They wouldn't be *as* clear, however the balloons would be above the majority of the earth's atmosphere so they would have far smaller problems adjusting for atmospheric distortion and probably wouldn't need adaptive optics to do so.
Additionally, even if adaptive optics are needed, it would cost far less to install them temporarily on a test system and launch via balloon than actually launch a full-scale test satellite.
The South African National Defense Force "is probing whether a software glitch led to an antiaircraft cannon malfunction that killed nine soldiers and seriously injured 14 others during a shooting exercise on Friday. in the follow-up article:
"software engineers find that a goto statement was the cause of the recent military disaster. Experts say while this was a terrible tragedy, it could have been much worse."
They have placed HTML (an interpreted language) in public space to be viewed by people visiting their site.
If this were source code of some sort where users were supposed to be separated from the code then they may have ground to stand on, but the point is the exact text of their web page must be read and interpreted and is granted freely as such.
Hopefully this will bring the judge to the final ruling of: "duh!"
The USPTO is the only government agency that can and does lay you off if your productivity drops below 85% of the standard for your civil service grade When was this lowered? I'm an examiner and ever since I've been here it has been 95%. If you don't meet that the first time, you get a warning, the second time (unless you have a forgiving supervisor) you're out.
I've already seen several people leave because they can't handle the stress they're put under here either. The standards haven't changed since the 70s even though the pool of prior art is growing exponentially.
I'm sure there's a heavy following on/. for online MMORPGs where goods can be purchased from an online store for real money. There has always been a huge amount of credit card fraud occurring because there is no physical location ever divulged in order to gain access to these goods. Everything is strictly online. The problem is many people would run up a debt on a stolen credit card of (literally) $4990 and move on to the next card. With this bill, people like that would be prosecutable.
I think this is a step in the right direction for a more internet-oriented society.
... I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access. It is a service and is very similar to many other goods or services on which a tax is charged. I just don't see how this would be news whether or not it passed. If it did pass, I would expect to pay an extra two bucks for my high-speed service. Instead, I continue to save about 12 bucks annually. Sure, I wouldn't be in LOVE with the idea, but I wouldn't be surprised or outrageously put-off by the idea.
I think for this to be newsworthy, an internet tax would need to be proposed based off of the amount of network traffic produced (Like I could see some uninformed politicians proposing in order to keep the "tubes" cleaner). In doing so, anyone dealing with high volume transfer (e.g. Walmart Photo Center, Video and flash developers, youtube) would be forced to grind to a halt, however this is not the case.
Aren't they measuring the distance to stars within a three-dimensional object? I would guess that they could pick two stars that appear close together along our line of sight and come up with wildly different distances. Now perhaps if they measured the distance to one of the Trapezium stars (a very bright formation thought to lie at the "heart" of the nebula) they could come up with some meaningful measurement of distance. Just thought of something else. Let's find a really large repository for data and create a three-dimensional map of the nebula. Don't try to shove this single star data down my throat! It is true that the nebula is three dimensional, but it is nowhere near 1/10th the distance from earth to the orion nebula. The margin of error associated with the "front" of the nebula with the "back" or "center" of the nebula is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. (and I purposely used relative terms to demonstrate where error can lie)
Additionally, they did not use line of sight. They were using radio telescopes making them able to "see" the star at the center of the nebula without necessarily having a true line-of-sight.
Actually, a linux box in the hands of a clueless user can be just as dangerous if not more so than a windows box in the same hands.
The real threat is ignorance here. That includes buying unnecessary security equipment, operating and running the system itself, and improperly using software firewall and routing.
I think that a phone that can:
take your pulse reading, check your body fat and tell you if you have bad breath. shouldn't be described as a
personal trainer, wellness coach and secretary but instead as a nagging girlfriend. After all, this is a typical day for me:
"are you angry?"
"you need to get off your ass and go running!"
"eeew... did you eat garlic?"
Automation of a manual process has been unpatentable for quite a time now, this is just a court decision upholding what was already known. For those of you that don't have an MPEP handy, this is an excerpt dealing exactly with that: 2144.04[R-1]III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued
that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were
allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-
mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the
known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has
elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to
replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to
distinguish over the prior art.). While this case is a little outdated, they're saying that the process would occur manually and all the timer / solenoid combination is doing is automating the formerly manual process. This is expanded to include thought processes too. While it's probably good to have a more recent case back up a good decision made years ago, it won't change patent law any.
An obviousness-type double patenting (which the one click was originally rejected under) is saying that the same inventor is essentially trying to obtain two patents for the same invention and has nothing to do with the patentability of the invention itself. By proposing only a double patenting rejection the examiner was effectively saying that the invention you describe in previous patents is a patentable invention, but this particular application is much too close to another invention you have already obtained. In other words, this means a patent for the invention already exists by the same inventor, it's just that the second one must either be grouped into the same intellectual property as the first, or be dropped altogether.
The courts (whom I actually think have it right) are saying that while this invention is separate from the one cited by the examiner (thereby allowing it to stand on it's own as a patent if deemed patentable,) we don't think it is clear enough (U.S.C 112 rejection usually means they do not state something clearly) and the courts are saying the examiner should re-reject it because it is indefinite.
