Why would the juries knowledge or lack thereof in the original matter have anything to do with the finding? The ruling was made, this does not change the pertinent ruling in any way. What was decided in the Supreme Court, simply gave eBay another delay in implementing the inevitable court order, which will block eBay from continuing to provide a "Buy it now" button. I wish I had the money to bribe appelate judges so my lawyers could attempt to put up more stumbling blocks. The courts don't care about patent reform or jury incompetence. The summary is inaccurate.
The fact you think it's "ask a lawyer" (regarding licensing legalities) instead of a paralegal is interesting in that, it's part of the natural discussion evolving from the very sane act of asking for advice on a forum of (perceived or real) peers. There's nothing inherently trollish in searching for information. The fact you do not approve of/. as a source of information, seems a bit hypocritical. Did you not just offer advice?
I don't see how he is a troll. The fact people ask questions that could be answered by doing the proper research (how would you qualify what is proper in many cases, specifically the legalities of licensing?) does not mean they are trolling, they are simply asking in a forum they are comfortable with. What's your problem with that?
Welcome to more (US) government waste. It's a PR campaign, for waste. Now that I think about it, yhe project is ultimately doomed. I should probably apply for a nice paying gig with them since it doesn't matter how well or badly I perform and they probably don't know or care about the difference.
Tapping is precisely the name they own. The fact you call the concept "tapping" yourself, reveals the ubiquity of it. It was a dilluted patent when it was first enforced but somebody got paid to deny that.
It's because they have successfully defended their patents regarding CCGs and the concept of "tapping" for years. If you can claim complete ownership of those ideas, you're not afraid to attack anything you can get a patent for. WotC is just another example of how the US patent system is broken.
If it's visible from the street, it's public domain.
As a matter of fact, it is not. Really surprised you got modded up, but you are tripmaster monkey and a lot of people think you know what you're talking about:p
While it would seem intuitive to assume that anything visible to the public is public-domain, that's a COPYRIGHT label regarding OWNERSHIP. If I take a picture of a billboard (in any scope, be it from afar or just enough to crop off the parts that make it evident it's a billboard), that image has not been given over to the public-domain. Sorry.
What you probably meant was that it is eligible for fair-use. Street View is not fair-use because it is a Google product, even though it's a free service. Some parties who own images/likenesses featured in Street View may be afraid to sue the Googlemonster, but others wont.
Your statement serves to confuse the idea of copywrite as well as privacy (separate but overlapping issues). If it violates copyrite, it will also be an excellent case for violating privacy, in general.
IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
"When it comes to using airspace, it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do."
It's not right because the use of it doesnt make it unusable for any other purpose INCLUDING reusing it for the same purpose in concurrency. If there's no scarcity, you're basically saying "We should be able to charge people for (being fertile/breathing/growing hair), and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do."
the governments ONLY job is to make sure that competition thrives.
Currently, the governments in so called "free countries" are doing pretty much everything to work AGAINST these requirements
Therefore, it's more likely that's the NOT the government's job (as they are influenced by the market). Birds fly pretty well but currently kiwis dont fly. The premise is faulty.
This is a case of making up words to describe a situation, without the ability to articulate what exists as a fault. The OP didn't explain himself, but instead made up his own "term" (apologies for mixing my use of 'terms' vs 'term' as a literary definition) to describe his frustration. Hence, he is trolling (nearly stated by his 'disclaimer'). The fact that Dragonskin doesnt hold up as well after a number of tests conducted under environmental conditions, shows an unwillingness or inability to conduct dry impact tests. This is what matters, so the independent tests stand as the sole findings that are applicable. Any other findings for this specific theory: Dragonskin provides higher grade protection against ballistics in urban/desert conditions than standard issue...are invalidated as they introduce other variables that are beyond the scope of the particular comparison. The Army requires more extensive testing to grade armor higher, but it's irrelevant to the claim. Preferential contracts don't make soldiers want to reduce their survivability. Perhaps we're talking about different things.
"generate an estimated $70 million a year in revenue" although the actual numbers are more like a couple hundred grand AT MOST. This is a market fluff piece blathering on about how it could be a goldmine but nobody can prove it other than he has a nice flat. Next article was about how someone invented cold fusion but couldnt show it to the public for fear of the power companies killing them. Yawn.
They don't need to cleanly invalidate them. You're implying that invalidation can only come on your terms? Please stop posting if you don't care, you're trolling.
I'm betting the US Military just got BETTER at it's job of killing and destroying. Was never a good idea to have the engineer corps build a country's infrastructure while in the middle of a civil war.
