At least You and Ormandy got a response. My group found a security hole in the OSPF router in Windows 2000 Server around 2003. We sent the details into Microsoft and we never got a response. You would think a security report from the Canadian military would at least rate a "we have received your report and are investigating"
Except that the article and discussion is about speed cameras, not red-light cameras. Speed cameras are the ones beside the road that are attached to a radar gun and take a picture of the license plate and print the speed on the photo. They are typically not near an intersection since many drivers slow down for intersections. They are typically in the middle of the stretch between intersections.
The study let the fake jury read the case history and listen to taped closing arguments. However in a real trial, the lawyers are up in front and interacting. I wonder how much the lawyers physical attractiveness works into the equation. After all the defendant just sits at the table (unless he/whe takes the stand).
Given that they are cruising at 900 km/h(560mph for the US), and that the largest bird at that altitude is the Branta canadensis (wingspan about 4 ft), there is no way you are going to see the bird before your engine ingests it. By the way, most bird strikes happen at low altitudes near airports which is not the time when pilots are engaged in these activities, they are way too busy.
What happens when your friends put information about you on Facebook, such as a picture of you at that party. Thats why it should be reasonable to restrict the people who see the information.
The major problem (as I see it) is the doctorine of sufficient change can't apply to software. In the case of your physical device (an array of levers and cogs), I can potentially come up with an alternate means of doing the same thing that is not covered by the patent. For example, when James Watt was improving the Steam Engine, the crank was patented by James Pickard, so he came up with planetary gears. Both were means of converting linear back and forth motion to rotary motion. It is a fundamental principle of patents that you don't get to patent the idea, you get to patent the implementation of the idea. That way there is an incentive to other inventors to improve the implementation of the idea and the idea does not stagnate. James Pickard did not get to patent converting linear motion to rotation, he got to patent a particular way of converting linear motion to rotation. The planetary gears or a rack and pinion set were not covered by his patent. Similarly the first fax machine patent didn't get to cover all means of transmitting an image over a wire, but a single implementation of transmitting an image over a wire, etc.
The problem is that software is infinitely expressible. There are any number of ways in which to accomplish the same goal. Consider the number of different sorting algorithms. For any patent on software to have any teeth, it has to cover all of the implementations. That is, it must cover the idea not the implementation. And if you look at the software patents, you see this is exactly the approach that they take. But that approach bars all other inventors from improving on the implementation.
For example, if someone patents network access to a database (such a patent does exist by the way) and only provide a very poor implementation such as transmitting string representations of SQL over the link, then another inventor(i.e. IBM) creates another implementations that provide client side tokenization, analysis and optimization of the queries (i.e. DRDA) infringes on the patent. Thus the entire purpose of the patent system which is to promote progress is defeated. The only reason the database patent didn't prevent IBM from developing DRDA was that the original 'inventors' never tried to enforce it until much later, and then only against small websites that had a database in them.
The other issue is that of obviousness. Patents are supposed to advance the state of the art. When confronted with a given problem in the software realm, there is usually a strait forward way for someone skilled in the state of the art to solve that problem. Thus any software patent has to advance the state of the art allowing one to solve such problems in a way not obvious to one skilled in the state of the art.The idea is not to reward the first person who stumbles upon the problem with a locked in monopoly on all solutions to the problem for the next 20 years. Most software patents that I have seen fall into this category, they are all a reward for the first person to encounter the problem and apply the current state of the art to find a solution. If the patent office was to actually hold software patents to innovations in the state of art of software, not just the obvious solution to a new problem, then you might have an argument.
My understanding is that OpenID is designed and coded to link public servers. Its not quite as useful for implementing a single sign on service to multiple services within a private organization. For example, openID supports users signing up and creating their own accounts, while in a enterprise system, you want to have control over creation of accounts, roles and access to resources.
Not only that, but most insurance plans cover only a single hearing aid every 5 years. If your hearing loss is symmetrical like mine, then you really need two, so you have to pay out of pocket for the second.
Lat/Long mapping is what he is probably after. The latitude of a particular location is
not exactly fixed. It depends on the reference geode used. You can have three maps of the same
location specify different latitudes. GPS, for example use WGS84, but many older maps in
North America use NAD 27. Official Gov of Canada maps use CSRS. In fact better GPS units allow
you to change the reference geode in the software to match the one on your map.
If you take a map with coordinates in WGS84 and try to align it with one of the older maps,
you are going to be surprised.
As for the original question, the poster should look into giclee printing services.
Giclee printing is a pigment based printing on art paper or canvas. Most Giclee printing services
also offer laser scanning as well as a means of high quality prints of the original art.
You misunderstand Hibel. In Hibel the defendant refused to identify himself at all. The SC ruled that he had to identify himself once the officer had reasonable suspicion. All analysis of the Hibel decision that I have seen say that a verbal identification is sufficient for the law.
This lapse is actually probably understandable since most of us have tried to forget that
we ever watched that particular movie.
It would be nice to see a more credible Bond movie with a space theme that doesn't
devolve to a cheap version of Barbarella.
