Dude, go find that little orange bottle in your cupboard with the label that says "Valium." I think you forgot to take one today. Your little rant doesn't make any sense. Like the GP says, the Supreme Court doesn't just hand down arbitrary decisions. Somebody has to challenge the act, and the Supreme Court does indeed review cases and make decisions (even on the Patriot Act) when it feels inclined to do so. I know a lot of people around here have their underwear all up in a knot because they're afraid that somehow, someday, the Patriot Act may inhibit their ability to get free and unfettered access to internet pornography and illegally copied music, but it just hasn't played out as deviously as you all had hoped. So why don't you relax a little and go back to grousing about the Broadcast Flag or something. Or at least complain about the lack of access to GIS data.
So they admit they haven't invented anything, but they got a patent because of the amazingly innovative combination of those features.
That's exactly how patents work. A patent can be simply a (purportedly novel) integration of existing technology, and many are just that. A patent gives you absolutely no right to any technologies it employs. The only right a patent grants is a right to exclude. For example, I could discover that a combination of Wonder Drug A and Wonder Drug B cures cancer. Say WDA is still under somebody else's patent and WDB is now public domain. Even though I don't "own" any of the underlying IP (WDA and WDB), I can patent my discovery. The patent gives me no license to WDA and does not affect anybody's use of WDB by itself. The only right it gives me is the right to exclude others from using those drugs in that combination without my permission.
I haven't read this patent, but if it is just an integration of UI elements (as people seem to be saying), Apple's use of a few of those elements would not be infringing. If Apple's UI is substantially similar to the whole UI, then it may be infringing.. If this is a really obvious combination of UI elements that doesn't warrant a patent, then maybe Apple will pony up some cash to lobby congress for a more meaningful patent review process. So, I can't say this is a totally bad thing.
I think the end of your post accidentally got deleted:
I believe the space non militarization treaty stops us from colonizing the moon until colonizing the moon becomes valuable, at which point, whoever has the biggest gun owns the moon.
I think what people were getting more pissy about is places like Amazon, where they track you with a cookie, and when they see that you are buying from them pretty frequently, they feel like they've got you hooked, so they go ahead and ratchet up the price. I believe that article mentions the story where a guy who shopped Amazon frequently deleted his cookies and got a substantial discount. I don't know that his practice is inherently "evil," but it does make you feel used.
It's interesting to know that there are people who are so misinformed that they think any of the alternatives were any better. Educate yourself.
By the way, the site I linked to is not some pro-nuclear-weapons kill-em-all site. It's goal is to curb nuclear proliferation. Even at that, if you look at the facts of the two nuclear attacks and compare them to the rest of the war, it's pretty easy to come to the following conclusions:
1. The nuclear attacks sucked.
2. WWII sucked more.
When I have to help my mother-in-law over the phone, I'm always careful to say things like "Click on the icon that says 'My Computer.'" Honestly, when you say stuff like "Click on my computer," is it any wonder that people who just want their e-mail get confused?
Be cautious placing your hope in a party. If you or anybody else here thinks that the Democrats are the good guys looking out for your rights, I have two words for you:
Fritz Hollings.
I believe in the democratic process to the extent that it still exists in America, I believe in the Constitutions and I honestly believe that there are still some honest politicians on both sides of the aisle. But the media moguls are careful to cover all their bases. They make substantial contributions to both parties. And despite the partisan bickering, the 500-ish congress persons in Washington are much more homogeneous than they like to admit. The one huge thing that every one of them has in common is that they know that winning an election is expensive, and people like us just don't have the dough to pass around.
Left wing:
First, we say we're addicted to email. Next, we'll be talking about all the bad things this addiction causes. Lost productivity, wasted personal time, overtime pay that need not be paid, and so on. Finally we'll be looking at ways to combat this email problem. I'm sure there will be a panel, maybe a national commission, a couple organizations, maybe an international coordinated effort between multiple nations to eradicate this terrible addiction once and for all. ("War on e-mail, next on 60 minutes.")
Whoa! Slow down there cowboy. You forgot to get permission from the UN.
That's exactly what I thought the first time I saw it. I thought it sounded like a whiny little kid making sure that the whole world knew that this was his friggin' computer. It also made it a pain to do anything in the command line. You either had to type a long, escaped directory name, or you had to do crap like "cd Micros~1" If they're smart, they'll change the other obnoxious system-critical directories too (like maybe they could call "Documents and Settings" something sane like "home" and "Program Files" could be something like "bin").
What really alarmed me ("me" being somebody who was too conservative to vote for Bush in '04) was when Diebold started talking about how extraordinarily expensive it would be to equip all of the blackbox systems with printers. It alarmed me because it's not like they would be paying for it. They were basically complaining about billions of dollars in mandatory business. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories that the 2004 election was fixed, but I do think it was odd for a company to be campaigning against their own short-term profits. Combine that with the facts that there were verified instances of machines screwing up and losing votes in '04, and it makes you wonder how anybody could be in favor of paperless voting.