Useability isn't just about the consumer, the website has to make money and it really helps to have a less spartan design for more revenue opportunities. It's about balance and I can't fault sites for looking out for themselves at the expense of the consumer. Welcome to capitalism.
I think it's a little absurd to attack the idea when it's as practical as setting up a doomsday scenario in my network. Granted, I can reliably predict how computers and hardware will likely react. Part of the drill was not just for the students, but for the teacher to better learn how kids really react. I think it was a good idea and it's amazing how american culture treats fear like it's damage, when it's natural and good. Fear keeps you awake, alert, and in most cases, alive.
In any criminal hearing, you'll find these organizations refer to themselves as "the people". Hence the irony. My comment stands (and I have been accused of many-a-thing). Reading the Constitution is a nice exercise, until you realize how twisted the current court system is.
I understand that the right to trial is also Constitutionally protected in the US also.
How does that wacky American constitution work? The Consitution is an agreement between the (American) government, ironically referred to as "the people", and the general public (which now encompasses anyone on Earth, see citizens vs undocumented immigrants vs foreign nationals). The right to trial exists for disputes between "the people" and the general public, not between non-governmental civil parties. If I want to make an agreement to pay you 2 dollars to never say Google again, that's a binding contract. You can sue me for breach of contract when I say Google (or otherwise express it in an equivalent manner). If the government (or lesser jurisdiction representing "the people") abide by a local law invalidating such contracts, your suit goes nowhere as the state has restricted itself from arbitrating such disputes. You can't sue as it never reaches the docket. IANAL, but am fascinated by Tort law.
>why should I deal with a more complex environment when every other database product out there has embraced a far simpler solution?
Because it's a niche problem that the majority of developers don't run into or work around. By the time you have an issue with table fragmentation affecting your reads, you're running multiple servers.
> Does mysql need vacuum?
That seems rhetorical. You're strongly implying it does. I'm weakly implying it does.
Everyone makes tradeoffs. MySQL has traditionally adapted common practices (or equivalents) of other engines over time. MySQL development never focuses very heavily on support tools. No money in it. I'm not worried and it's never been a significant problem for me.
Never liked their show and their misleading "analyses" and practices. In general, I find more flaws with their reasoning and conclusions than reasonable conclusions. YMMV.
I believe 'The Last Mitzy' will be the "D.A.R.Y.L." of this generation. A great feel-good movie that combines provocative ideas and a great budget, ending in a mild way the allows your imagination to wander. All without making a heavy-handed statement about the future, other than, it's coming. Tell everyone.
It's aberrant. See a therapist. Reality versus fantasy. RP does not mean to lose sight of the difference. There should never be a question, when it's obvious fantasy.
You never really explained why you thought this. Seems ridiculous to me. Have you tried to read all the TOS? Blizzard revealing information about assets they own is not even comparable to the Warden program.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would the juries knowledge or lack thereof in the original matter have anything to do with the finding? The ruling was made, this does not change the pertinent ruling in any way. What was decided in the Supreme Court, simply gave eBay another delay in implementing the inevitable court order, which will block eBay from continuing to provide a "Buy it now" button. I wish I had the money to bribe appelate judges so my lawyers could attempt to put up more stumbling blocks. The courts don't care about patent reform or jury incompetence. The summary is inaccurate.
What this ruling is, is a concession by the courts for big business interests. The state has no interest in patent reform.
The fact you think it's "ask a lawyer" (regarding licensing legalities) instead of a paralegal is interesting in that, it's part of the natural discussion evolving from the very sane act of asking for advice on a forum of (perceived or real) peers. There's nothing inherently trollish in searching for information. The fact you do not approve of /. as a source of information, seems a bit hypocritical. Did you not just offer advice?
I don't see how he is a troll. The fact people ask questions that could be answered by doing the proper research (how would you qualify what is proper in many cases, specifically the legalities of licensing?) does not mean they are trolling, they are simply asking in a forum they are comfortable with. What's your problem with that?
Welcome to more (US) government waste. It's a PR campaign, for waste. Now that I think about it, yhe project is ultimately doomed. I should probably apply for a nice paying gig with them since it doesn't matter how well or badly I perform and they probably don't know or care about the difference.
Tapping is precisely the name they own. The fact you call the concept "tapping" yourself, reveals the ubiquity of it. It was a dilluted patent when it was first enforced but somebody got paid to deny that.
It's because they have successfully defended their patents regarding CCGs and the concept of "tapping" for years. If you can claim complete ownership of those ideas, you're not afraid to attack anything you can get a patent for. WotC is just another example of how the US patent system is broken.