Actually most id laws only require you to identify yourself verbally, and only your name. They do not require you to present physical ID. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court (Hibel v Nevada).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Unfortunately, it depends on the contract between the artist and the commissioner. It is becoming more and more common for the artist to retain the copyright. When an artist paints a picture and sells it, they often now explicitly put in the bill of sale that the copyright is not transferred, allowing them to sell prints of the painting even after they have sold the painting.
In another discussion group, we were discussing the incidents surrounding the Mackie dance sculptures on Broadway St. in Seattle. These are Dance Step diagrams in Bronze embedded in the sidewalk. Ten years ago a commercial photographer named Mike Hipple took a picture of someone dancing. A portion of one of the sculptures is visible in the photo. Mackie is suing for $60,000. Mackie has actually sued about photographs of these sculptures at least 30 times. As a result there have been some calls to reevaluate how public works of art are commissioned.
Unfortunately, transferring the copyright to the purchasing body (city, country, whatever) is not necessarily the answer. As shown by the Sept 11 incident with the I love new york logo. Milton Glasner created a modified version of the logo and was contacted by New Yorks legal department over infringement. The city backed down in the face of public opinion. Given that all cities/states/countries are feeling financial pressure, they will most likely want to grab licensing fees for any monuments that they own. The only solution may be an explicit grant to the public domain, but this may not be possible in practice, since everyone seem to want a cut of the action.
I was raised in rural Saskatchewan and worked on a farm many times. While what you say about field yields is true, overuse of antibiotics in farming harms all of us. Those people you identify: elderly, poor families or college students now have to face even higher medical bills when they catch antibiotic resistant bacteria. There was a story a couple of years ago about the FDA clearing some of the last chance antibiotics for agricultural use. This story may or may not be related, but the quantities used when treating farm animals and the discharge of the antibiotics into the environment only put the rest of us at risk.
I dropped the cordless phone in the sink while doing dishes. I was on the phone
at the time. Pulled it out of the sink and was still connected to the person I was
talking to. Said goodbye, hung up and pulled the battery out and let it dry. Still
works fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot to say: Was on 7th floor and felt the building sway.
There is already a wikipedia entry for it (almost 1 hr ago) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ontario_earthquake
Some of us enjoy a well told joke.
At least You and Ormandy got a response. My group found a security hole in the OSPF router in Windows 2000 Server around 2003. We sent the details into Microsoft and we never got a response. You would think a security report from the Canadian military would at least rate a "we have received your report and are investigating"
Except that the article and discussion is about speed cameras, not red-light cameras. Speed cameras are the ones beside the road that are attached to a radar gun and take a picture of the license plate and print the speed on the photo. They are typically not near an intersection since many drivers slow down for intersections. They are typically in the middle of the stretch between intersections.
The study let the fake jury read the case history and listen to taped closing arguments. However in a real trial, the lawyers are up in front and interacting. I wonder how much the lawyers physical attractiveness works into the equation. After all the defendant just sits at the table (unless he/whe takes the stand).
Because fat ones with linux will no longer be available on the used marked because of the firmware update.
Given that they are cruising at 900 km/h(560mph for the US), and that the largest bird at that altitude is the Branta canadensis (wingspan about 4 ft), there is no way you are going to see the bird before your engine ingests it. By the way, most bird strikes happen at low altitudes near airports which is not the time when pilots are engaged in these activities, they are way too busy.
In modern aircraft they don't even wait for takeoff. The autopilot even handles the takeoff now.
What happens when your friends put information about you on Facebook, such as a picture of you at that party. Thats why it should be reasonable to restrict the people who see the information.
Just pay a Nigerian Spammer $5 and they'll post a death notice to everyone's mailbox!
And claim that you left 14 million dollars in a secret bank account that they need help retrieving.
But imagine the problems when the battery gets low on the Pulse Sensor. How many times will you have to die before you notice?
If you don't upgrade you are a terrorist (or a pedophile)!!
I have, and in that case they went to sleep.
Even then, how is it different than driving with two people just about to get a divorce? Or is it Mothers against distracted driving?
The major problem (as I see it) is the doctorine of sufficient change can't apply to software. In the case of your physical device (an array of levers and cogs), I can potentially come up with an alternate means of doing the same thing that is not covered by the patent. For example, when James Watt was improving the Steam Engine, the crank was patented by James Pickard, so he came up with planetary gears. Both were means of converting linear back and forth motion to rotary motion. It is a fundamental principle of patents that you don't get to patent the idea, you get to patent the implementation of the idea. That way there is an incentive to other inventors to improve the implementation of the idea and the idea does not stagnate. James Pickard did not get to patent converting linear motion to rotation, he got to patent a particular way of converting linear motion to rotation. The planetary gears or a rack and pinion set were not covered by his patent. Similarly the first fax machine patent didn't get to cover all means of transmitting an image over a wire, but a single implementation of transmitting an image over a wire, etc.
