps and not in an emulator.
you know, you can run angry birds web version if you want. but that's not an android app. it's like claiming that you can run ios apps in windows.

Use an app called Voice Plus https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bbrother.googlevoicebyname&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5iYnJvdGhlci5nb29nbGV2b2ljZWJ5bmFtZSJd You can set area codes to be dialed with your regular number or groups within GV to be dialed with regular numbers. It's indispensable when using GV.

How about the Chrome Web Store? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon I run Angry Birds under linux in google chrome. Which apps did you want?

I'd like the option of writing code for the Android on an Android.

Here's a link to AIDE you: Eclipse clone for Android

Firefox and Chrome use ANGLE, yes.
http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/

You can use native opengl though.
In Firefox, about:config and search for webgl.
Set:
webgl.prefer-native-gl;true

In past I've needed to do this on some windows machines to get some WebGL to work. Shader issue or somesuch.

There's also:
webgl.force-enabled;true

While you're in that section, btw, if you feel you know your card/driver combo better than their blacklist does.

Oh, and:
gfx.direct2d.force-enabled;true
or even
gfx.direct2d.disabled;true

If you're on a blacklist for that, or just want to investigate some direct2d rendering issue.

Oh? Where can I find the repository for security patches for linux 1.0?

https://www.kernel.org/.

The reality though by compitors I unsurprisingly meant (but not limited to :) Firefox http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ and Chrome https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/

XP exists on about 20% of computers...or about 220,000,000 which is why the point is about XP :)

Well yes, it is, but that's not really the point--the Internet really has altered our fundamental concept of location and distance.

1. Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'. What we have now, is not normal yet. The cavemen must have burned a helluvalot of wood to bring the last ice age to an end...

No one denies periodic ice ages. What is 'normal'? Yes, it's agreed that the Earth's temperature changes at times from natural causes.

2. Layered coal seams. Each seam represents a period of 150 to 200 million years of fern covered swamps. We are now in a cold period, before the next coal seam will be created.

Tectonic plates weren't even in the same place '150 to 200' million years ago.

3. Medieval mini ice age. The earth is still colder than it was during the height of the Roman empire, when people produced wine in England.

Again. No one denies that temperatures change.

4. The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert. Humans only mess with a small percentage of the earth's surface and in those areas, we mostly replace wild grass with special grass, bisons with cows, boar with pigs, birds with chickens etc. Farming is controlled by the climate and farmers only produce what will grow in that particular area - they don't really change anything, while the surface area covered by cities is very small indeed.

Aside from the very real problem to coastal cities, farming is indeed controlled by the climate it's not good for it to change a lot. It takes a season to grow a crop and changes can lead to poor crop production. At the same time a warmer wetter atmosphere is likely to expand the tropic areas which is arguably where most life is. I think we're likely to wind up with more arable land in the long run. Problems can arise when rain patterns shifts and rain falls where soil is poor. This point is complex. If the climate changes gradually in any direction plants and animals including crops and live stocks move with the climate. If the optimal climate for corn moves in any direction, farms will be more or less successful depending on which area they are in. Year over year a gradual change is hardly noticeable. The concern is a sharp change. If the optimal climate for corn moves significantly in a few years larger crop losses will occur.

5. Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference. If you heat the atmosphere slightly, heat is radiated faster into space.

Don't forget that water vapor increases as well. Of course you also have to take into effect that clouds will reflect more energy. These things are taken into consideration.

6. What caused those hot swampy periods? Dinosaur farts?

Mainly that the poles didn't have much land around them. No permanent ice shelf means a much lower albedo for the Earth. That's the main reason. More volcanic activity is another cause. Yeah, that's discussed too.

7. Climate change is real, but man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

I can take CO2 in a lab and show it's greenhouse effect. I can also measure CO2 in the atmosphere. I can even take the math that I learned studying CO2 in the lab and apply it to the CO2 I measure in the atmosphere. I can measure how much energy the sun puts out. I can say x amount of CO2 equals y amount of increase in energy held by the atmosphere. I can do this for other gases like sulfur and methane as well. I can measure the sources of those gases whether it's a volcano or a cattle farts.

Because we know all of this we can say that the Earth is warming and that while we are

1. Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'. What we have now, is not normal yet. The cavemen must have burned a helluvalot of wood to bring the last ice age to an end...

No one denies periodic ice ages. What is 'normal'? Yes, it's agreed that the Earth's temperature changes at times from natural causes.

2. Layered coal seams. Each seam represents a period of 150 to 200 million years of fern covered swamps. We are now in a cold period, before the next coal seam will be created.

Tectonic plates weren't even in the same place '150 to 200' million years ago.

3. Medieval mini ice age. The earth is still colder than it was during the height of the Roman empire, when people produced wine in England.