While it would seem intuitive to assume that anything visible to the public is public-domain, that's a COPYRIGHT label regarding OWNERSHIP. If I take a picture of a billboard (in any scope, be it from afar or just enough to crop off the parts that make it evident it's a billboard), that image has not been given over to the public-domain. Sorry.
What you probably meant was that it is eligible for fair-use. Street View is not fair-use because it is a Google product, even though it's a free service. Some parties who own images/likenesses featured in Street View may be afraid to sue the Googlemonster, but others wont.
Your statement serves to confuse the idea of copywrite as well as privacy (separate but overlapping issues). If it violates copyrite, it will also be an excellent case for violating privacy, in general.
IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
"When it comes to using airspace, it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do."
It's not right because the use of it doesnt make it unusable for any other purpose INCLUDING reusing it for the same purpose in concurrency. If there's no scarcity, you're basically saying "We should be able to charge people for (being fertile/breathing/growing hair), and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do."
Birds fly pretty well but currently kiwis dont fly. The premise is faulty.
This is a case of making up words to describe a situation, without the ability to articulate what exists as a fault. The OP didn't explain himself, but instead made up his own "term" (apologies for mixing my use of 'terms' vs 'term' as a literary definition) to describe his frustration. Hence, he is trolling (nearly stated by his 'disclaimer'). The fact that Dragonskin doesnt hold up as well after a number of tests conducted under environmental conditions, shows an unwillingness or inability to conduct dry impact tests. This is what matters, so the independent tests stand as the sole findings that are applicable. Any other findings for this specific theory: Dragonskin provides higher grade protection against ballistics in urban/desert conditions than standard issue...are invalidated as they introduce other variables that are beyond the scope of the particular comparison. The Army requires more extensive testing to grade armor higher, but it's irrelevant to the claim. Preferential contracts don't make soldiers want to reduce their survivability. Perhaps we're talking about different things.
"generate an estimated $70 million a year in revenue" although the actual numbers are more like a couple hundred grand AT MOST. This is a market fluff piece blathering on about how it could be a goldmine but nobody can prove it other than he has a nice flat. Next article was about how someone invented cold fusion but couldnt show it to the public for fear of the power companies killing them. Yawn.
They don't need to cleanly invalidate them. You're implying that invalidation can only come on your terms? Please stop posting if you don't care, you're trolling.
I'm betting the US Military just got BETTER at it's job of killing and destroying. Was never a good idea to have the engineer corps build a country's infrastructure while in the middle of a civil war.
Useability isn't just about the consumer, the website has to make money and it really helps to have a less spartan design for more revenue opportunities. It's about balance and I can't fault sites for looking out for themselves at the expense of the consumer. Welcome to capitalism.
I think it's a little absurd to attack the idea when it's as practical as setting up a doomsday scenario in my network. Granted, I can reliably predict how computers and hardware will likely react. Part of the drill was not just for the students, but for the teacher to better learn how kids really react. I think it was a good idea and it's amazing how american culture treats fear like it's damage, when it's natural and good. Fear keeps you awake, alert, and in most cases, alive.
In any criminal hearing, you'll find these organizations refer to themselves as "the people". Hence the irony. My comment stands (and I have been accused of many-a-thing). Reading the Constitution is a nice exercise, until you realize how twisted the current court system is.
I simply disagree. I do not obey all laws.
>why should I deal with a more complex environment when every other database product out there has embraced a far simpler solution?
Because it's a niche problem that the majority of developers don't run into or work around. By the time you have an issue with table fragmentation affecting your reads, you're running multiple servers.
> Does mysql need vacuum?
That seems rhetorical. You're strongly implying it does. I'm weakly implying it does.
Everyone makes tradeoffs. MySQL has traditionally adapted common practices (or equivalents) of other engines over time. MySQL development never focuses very heavily on support tools. No money in it. I'm not worried and it's never been a significant problem for me.
Never liked their show and their misleading "analyses" and practices. In general, I find more flaws with their reasoning and conclusions than reasonable conclusions. YMMV.
I believe 'The Last Mitzy' will be the "D.A.R.Y.L." of this generation. A great feel-good movie that combines provocative ideas and a great budget, ending in a mild way the allows your imagination to wander. All without making a heavy-handed statement about the future, other than, it's coming. Tell everyone.
It's aberrant. See a therapist. Reality versus fantasy. RP does not mean to lose sight of the difference. There should never be a question, when it's obvious fantasy.
No, it's not. It's a CHARACTER, which is not something I own, but a persona that's fictional. That's obvious. Taking emotional ownership, is aberrant.
You never really explained why you thought this. Seems ridiculous to me.
Have you tried to read all the TOS? Blizzard revealing information about assets they own is not even comparable to the Warden program.