This is actually good news overall because it means that the USPTO is on the right track and attempting to bring this one down as it should be.
I don't quite see where the website states that they do "evil" or for that matter what evil actually is in your mind. The privacy policy states they will keep personally identifiable information, but they are referring to age range, gender and other things of that nature which were actually outlined in the article. Of course they do, they're advertisers. They're not trying to make money out of your pocketbook, just on you clicking, so of course they want to get the ads most tailored to you. What they don't do (or at least as far as their claims/business model goes thus far) is actually record conversations or or log the contents of your call.
Of course they track your clicks though. That's where they make their money. I don't think this business model should be seen as the evil version of what AT&T gives or vice versa. Instead this is more like the FM version of what XM can do for you instead. I don't veiw FM as evil, but they tailor their music to draw in a certain gender or age range and play ads that appeal to that market sector.
While I agree that they could do some devious things behind their customers' backs, I really don't think they can and get away with it for very long as a company.
There are even times where I wish I had this. I think it would be nice if I were bored and talking with a friend wanting to do something. I say: "hey, wanna go see a movie" and bam... listing of showtimes at theaters advertising through them. Maybe even if you say "I wanna go do something, but I don't know what's going on" you get a listing of events occurring that night. This does depend a lot on their execution of the service itself and how annoying the ads get when you aren't looking for something, but I'm saying this may work out pretty well.
Since this service is recording phone calls I imagine the company might want to keep the data for a "reasonable" time. I wonder if it could be used to prove alibis and such? Very interesting times indeed. Lemme correct that statement:
Since this service is using voice recognition on phone calls I imagine the company can't keep the data for a "reasonable" time. there's no way this could be used to prove alibis and such? Very interesting times indeed.
Using voice recognition and voice recording are completely different. voice recognition can, and in this case DOES happen on the fly
FTA: Mr. Maislos said that Pudding Media had considered the privacy question carefully. The company is not keeping recordings or logs of the content of any phone calls, he said, so advertisements only relate to current calls, not past ones, and will only arrive during the call itself.
...but somebody is cashing in on ad revenue at the same time?
Seriously, though, I'm not to the point where my phone bill is so expensive I'd do this. Cable TV on the other hand... That's what I thought initially, then I realized that the consumer is the one adapting to the business model. This means that instead of unknowingly and unintentionally giving up rights, the customer is completely in the know.
Additionally, they are offering you phone service in return, so for some people this may be a business model for them and they wouldn't mind the company "cashing in" on ad revenue instead of their own pocketbook. It's true that I wouldn't adapt to this, but I can see where it may be warranted.
I'll downgrade to XP in the same way I'll "downgrade" to a first-class airline ticket or a supersized meal.
On the other hand though, it is Microsoft making a correct move by giving consumers what they actually want while keeping the marketing in line with their "forward thinking."
The problem with systems like this is with the plate in place, only people in close contact with the person who stole the laptop would ever be suspicious if the laptop is stolen and only a select few people who know how the system works would recognize the mark.
it will be like when the RIAA gave a crap-ton of Whitney Houston Christmas CDs as a settlement for their price-fixing practices... technically within the letter of the law, but violating the spirit of the law all to hell... Not to mention violating our ears too!
Slashdot Mirror
They wouldn't be *as* clear, however the balloons would be above the majority of the earth's atmosphere so they would have far smaller problems adjusting for atmospheric distortion and probably wouldn't need adaptive optics to do so.
Additionally, even if adaptive optics are needed, it would cost far less to install them temporarily on a test system and launch via balloon than actually launch a full-scale test satellite.
"software engineers find that a goto statement was the cause of the recent military disaster. Experts say while this was a terrible tragedy, it could have been much worse."
They have placed HTML (an interpreted language) in public space to be viewed by people visiting their site.
If this were source code of some sort where users were supposed to be separated from the code then they may have ground to stand on, but the point is the exact text of their web page must be read and interpreted and is granted freely as such.
Hopefully this will bring the judge to the final ruling of: "duh!"
I've already seen several people leave because they can't handle the stress they're put under here either. The standards haven't changed since the 70s even though the pool of prior art is growing exponentially.
I'm sure there's a heavy following on /. for online MMORPGs where goods can be purchased from an online store for real money. There has always been a huge amount of credit card fraud occurring because there is no physical location ever divulged in order to gain access to these goods. Everything is strictly online. The problem is many people would run up a debt on a stolen credit card of (literally) $4990 and move on to the next card. With this bill, people like that would be prosecutable.
I think this is a step in the right direction for a more internet-oriented society.
... I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access. It is a service and is very similar to many other goods or services on which a tax is charged. I just don't see how this would be news whether or not it passed. If it did pass, I would expect to pay an extra two bucks for my high-speed service. Instead, I continue to save about 12 bucks annually. Sure, I wouldn't be in LOVE with the idea, but I wouldn't be surprised or outrageously put-off by the idea.