Again. No one denies that temperatures change.

4. The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert. Humans only mess with a small percentage of the earth's surface and in those areas, we mostly replace wild grass with special grass, bisons with cows, boar with pigs, birds with chickens etc. Farming is controlled by the climate and farmers only produce what will grow in that particular area - they don't really change anything, while the surface area covered by cities is very small indeed.

Aside from the very real problem to coastal cities, farming is indeed controlled by the climate it's not good for it to change a lot. It takes a season to grow a crop and changes can lead to poor crop production. At the same time a warmer wetter atmosphere is likely to expand the tropic areas which is arguably where most life is. I think we're likely to wind up with more arable land in the long run. Problems can arise when rain patterns shifts and rain falls where soil is poor. This point is complex. If the climate changes gradually in any direction plants and animals including crops and live stocks move with the climate. If the optimal climate for corn moves in any direction, farms will be more or less successful depending on which area they are in. Year over year a gradual change is hardly noticeable. The concern is a sharp change. If the optimal climate for corn moves significantly in a few years larger crop losses will occur.

5. Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference. If you heat the atmosphere slightly, heat is radiated faster into space.

Don't forget that water vapor increases as well. Of course you also have to take into effect that clouds will reflect more energy. These things are taken into consideration.

6. What caused those hot swampy periods? Dinosaur farts?

Mainly that the poles didn't have much land around them. No permanent ice shelf means a much lower albedo for the Earth. That's the main reason. More volcanic activity is another cause. Yeah, that's discussed too.

7. Climate change is real, but man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

I can take CO2 in a lab and show it's greenhouse effect. I can also measure CO2 in the atmosphere. I can even take the math that I learned studying CO2 in the lab and apply it to the CO2 I measure in the atmosphere. I can measure how much energy the sun puts out. I can say x amount of CO2 equals y amount of increase in energy held by the atmosphere. I can do this for other gases like sulfur and methane as well. I can measure the sources of those gases whether it's a volcano or a cattle farts.

Because we know all of this we can say that the Earth is warming and that while we are

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=508+contrast+checker&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

The current Google page, the first is an ad, second is not. http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png

Ok, compare that to my screenshot: http://www.google.com/#output=search&q=mesothelioma

Looks nothing like your image at all. The one ad at the top clearly states "Ads related to mesothelioma" and has a space between it and the rest of the search results that come from page content matching.

I'm tempted to even call your image a fake.

I use Groove IP. It does integrate with the native dialer if you get the paid version ($5). I use it as my only phone number. Works great as long as I have a (stable!) wifi connection.

you want to send sms's by email? here you go https://www.google.com/search?q=sms+gateway+service&oq=sms+gateway+service&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.3074j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

you can also send them via http and whatever imaginable protocol you can think of. it's not free of course.

Just have the school's IT admin install AdBlock, problem solved.

Honestly I think this is the better solution. Replacing one search engine with another one without ads (is that going to be the new patentable suffix of 2013?) just gets rid of the ads on the search engine. Adding an ad blocker will improve the situation everywhere the student searches, and adds a level of security protection while they are at it.
Also would they be asking the schools to block Google? I would hope not, as that would probably break a lot of links in forum posts.
[Something you might find in a forum...]

As soon as you start using political campaign contributions from existing power brokers to design the system, you've left sound engineering and real science behind. I have just described corn ethanol schemes in a nutshell.

Solar + Wind + Hydro would have worked back when Jimmy the Peanut wanted to do it, but Reagan-style governments (such as we have today) have wasted precious time and irreplaceable resources to the point where it's hard to imagine getting the infrastructure up in time to decommission the aging fission plants before they fail. The numbers are difficult - look how many wind turbines in remote windy areas you need to replace even one BWR sitting right next to a major population center. I'm all in favor of trying, but then I'm all in favor of pursuing LENR, too - I just wouldn't bet the entire bank on it.

As for batteries, honestly energy storage is a solved problem, despite Exide's suppression of the nickel-iron battery (happily, once again available due to Edison's patents expiring) and Chevron's purchase and suppression of many of Ovinshky's key NiMH patents. If you don't like batteries you can always run a turbine backwards and pump water uphill; it's been done for over a hundred years now and it works. It's an interesting subject, yes, and important, but I don't think we need fuss over the details of energy storage in discussions about scheduled-to-fail nuclear plants.

Your remark about the land area required for agriculture based energy production is very relevant, though; even more so if you live in England - there just isn't room in the UK to do the job without major technology advances. I imagine many other nations have this problem as well. However, in the USA we already pay farmers tax dollars not to produce food; we have vast croplands that are simply not used, and even vaster areas that are not suitable for growing food which could be used for algae tank biogas and biodiesel production at less tax investment cost than the current expenditures on foreign military adventuring and various forms of corporate welfare.