The problem is that software is infinitely expressible. There are any number of ways in which to accomplish the same goal. Consider the number of different sorting algorithms. For any patent on software to have any teeth, it has to cover all of the implementations. That is, it must cover the idea not the implementation. And if you look at the software patents, you see this is exactly the approach that they take. But that approach bars all other inventors from improving on the implementation.
For example, if someone patents network access to a database (such a patent does exist by the way) and only provide a very poor implementation such as transmitting string representations of SQL over the link, then another inventor(i.e. IBM) creates another implementations that provide client side tokenization, analysis and optimization of the queries (i.e. DRDA) infringes on the patent. Thus the entire purpose of the patent system which is to promote progress is defeated. The only reason the database patent didn't prevent IBM from developing DRDA was that the original 'inventors' never tried to enforce it until much later, and then only against small websites that had a database in them.
The other issue is that of obviousness. Patents are supposed to advance the state of the art. When confronted with a given problem in the software realm, there is usually a strait forward way for someone skilled in the state of the art to solve that problem. Thus any software patent has to advance the state of the art allowing one to solve such problems in a way not obvious to one skilled in the state of the art.The idea is not to reward the first person who stumbles upon the problem with a locked in monopoly on all solutions to the problem for the next 20 years. Most software patents that I have seen fall into this category, they are all a reward for the first person to encounter the problem and apply the current state of the art to find a solution. If the patent office was to actually hold software patents to innovations in the state of art of software, not just the obvious solution to a new problem, then you might have an argument.
Thank God for natural selection. ;)
That only works if they die before they breed.
My understanding is that OpenID is designed and coded to link public servers. Its not quite as useful for implementing a single sign on service to multiple services within a private organization. For example, openID supports users signing up and creating their own accounts, while in a enterprise system, you want to have control over creation of accounts, roles and access to resources.
Not only that, but most insurance plans cover only a single hearing aid every 5 years. If your hearing loss is symmetrical like mine, then you really need two, so you have to pay out of pocket for the second.
Lat/Long mapping is what he is probably after. The latitude of a particular location is not exactly fixed. It depends on the reference geode used. You can have three maps of the same location specify different latitudes. GPS, for example use WGS84, but many older maps in North America use NAD 27. Official Gov of Canada maps use CSRS. In fact better GPS units allow you to change the reference geode in the software to match the one on your map.
If you take a map with coordinates in WGS84 and try to align it with one of the older maps, you are going to be surprised.
As for the original question, the poster should look into giclee printing services. Giclee printing is a pigment based printing on art paper or canvas. Most Giclee printing services also offer laser scanning as well as a means of high quality prints of the original art.
You misunderstand Hibel. In Hibel the defendant refused to identify himself at all. The SC ruled that he had to identify himself once the officer had reasonable suspicion. All analysis of the Hibel decision that I have seen say that a verbal identification is sufficient for the law.
This lapse is actually probably understandable since most of us have tried to forget that we ever watched that particular movie. It would be nice to see a more credible Bond movie with a space theme that doesn't devolve to a cheap version of Barbarella.
Actually most id laws only require you to identify yourself verbally, and only your name. They do not require you to present physical ID. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court (Hibel v Nevada). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Unfortunately, it depends on the contract between the artist and the commissioner. It is becoming more and more common for the artist to retain the copyright. When an artist paints a picture and sells it, they often now explicitly put in the bill of sale that the copyright is not transferred, allowing them to sell prints of the painting even after they have sold the painting.
In another discussion group, we were discussing the incidents surrounding the Mackie dance sculptures on Broadway St. in Seattle. These are Dance Step diagrams in Bronze embedded in the sidewalk. Ten years ago a commercial photographer named Mike Hipple took a picture of someone dancing. A portion of one of the sculptures is visible in the photo. Mackie is suing for $60,000. Mackie has actually sued about photographs of these sculptures at least 30 times. As a result there have been some calls to reevaluate how public works of art are commissioned.
Unfortunately, transferring the copyright to the purchasing body (city, country, whatever) is not necessarily the answer. As shown by the Sept 11 incident with the I love new york logo. Milton Glasner created a modified version of the logo and was contacted by New Yorks legal department over infringement. The city backed down in the face of public opinion. Given that all cities/states/countries are feeling financial pressure, they will most likely want to grab licensing fees for any monuments that they own. The only solution may be an explicit grant to the public domain, but this may not be possible in practice, since everyone seem to want a cut of the action.
I was raised in rural Saskatchewan and worked on a farm many times. While what you say about field yields is true, overuse of antibiotics in farming harms all of us. Those people you identify: elderly, poor families or college students now have to face even higher medical bills when they catch antibiotic resistant bacteria. There was a story a couple of years ago about the FDA clearing some of the last chance antibiotics for agricultural use. This story may or may not be related, but the quantities used when treating farm animals and the discharge of the antibiotics into the environment only put the rest of us at risk.
I dropped the cordless phone in the sink while doing dishes. I was on the phone at the time. Pulled it out of the sink and was still connected to the person I was talking to. Said goodbye, hung up and pulled the battery out and let it dry. Still works fine.