Poor, bitter liberals. Still can't get over a 5 year-old loss. Now let's move out of the Left Wing and into something more like reality:
Instead, he appealed the the supreme court and forced the end to a recount mandated by florida state law.
What really happened was that Florida had already had its mandatory recount. Gore, like a good politician, was pushing for a recount in select counties where he expected a net gain. He couldn't get that, so he figured at least a state-wide recount gave him a shot. Since Florida law required the election controversy to be settled by 12 December, and because he knew that didn't leave enough time for a truly fair recount, Gore wanted a quick and dirty recount without standards, because he knew that the counties that liked him would apply a standard favorable to him (I shouldn't have to mention that Bush, who had won the first couple of recounts, just wanted to leave well-enough alone). The Supreme Court found on a 7-2 vote that the haphazard recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Whether a vote was re-counted would be dependent on where it was re-counted. The court also found on a 5-4 vote that Florida had failed to propose any solution that would result in a constitutional recount prior to the Deadline of 12 December, so they ordered Florida to stop messing with the numbers and certify their results. The decision is certainly open to debate, but it was hardly the right-wing conspiracy liberals have made it out to be.
In the end, after all the votes were counted, it was found that he actually lost the florida electoral college.
Unless you live in the real world, where in the end, it was found that the result was easily within the margin of statistical error. Who won depended heavily on what standard was used to count a vote as valid, and ironically, both candidates had proposed standards that would have caused them to lose if followed. There absolutely was not a clear winner, especially if you account for dirty tricks played by both sides on election day that result in absolutely illegal and illegitimate votes. But we did learn some important lessons. First and most importantly, if you want to be sure your voice is heard, get off your butt, go and vote and do it right. It's a lot more effective than trying to sue your candidate into office after the fact. Second, the methods we use for registering, voting and counting are not perfect. But if you needed a scandal to tell you that, you have been sadly misled. Perhaps open electronic voting systems verified by the public will eliminate some of this error.
The fact that Bush lost the popular vote is just another reinforcing reason.
Unless you're one of those crazy people who actually think the Constitution is a good idea, in which case you know that the "popular vote" is a myth propogated by the media. There is no "popular vote" to lose, so pretending that the "popular vote" should warrant a charge of illegitimacy is just ignorant. Now, you may be one who is deluded into thinking that a "popular vote" would be a good idea, and you are certainly free to think that, but until you get the Constitution amended, it doesn't mean anything. Now think for a minute. Suppose we decided that Florida was too close to call, and we decided that state by a coin toss and Bush won. You theory is that his presidency would still be illegitimate because he "lost" the "popular vote." Would you then stand up for the legitimacy of a Gore presidency, despite the fact that it would be absolutely, unquestionably, without doubt unconstitutional? Are you really prepared to propose a system where we change the rules based on a feel-good whim? What if Kerry had won Ohio? I didn't hear the left wing crying loudly about the popular vote last November, when there was a non-trivial possibility that the tables could be turned. Would you change your mind under those circumstances? If so, you don't really believe in the "popular vote." You're just weeping because your guy didn't win.
They were hostile towards a competitor? Shocking! That doesn't make them slime like the idiot primates currently pretending to own the name SCO. There's a difference between not liking your competitors and pretending that you own them and the rest of the world.
At my former job, we had a subcontractor designing an energy storage system. It had to deliver a huge amount of current, so they had this flywheel that would have to charge for a while and then it could do its job. Along the way, I had to approve their coolant with some fancy ultra-high-tech-sounding name. This included the worst-case scenario of the flywheel coming apart and the coolant getting all over expensive and critical equipment as well as acting as a soil contaminant. I got the data sheet and the stuff was basically corn syrup (of a non-sticky type). Turns out it works great.
If you want to be really tough to outsource, get a security clearance. Classified work doesn't go to India. Plus, if you get to work on something like ICBMs or satellites, you can honestly say "Why yes, I am a rocket scientist."
Another advantage to EE instead of CS is if you decide that you want to hit law school so you can make a really obscene salary as a patent attorney, you will be able to take the UPTO patent bar. Many CS majors are not eligible to sit for the patent bar (your CS degree has to be ABET accredited, and many -- or even most -- aren't).
For that matter, one could take this premise and craft a fairly amusing fan-fic which picks up just as Arthur recovers his sanity, still stuck among the cave men.
Of course, you'd probably be sued into oblivion by ol' Doug's estate, but maybe you could just call it your own special little brand of insanity.
Well, that would at least say something meaningful about him and establish your stance on an issue open to useful discussion. But hey, it's your.sig. Feel free to put what you want in it and I'll feel free to grouse about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, go find that little orange bottle in your cupboard with the label that says "Valium." I think you forgot to take one today. Your little rant doesn't make any sense. Like the GP says, the Supreme Court doesn't just hand down arbitrary decisions. Somebody has to challenge the act, and the Supreme Court does indeed review cases and make decisions (even on the Patriot Act) when it feels inclined to do so. I know a lot of people around here have their underwear all up in a knot because they're afraid that somehow, someday, the Patriot Act may inhibit their ability to get free and unfettered access to internet pornography and illegally copied music, but it just hasn't played out as deviously as you all had hoped. So why don't you relax a little and go back to grousing about the Broadcast Flag or something. Or at least complain about the lack of access to GIS data.