Fundamentally, US taxpayers really can't lose by making more investments in all forms of distributed sustainable energy production. However, the tax allocations are controlled by people who can lose - and lose big - if energy production stops being a militarized, government protected and insured racket like nuclear fission plants are, and becomes a widely distributed, reliable and sustainable system employing huge numbers of people profitably at local levels.

I appreciate what Bing has brought to the table, but the reality is that young people and educators simply don't turn to Bing for search or, in the case of school, research. What the Bing engagement team might consider is that educators are driven in part by their passion, but also by their need to help young people understand specific subject content in a simple, efficient way. Google's search education team, and more specifically, the efforts that have yielded their search education curricula ( http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searcheducation/ ) , is fantastically helpful in that regard. Moreover, their team offers MOOCs, educator conversations and hangouts to clarify how search works. There are other, untapped opportunities that both engines could explore to essentially one-up one another in the education space (for example, how might LRMI integrate?). It would be a pleasure to learn that the Bing team has committed equal resources to developing quality lessons, interface options and community engagement. Alone, however, I don't believe that removing advertising and privacy control modifications are changes enough to make a sizable difference. --Dave

He's talking BS.
Martin Graesslin, the KWin maintainer, began to prepare KWin for Wayland before Mir was even announced. So he designed the transition path to support two and only two back ends. See https://plus.google.com/115606635748721265446/posts/136nV4uojKH for details (public post, no need for a G+ account).

Graesslin also made it repeatedly clear that he won't support single-distro solutions. That means no support for MS Windows in KWin, OSX' Quartz, or Android's SurfaceFlinger. Somehow nobody ever had a problem with that decision. Only after Canonocal announced Mir Ubuntu fanboys began to whine.

There are no technological benefits for Mir over Wayland. Canonical made false claims as outlined on http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMxODA but they've since redacted the statements. Wayland even works with Android drivers: http://mer-project.blogspot.fi/2013/04/wayland-utilizing-android-gpu-drivers.html

The reasons for Mir are not technological, they are purely economical. Canonical wants to establish asymmetric licensing to have an economic advantage over the competition: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/25376.html
Wayland OTOH is under MIT/X11 license for everybody. This means that not only can any Linux vendor grab it and to anything with it, incl. to make an Android version that uses Wayland: http://ppaalanen.blogspot.com/2012/09/wayland-on-android-upgrade-to-404-and.html
Mir's licensing makes it forever impossible to become part of any major BSD variant. Wayland, however, is being ported to FreeBSD: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMwMzE

Wayland is being pushed by industry giants such as Intel and Red Hat, as well as smaller companies like Collabora (creators of many technologies commonly used on GNU-based Linux such as Telepathy, WebKit-GTK, etc.: https://www.collabora.com/projects/ ).
Mir is just backed by Canonical who, while claiming to be the most popular Linux distributor, still makes no money: http://www.internetnews.com/blog/skerner/canonical-ubuntu-linux-is-still-not-profitable.html

. That bell curve you like to force into this in order to "win" is actually a bathtub curve with a large portion of the people at or near enough identical intelligence in the middle and a much smaller portion of people above and below that middle.

I put it in a bell curve, because that's what IQ is:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=iq+distribution

https://www.google.com/search?q=iq+test+curve&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Nzw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BNbIUYfRDInkiAKri4DQCA&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1354&bih=844

The IQ tests are DESIGNED to produce a bell curve.

From wikipedia: "When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less..."

Unless you can give me a test that says two people with a 100 IQ don't have the exact same intelligence than [...]

Really? 6+ billion people on earth and everyone with 100 IQ score is exactly the same intelligence. Let me guess you think everyone who is 6 foot 2 inches on their drivers license is exactly the same height too, right?

IQ tests are designed to produce a bell curve, that's how the various test scores are normalized to an IQ number.

We could take everyone who scored exactly 100 on an IQ test, and normalize their scores onto a bell curve of their own if we wanted to. You do understand what I'm saying here right?

citation needed - if you're not in the US, how is it illegal for NSA to spy on you? what law is that breaking?

Citation. It would be illegal if it violates the laws of that nation. I'm sorry I don't know what specific law of, say, Germany it would be violating. I'm not that familiar with German law. But it appears that if the NSA gets your personal information by forcing and gagging Apple and such to turn over said information, it would violate their laws.

Furthermore, if I myself am abroad and the NSA spies on me, that's illegal because I don't magically give up my 4th admendment rights and they are not allowed to spy on me. You know, cause I'm a citizen of the USA. This thing they have where they're allowed to make a judgement call about my foreignness is pretty much bullshit. And the fact that we allow them to spy on foreigners is really only due to an interpretation of the constitution that those rights only apply to US citizens. It really only declares that it applies to "the people". That's not so cool and makes for these sort of glaring loopholes where they can simply claim "we thought he was a foreigner".