I think for this to be newsworthy, an internet tax would need to be proposed based off of the amount of network traffic produced (Like I could see some uninformed politicians proposing in order to keep the "tubes" cleaner). In doing so, anyone dealing with high volume transfer (e.g. Walmart Photo Center, Video and flash developers, youtube) would be forced to grind to a halt, however this is not the case.
Additionally, they did not use line of sight. They were using radio telescopes making them able to "see" the star at the center of the nebula without necessarily having a true line-of-sight.
The problem is that invention can be countered by the Roman Catholic! :-P
Actually, a linux box in the hands of a clueless user can be just as dangerous if not more so than a windows box in the same hands.
The real threat is ignorance here. That includes buying unnecessary security equipment, operating and running the system itself, and improperly using software firewall and routing.
"are you angry?"
"you need to get off your ass and go running!"
"eeew... did you eat garlic?"
Now along with hardened thugs, we'll have half of the /. community hijacking cars!
That would suck
That would be enough to drive me to drink... oh.
I'd be willing to be a guinea pig for their next project
2144.04[R-1]III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent- mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). While this case is a little outdated, they're saying that the process would occur manually and all the timer / solenoid combination is doing is automating the formerly manual process. This is expanded to include thought processes too. While it's probably good to have a more recent case back up a good decision made years ago, it won't change patent law any.
Is a hero in all of our books!
An obviousness-type double patenting (which the one click was originally rejected under) is saying that the same inventor is essentially trying to obtain two patents for the same invention and has nothing to do with the patentability of the invention itself. By proposing only a double patenting rejection the examiner was effectively saying that the invention you describe in previous patents is a patentable invention, but this particular application is much too close to another invention you have already obtained. In other words, this means a patent for the invention already exists by the same inventor, it's just that the second one must either be grouped into the same intellectual property as the first, or be dropped altogether.
The courts (whom I actually think have it right) are saying that while this invention is separate from the one cited by the examiner (thereby allowing it to stand on it's own as a patent if deemed patentable,) we don't think it is clear enough (U.S.C 112 rejection usually means they do not state something clearly) and the courts are saying the examiner should re-reject it because it is indefinite.
This is actually good news overall because it means that the USPTO is on the right track and attempting to bring this one down as it should be.
I was going to tell you, but I changed the outcome by reading it!
That wasn't me, but I will respond to both posts.
I don't quite see where the website states that they do "evil" or for that matter what evil actually is in your mind. The privacy policy states they will keep personally identifiable information, but they are referring to age range, gender and other things of that nature which were actually outlined in the article. Of course they do, they're advertisers. They're not trying to make money out of your pocketbook, just on you clicking, so of course they want to get the ads most tailored to you. What they don't do (or at least as far as their claims/business model goes thus far) is actually record conversations or or log the contents of your call.
Of course they track your clicks though. That's where they make their money. I don't think this business model should be seen as the evil version of what AT&T gives or vice versa. Instead this is more like the FM version of what XM can do for you instead. I don't veiw FM as evil, but they tailor their music to draw in a certain gender or age range and play ads that appeal to that market sector.
While I agree that they could do some devious things behind their customers' backs, I really don't think they can and get away with it for very long as a company.
There are even times where I wish I had this. I think it would be nice if I were bored and talking with a friend wanting to do something. I say: "hey, wanna go see a movie" and bam... listing of showtimes at theaters advertising through them. Maybe even if you say "I wanna go do something, but I don't know what's going on" you get a listing of events occurring that night. This does depend a lot on their execution of the service itself and how annoying the ads get when you aren't looking for something, but I'm saying this may work out pretty well.
It happens to be that the answer to life, the universe and everything in that universe is 43
Since this service is using voice recognition on phone calls I imagine the company can't keep the data for a "reasonable" time. there's no way this could be used to prove alibis and such? Very interesting times indeed.
Using voice recognition and voice recording are completely different. voice recognition can, and in this case DOES happen on the fly
FTA:
Mr. Maislos said that Pudding Media had considered the privacy question carefully. The company is not keeping recordings or logs of the content of any phone calls, he said, so advertisements only relate to current calls, not past ones, and will only arrive during the call itself.
...but somebody is cashing in on ad revenue at the same time?Seriously, though, I'm not to the point where my phone bill is so expensive I'd do this. Cable TV on the other hand... That's what I thought initially, then I realized that the consumer is the one adapting to the business model. This means that instead of unknowingly and unintentionally giving up rights, the customer is completely in the know.
Additionally, they are offering you phone service in return, so for some people this may be a business model for them and they wouldn't mind the company "cashing in" on ad revenue instead of their own pocketbook. It's true that I wouldn't adapt to this, but I can see where it may be warranted.
I'll downgrade to XP in the same way I'll "downgrade" to a first-class airline ticket or a supersized meal.
On the other hand though, it is Microsoft making a correct move by giving consumers what they actually want while keeping the marketing in line with their "forward thinking."
The problem with systems like this is with the plate in place, only people in close contact with the person who stole the laptop would ever be suspicious if the laptop is stolen and only a select few people who know how the system works would recognize the mark.