I haven't read this patent, but if it is just an integration of UI elements (as people seem to be saying), Apple's use of a few of those elements would not be infringing. If Apple's UI is substantially similar to the whole UI, then it may be infringing.. If this is a really obvious combination of UI elements that doesn't warrant a patent, then maybe Apple will pony up some cash to lobby congress for a more meaningful patent review process. So, I can't say this is a totally bad thing.
So, to sum it up, the US is giving the EU a wedgie?
Or just let it play Tic-Tac-Toe
These guys have obviously never watched Dr. Who.
I think what people were getting more pissy about is places like Amazon, where they track you with a cookie, and when they see that you are buying from them pretty frequently, they feel like they've got you hooked, so they go ahead and ratchet up the price. I believe that article mentions the story where a guy who shopped Amazon frequently deleted his cookies and got a substantial discount. I don't know that his practice is inherently "evil," but it does make you feel used.
By the way, the site I linked to is not some pro-nuclear-weapons kill-em-all site. It's goal is to curb nuclear proliferation. Even at that, if you look at the facts of the two nuclear attacks and compare them to the rest of the war, it's pretty easy to come to the following conclusions:
1. The nuclear attacks sucked.
2. WWII sucked more.
When I have to help my mother-in-law over the phone, I'm always careful to say things like "Click on the icon that says 'My Computer.'" Honestly, when you say stuff like "Click on my computer," is it any wonder that people who just want their e-mail get confused?
I know it's bad form to reply to my own post and all, but just in case anybody really doubts that the media cartel have the Democrats in their pockets, I took a look over at Open Secrets and lo and behold: More than 70 % of their very substantial contributions usually go to Democrats.
Fritz Hollings.
I believe in the democratic process to the extent that it still exists in America, I believe in the Constitutions and I honestly believe that there are still some honest politicians on both sides of the aisle. But the media moguls are careful to cover all their bases. They make substantial contributions to both parties. And despite the partisan bickering, the 500-ish congress persons in Washington are much more homogeneous than they like to admit. The one huge thing that every one of them has in common is that they know that winning an election is expensive, and people like us just don't have the dough to pass around.
That's exactly what I thought the first time I saw it. I thought it sounded like a whiny little kid making sure that the whole world knew that this was his friggin' computer. It also made it a pain to do anything in the command line. You either had to type a long, escaped directory name, or you had to do crap like "cd Micros~1" If they're smart, they'll change the other obnoxious system-critical directories too (like maybe they could call "Documents and Settings" something sane like "home" and "Program Files" could be something like "bin").
That is the best analogy ever.
Flamebait? If you're going to mode me "-1, I don't agree with your conclusions" at least use "Overrated" and dodge the M2.
What really alarmed me ("me" being somebody who was too conservative to vote for Bush in '04) was when Diebold started talking about how extraordinarily expensive it would be to equip all of the blackbox systems with printers. It alarmed me because it's not like they would be paying for it. They were basically complaining about billions of dollars in mandatory business. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories that the 2004 election was fixed, but I do think it was odd for a company to be campaigning against their own short-term profits. Combine that with the facts that there were verified instances of machines screwing up and losing votes in '04, and it makes you wonder how anybody could be in favor of paperless voting.
They were hostile towards a competitor? Shocking! That doesn't make them slime like the idiot primates currently pretending to own the name SCO. There's a difference between not liking your competitors and pretending that you own them and the rest of the world.
At my former job, we had a subcontractor designing an energy storage system. It had to deliver a huge amount of current, so they had this flywheel that would have to charge for a while and then it could do its job. Along the way, I had to approve their coolant with some fancy ultra-high-tech-sounding name. This included the worst-case scenario of the flywheel coming apart and the coolant getting all over expensive and critical equipment as well as acting as a soil contaminant. I got the data sheet and the stuff was basically corn syrup (of a non-sticky type). Turns out it works great.
That only works for Republicans. Spitzer's a Democrat. If you want to cast multiple votes for him, you have to be dead.
You missed the point. It doesn't make it easier to be a lawyer. It makes it easier to make truckloads of money as a lawyer.
Another advantage to EE instead of CS is if you decide that you want to hit law school so you can make a really obscene salary as a patent attorney, you will be able to take the UPTO patent bar. Many CS majors are not eligible to sit for the patent bar (your CS degree has to be ABET accredited, and many -- or even most -- aren't).
Well, that would at least say something meaningful about him and establish your stance on an issue open to useful discussion. But hey, it's your .sig. Feel free to put what you want in it and I'll feel free to grouse about it.