If we're going to use "sessionStorage, localStorage, and client-side databases" (as per TFA), why not just use an executable? Write the thing in .NET or Java or C

One of the appealing reasons for transitioning everything to the web is ease of portability (when standards are followed) the browser is your middleware. You do bring up a good point about the fat client. In the days of yore there was mainframe computing and arguably like real estate there are cycles, however, client/server model never really disappeared (Citrix). Thin clients are once again in the spotlight but the market isn't fully there yet (see the chrome book) and may not jump on it. The merits of these systems is another discussion. Regarding going the "traditional" binary route for (web) applications, you are now supporting multiple platforms. There is a lot of work involved to make this happen. QA for installers is an instant turn off personally, and now you've got Win32 & Win64, OSX, iOS (7 is coming), Android (Many flavors) and the churn of progress for each of these platforms with depricated apis, exceptions etc.

Traditional development aside there are many exciting things happening on the web side of things, I'm not sure if you've kept up with ASM.js or Emscripten. The gist, this allows compilers to export to JS where the application (written in C or Qt for example) is accessed via your browser. It's still in its infancy. However, with the increases made to JS engines in browsers these things are now possible and gaining traction. We shall see what the future holds, from an academic standpoint I think it's cool to see Quake done in JS.

There are also client heavy sites (take a look at USAToday.com) which use Backbone.js or other variants to achieve something really slick.

Another question: do modern day browsers encrypt cookies? I don't know for sure, but I suspect they don't.

No, this is left up to the developer. As an aside, there are frameworks which provide functionality like this out of the box.

I'm a programmer, but not a web developer.

I'm not certain what your background is, but if you're a Java guy you might be interested in the Play Framework. Fast iteration and you can get started pretty quickly. For the record I'm not affiliated with this project. If you're interested in something typesafe and different check out a Haskell based framework such as snap.

"All crows are black"

No, they aren't.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/whitecrows.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=albino+crows

Back in 1996 you filed for a patent which issued in 2001 as U.S. patent 6,199,076. This actually sounds original for the time; it seems to be a system for providing hyperlinks that could be followed while listening to an audio program, along with a way to jump back to the previous program. Of course, we had those features already in web browsers; whether doing the same thing in an audio program was sufficiently innovative enough to deserve a patent is debatable (and presumably was debated a bit, since it took 5 years for the patent to be issued).

However, that patent in no way describes podcasting, which involves an ability to subscribe to a recurring series of audio programs, including ones not yet issued. That is instead covered by patent 8,112,504, which you filed in 2009 as a "continuation" of the much earlier patent application, one which had, in fact, already been issued as a complete patent for 8 years.

By definition, a continuation application is identical to the parent application, except for the claims. The specification and the figures must be word for word and line for line identical. The claims must also be supported by that specification and those figures. Accordingly, if the '504 continuation describes podcasting (which I'm not taking a position on), then by definition, the '076 patent describes podcasting.

The ability to go back and rewrite your old patent to include new features, and claim you invented them back when the old patent was filed (even if, as you noted, you're limited to collect damages on activity after the new version of the patent is issued) is one thing that is broken in the patent system. You basically saw something that people were doing, found an old patent which bore a little similarity, but which didn't have any claims against that activity you could enforce, and rewrote it so it covered the activity, after the fact. This should not be allowed.

It's not - if you rewrite any part of the specification, or add any "new features", then it's considered a continuation-in-part, not a continuation. A CIP application does not get the filing date of the parent application, so in this case, it would have a filing date of 2009. Anything that happened prior to that would be prior art against it.

But this wasn't a CIP. It's a continuation. It's identical to the parent application, and has that 1996 filing date.

Now I realize that there are legitimate reasons for continuations being considered a part of the original application. But you shouldn't be able to introduce new concepts outside the scope of the original patent application in a continuation. This sort of thing should either be rejected outright, or treated as a new application with priority date set to when the new concepts were first filed.

That's exactly how the system works. And this falls under your first sentence - a continuation that's part of the original application, lacking any new concepts.

Accordingly, going back to your original statement, since the system works exactly the way you say is proper, then nothing about continuation practice is broken.

Back in 1996 you filed for a patent which issued in 2001 as U.S. patent 6,199,076. This actually sounds original for the time; it seems to be a system for providing hyperlinks that could be followed while listening to an audio program, along with a way to jump back to the previous program. Of course, we had those features already in web browsers; whether doing the same thing in an audio program was sufficiently innovative enough to deserve a patent is debatable (and presumably was debated a bit, since it took 5 years for the patent to be issued).

However, that patent in no way describes podcasting, which involves an ability to subscribe to a recurring series of audio programs, including ones not yet issued. That is instead covered by patent 8,112,504, which you filed in 2009 as a "continuation" of the much earlier patent application, one which had, in fact, already been issued as a complete patent for 8 years.

By definition, a continuation application is identical to the parent application, except for the claims. The specification and the figures must be word for word and line for line identical. The claims must also be supported by that specification and those figures. Accordingly, if the '504 continuation describes podcasting (which I'm not taking a position on), then by definition, the '076 patent describes podcasting.

The ability to go back and rewrite your old patent to include new features, and claim you invented them back when the old patent was filed (even if, as you noted, you're limited to collect damages on activity after the new version of the patent is issued) is one thing that is broken in the patent system. You basically saw something that people were doing, found an old patent which bore a little similarity, but which didn't have any claims against that activity you could enforce, and rewrote it so it covered the activity, after the fact. This should not be allowed.

It's not - if you rewrite any part of the specification, or add any "new features", then it's considered a continuation-in-part, not a continuation. A CIP application does not get the filing date of the parent application, so in this case, it would have a filing date of 2009. Anything that happened prior to that would be prior art against it.

But this wasn't a CIP. It's a continuation. It's identical to the parent application, and has that 1996 filing date.

Now I realize that there are legitimate reasons for continuations being considered a part of the original application. But you shouldn't be able to introduce new concepts outside the scope of the original patent application in a continuation. This sort of thing should either be rejected outright, or treated as a new application with priority date set to when the new concepts were first filed.

That's exactly how the system works. And this falls under your first sentence - a continuation that's part of the original application, lacking any new concepts.

Accordingly, going back to your original statement, since the system works exactly the way you say is proper, then nothing about continuation practice is broken.

Patent '504
Patent '076

These seems very abstract/broad. Not "rounded corners" patents, but almost as bad.

Patent '504
Patent '076

These seems very abstract/broad. Not "rounded corners" patents, but almost as bad.

James, you wanted to hear about what the real problems with the patent system are? One of them is the continuation patent.

Back in 1996 you filed for a patent which issued in 2001 as U.S. patent 6,199,076. This actually sounds original for the time; it seems to be a system for providing hyperlinks that could be followed while listening to an audio program, along with a way to jump back to the previous program. Of course, we had those features already in web browsers; whether doing the same thing in an audio program was sufficiently innovative enough to deserve a patent is debatable (and presumably was debated a bit, since it took 5 years for the patent to be issued).

However, that patent in no way describes podcasting, which involves an ability to subscribe to a recurring series of audio programs, including ones not yet issued. That is instead covered by patent 8,112,504, which you filed in 2009 as a "continuation" of the much earlier patent application, one which had, in fact, already been issued as a complete patent for 8 years. Podcasting generally does not (and as far as I know, never does) include the hyperlinking-within-audio-programs feature of the '076 patent. (Yes, each item in a feed includes a hyperlink to where the audio file can be retrieved, but there aren't hyperlinks within those files to other podcasts - not unless they are spoken and you have to type in a URL yourself.) The features of that patent that podcasting programs do include - the ability to select one or more of a set of audio programs to listen to, possibly setting them to repeat, and with the ability to interrupt and redefine the sequence - were available in programmable CD players that already existed when the '076 patent was filed. And none of those features are features of the podcast, but of the podcasting program or hardware device.

The ability to go back and rewrite your old patent to include new features, and claim you invented them back when the old patent was filed (even if, as you noted, you're limited to collect damages on activity after the new version of the patent is issued) is one thing that is broken in the patent system. You basically saw something that people were doing, found an old patent which bore a little similarity, but which didn't have any claims against that activity you could enforce, and rewrote it so it covered the activity, after the fact. This should not be allowed.

Now I realize that there are legitimate reasons for continuations being considered a part of the original application. But you shouldn't be able to introduce new concepts outside the scope of the original patent application in a continuation. This sort of thing should either be rejected outright, or treated as a new application with priority date set to when the new concepts were first filed.

James, you wanted to hear about what the real problems with the patent system are? One of them is the continuation patent.

Back in 1996 you filed for a patent which issued in 2001 as U.S. patent 6,199,076. This actually sounds original for the time; it seems to be a system for providing hyperlinks that could be followed while listening to an audio program, along with a way to jump back to the previous program. Of course, we had those features already in web browsers; whether doing the same thing in an audio program was sufficiently innovative enough to deserve a patent is debatable (and presumably was debated a bit, since it took 5 years for the patent to be issued).

However, that patent in no way describes podcasting, which involves an ability to subscribe to a recurring series of audio programs, including ones not yet issued. That is instead covered by patent 8,112,504, which you filed in 2009 as a "continuation" of the much earlier patent application, one which had, in fact, already been issued as a complete patent for 8 years. Podcasting generally does not (and as far as I know, never does) include the hyperlinking-within-audio-programs feature of the '076 patent. (Yes, each item in a feed includes a hyperlink to where the audio file can be retrieved, but there aren't hyperlinks within those files to other podcasts - not unless they are spoken and you have to type in a URL yourself.) The features of that patent that podcasting programs do include - the ability to select one or more of a set of audio programs to listen to, possibly setting them to repeat, and with the ability to interrupt and redefine the sequence - were available in programmable CD players that already existed when the '076 patent was filed. And none of those features are features of the podcast, but of the podcasting program or hardware device.

The ability to go back and rewrite your old patent to include new features, and claim you invented them back when the old patent was filed (even if, as you noted, you're limited to collect damages on activity after the new version of the patent is issued) is one thing that is broken in the patent system. You basically saw something that people were doing, found an old patent which bore a little similarity, but which didn't have any claims against that activity you could enforce, and rewrote it so it covered the activity, after the fact. This should not be allowed.

Now I realize that there are legitimate reasons for continuations being considered a part of the original application. But you shouldn't be able to introduce new concepts outside the scope of the original patent application in a continuation. This sort of thing should either be rejected outright, or treated as a new application with priority date set to when the new concepts were first filed.

That's because if a Waze user is driving by as an accident happens or just after, they can mark it on the map.

You know, that is my major complaint with Waze, unless I haven't figured this out. If I drive past an accident, or more recently have a near-tornado drop trees across a bunch of roads, I CAN'T MARK THE EXACT SPOT OF THE INCIDENT!

Dear Waze, All I want is to be able to tap the map on the exact spot of an issue and add an incident report. I DO NOT EVER WANT YOU TO USE WHERE MY CAR IS WHEN I TAP THE SCREEN - the problem is NEVER there unless I'm in the crash, and then Waze is the last thing I'd be interested in using.

So if someone out there knows how, please mark the bridge on Greenwood Road over the Chickahominy River at the Hanover/Henrico County VA line as being closed until at least 6/30.

Yes, it's a nice coincidence. One tempting location might be highly saline areas that are below sea level in parts of Tunisia. Dig a canal, feed sea water into ponds in that low area, and grow algae there. But it's a subtle and tricky process to keep the chemistry of large bodies of water in optimal conditions for a particular algal species, and not have undesirable ones colonize the same space, or you can have freak desert rainfall events or other natural processes mess up your drainage systems. We simply don't know how to do agriculture of this type with the same reliability as we have for regular terrestrial agriculture. In special areas that already have something approximating the right conditions (e.g., Hutt Lagoon in Australia) it can be done, but establishing these things from scratch is pretty challenging. Large-scale algae farms are usually used for things other than fuel production, such as ones to produce certain types of organic pigments (that's what Hutt Lagoon is used for 250 hectares worth). There is no way it will be as cheap as current conventional oil production, and it's probably not possible to do it at a big enough scale. The Hutt Lagoon facility is already the largest algae-farming facility in the world. For fuel production it's going to be a niche.

Whenever algae comes up I like to cite a noted expert from the area for 50 years:
Benneman
Look the main problem with algae is that it is really a new form of agriculture. And everything people tout as an advantage cuts the other way. At best it is carbon neutral. Now tell me how many desert ponds are located by a source of CO2?
Don't get me wrong, I think Solazyme has nailed it, there are a lot of great things we can do with algae. It can be a food for example; chemical feedstock.
As a fuel...for the infrastructure of ruining vast desert landscapes we'd do far better pumping coal gas CO2 back into salt mines.

Burglars aren't likely to be in your Circles on Google+. (And if they are, you deserve any thing they get).

But by the same token, simple notes work fine. Anyone could write such an app. Oh, wait, someone already did.

Why does Google have to know what you lend out?
So they can tell your mooching friends where they can borrow something?

Yes; search for "super-resolution".

Yes. It's a thing.

Either you have not had a lot of interviews lately, or you don't seek employment by simple-minded cretins. There's this whole thing where some employers want to see your private, friends-only stuff to make sure you're not cooking meth or running a brothel. Then there's this push-back so that employers can only see what is public. So, many employers do a little searching to see if you are posting pictures of alcohol-fueled parties on weeknights.

Consider the full spectrum, from requiring social media passwords, to ignoring imaginary friends completely, and you see that leaves a lot of room in between for all manner of behaviors. Then search to see if someone has posted about that, and be enlightened.

And then because they usually check up before even calling you, you may not even know they searched to see if you have a blog with obviously incorrect advice like the kid who posted a tutorial on "tracer t" that shows all of the IP addresses of users connecting to a website. He's young, and probably learned something, so no need to further embarrass him by linking here, but you've probably seen it.

So, in addition to the two sides of the "either" statement above, there's third side - maybe you're missing the part where they don't have to ask because they already know.

deliver their symmetric gigabit uncapped, unfiltered

Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:

(Note, after 9 months of being lied to and ignored by the FCC, this complaint will supposedly be "served" to google on Monday, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Beaureau)
--- FCC NetNeutrality 2000F Complaint REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html [google.com]
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]

--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf

deliver their symmetric gigabit uncapped, unfiltered

Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:

(Note, after 9 months of being lied to and ignored by the FCC, this complaint will supposedly be "served" to google on Monday, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Beaureau)
--- FCC NetNeutrality 2000F Complaint REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html [google.com]
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]

--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf

The late (sadly, unless he is on to better post-human things) Ian Banks wrote in passing in the Cture Novels about humans in non-human form.
http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
"One idea behind the Culture as it is depicted in the stories is that it has gone through cyclical stages during which there has been extensive human-machine interfacing, and other stages (sometimes coinciding with the human-machine eras) when extensive genetic alteration has been the norm. The era of the stories written so far - dating from about 1300 AD to 2100 AD - is one in which the people of the Culture have returned, probably temporarily, to something more 'classical' in terms of their relations with the machines and the potential of their own genes.
The Culture recognises, expects and incorporates fashions - albeit long-term fashions - in such matters. It can look back to times when people lived much of their lives in what we would now call cyberspace, and to eras when people chose to alter themselves or their children through genetic manipulation, producing a variety of morphological sub-species. Remnants of the various waves of such civilisational fashions can be found scattered throughout the Culture, and virtually everyone in the Culture carries the results of genetic manipulation in every cell of their body; it is arguably the most reliable signifier of Culture status.
Thanks to that genetic manipulation, the average Culture human will be born whole and healthy and of significantly (though not immensely) greater intelligence than their basic human genetic inheritance might imply. There are thousands of alterations to that human-basic inheritance - blister-free callusing and a clot-filter protecting the brain are two of the less important ones mentioned in the stories - but the major changes the standard Culture person would expect to be born with would include an optimized immune system and enhanced senses, freedom from inheritable diseases or defects, the ability to control their autonomic processes and nervous system (pain can, in effect, be switched off), and to survive and fully recover from wounds which would either kill or permanently mutilate without such genetic tinkering."

Sci-fi has been exploring this for decades.

Geordi La Forge's Visor in 1990s Star Trek is one answer. As is Data. As is Reginald Barclay's forays into becoming superhuman on the holodeck. As is Q.

From the 1950s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Than_Human

Or from Sturgeon also in the 1950s (The Skills of Xanadu, which presaged an motivated the internet and mobile computing in some ways):
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51&lpg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

From JD Bernal in the 1920s: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Bernal/flesh/
"Starting, as Mr. J. B. S. Haldane so convincingly predicts, in an ectogenetic factory, man will have anything from sixty to a hundred and twenty years of larval, unspecialized existence - surely enough to satisfy the advocates of a natural life. In this stage he need not be cursed by the age of science and mechanism, but can occupy his time (without the conscience of wasting it) in dancing, poetry and love-making, and perhaps incidentally take part in the reproductive activity. Then he will leave the body whose potentialities he should have sufficiently explored.
The next stage might be compared to that of a chrysalis, a complicated and rather unpleasant process of transforming the already existing organs and grafting on all the new sensory and motor mechanisms. There would follow a period of re-education in which he would grow to understand the functioning of his new se

Except that Chrome phones home the first time you start it up to check for upgrades.

This hasn't been true for more than three years. In fact Google is very transparent about all privacy issues within Chrome.

I won't enable Google's safebrowsing in Firefox or Chrome even if this faq is for the Google Toolbar. With stock Firefox safebrowsing enabled, looking at the network traffic can see that every new site visited triggers a google api call with a long encoded data url.

12. What information is sent to Google when I enable the Enhanced Protection Feature?

When enabled, the entire URL of the site that you're visiting will be securely transmitted to Google for evaluation. In addition, a very condensed version of the page's content may be sent to compare similarities between authentic and forged pages. For example, if the condensed 'fingerprint' of the page you are visiting matches the 'fingerprint' of a popular bank's site but the page's URL is different, that's a good sign that the page you are on is designed to mislead users.

Check your facts. Google is pretty much the only large company challenging those letters: https://www.google.com/search?q=google+challenges+national+security+letters

... not some paid actors: http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/students/

Just hire the computer whiz kid with nothing but a GED and a couple of certs! I'm sure everything will turn out fine!

Whatever one can say about what really went on around 1776 in North America, in theory, the whole meaning of a democratic republic is supposedly that it is "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

As John Gardner wrote in "Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society", every generation must learn anew for itself the meaning of the world carved in the stone monuments.
http://books.google.com/books?id=U5hXpnwUmW4C&printsec=frontcover

Or as he wrote here:
http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/aaker/pages/documents/JohnGardner-RoadtoSelf-Renewal2.pdf
"We cannot dream of a Utopia in which all arrangements are ideal and everyone is flawless. Life is tumultuous -- an endless losing and regaining of balance, a continuous struggle, never an assured victory. Nothing is ever finally safe. Every important battle is fought and refought. You may wonder if such a struggle, endless and of uncertain outcome, isn't more than humans can bear. But all of history suggests that the human spirit is well fitted to cope with just that kind of world."

Or, as Edmund Burke said, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

So, the struggle against bad government , to ensure the government remains responsive and accountable and appropriately effective, is a bit like fighting mildew in a bathroom -- a never ending struggle. Still, we also need both hierarchy and meshworks in our lives, and indeed, we always have a mix of them as they keep turning into each other:
http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm

And if the Earth does become one big thinking war machine (like in "Colossus: The Forbin Project") then the algorithms running on its internal homogenous API interfaces become the new actors struggling for resources and democratic accountability (in a purely computational meshwork/hierarchy context).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project

Of course, we "people" all may be such already. :-)
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

How many googols of years has this been going on?
"The World Was Probably Already Destroyed"
http://www.digitalcosmology.com/Blog/2012/12/06/t/
"Some people wonder if our planet will be destroyed on December 21, 2012. I have friends asking me every day whether I think the world will end in a few weeks. But it is possible that our planet was already destroyed and before that occured its scientists managed to send a capsule in space with a supercomputer running its simulation. ... Will the destruction happen again in the simulation? Probably not since the conditions that caused it were of stochastic nature. However, even if the destruction takes place in the simulation, the computer will restart it and the world will be created again in an endless fashion. ..."

Still, there is always the first time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Yet, each time, people (or creatures that act like people) must find anew some balance of competition and cooperation, of meshwork and hierarchy, of a middle ground between fire and ice (to ignore the n-dimensional aspects as another layer of complexity).

There are a number of services that rent this facility. testdroid is one that offers 200+ devices. Here is a nice Google search. The services are not free, of course.

I don't know anything about the testdroid service. Just trying to help.

Tyranny? Huh? When was the last time you or a family member were pulled from your home without a warrant or just cause and beaten by any arm of the government? The West if far from the killing fields. Stop being so excessive with your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.

Umm...It happens all the time. Although not to me personally. Most likely because I'm not poor and black or mistakenly accosted by jackbooted thugs.

Teller could beat that anyday and he was conducting experiments with radioactive materials and nuclear devices in Project Chariot.

Let's also not forget he suggested using nukes do close off the Straits of Gibraltar to make the Mediterranean Sea rise, freshen and then irrigate the Sahara.

He did of course acknowledge that this would mean losing Venice and other sea-level cities along the Mediterranean.

Let's also not forget that it was his assertions on Lasers and orbiting Nukes that got Reagan thinking about Star Wars...

It was Teller’s misleading views on the potential of the X-ray laser that first roused Reagan’s passionate interest in Star Wars. The idea was straightforward enough. Put into orbit nuclear weapons – which would require opting out of the Outer Space Treaty. Faced with an attack, the United States would set off the nukes to generate multiple beams of radiation to demolish incoming missiles. Teller claimed that a single, desk-sized laser could strike as many as 100,000 targets all at once, something others scientists said grotesquely overstated the case.

When this professor gets his own Nationally funded lab, personnel, materials and access to the White House and Congress, then we start worrying.

And this document, from 1994, describes similar services as well:

this

However I also wanted some with more substance, for if I'm traveling or something like that.

You could try going for proper old school ports, like Angband and variants.

I've not actually tried these, but they look pretty faithful, and are free. Close to 1/4 a century old, now.

However I also wanted some with more substance, for if I'm traveling or something like that.

You could try going for proper old school ports, like Angband and variants.

I've not actually tried these, but they look pretty faithful, and are free. Close to 1/4 a century old, now.

Mainly because different environment produce different binaries.

For example, take a ffmpeg source code from here, with the ./configure options shown here. Using GCC 4.73 will produce different binaries than the ones produced by GCC 4.80.

Another good example would be this one. Binaries produced by VS2010, VS2012 and Intel C++ varied widely by size, even if you have not changed a single line at all.