They can't cover the idea because the idea has already been implemented multiple times before through other mechanisms. There is not only prior art, there is patented prior art. All they can do is patent their implementation of that concept, in however broad of language they can.
No, you shouldn't, because that's not an invention to be patented. The car already exists as prior art. You would patent the engine design used to make it so efficient. You would patent the material composition or internal cellular structure used to make it so light yet sufficiently strong. You would patent any special, novel manufacturing techniques used to produce either of those. The car manufactured using those patents is covered under copyright, or potentially trademark.
What are you even talking about? This isn't some natural process. They invented glyphosate. Then they invented a gene that would make plants immune to glyphosate, and spliced it into plants. That's some unquestionably serious bit of engineering there, and the patent protection on it lapses in just three more years. There are plenty of abuses of the patent system in recent years, but surely this one rates pretty low on the scale.
If those traditional seed suppliers can prove no prior use, then absolutely. The trouble is that traditional seed suppliers are merely selecting for genetic variations that have been around for centuries. By the time they have cycled a novel mutation through enough generations to have sufficient purity to market, the "technology" is already long past any potential patent expiration. The rules surrounding genetically modified crops are no different, only the development time is radically reduced.
My point was that while I feel the ruling on cases such as cross-pollination should have gone to the farmer, as a completely unintended consequence of the natural behavior of plants, this particular case was a clear cut attempt on the part of the farmer to use Monsanto's patented technology, while circumventing the necessary licensing fees. There was obvious and unabashed intent. The farmer even confirmed in court that's what he was trying to do.
Monsanto developed the genetically modified seeds, they can restrict their use however they want. Nothing prevents a competitor from developing a strain resistant to a different herbicide. Nothing prevents a farmer from just using normal soybean seeds.
While there may be a case of the big evil Monsanto against the little guy in situations of cross-pollination, or otherwise unintended use of the modified crop, in this case, the "poor farmer" willfully purchased modified seed from a third party, not intended for replantation, to bypass the patent licensing. This situation was the little guy trying to screw the big evil Monsanto.
On the other hand, you have to insulate the tank extensively, and you still have constant evaporation. A small aircraft like this can't afford a heavy refrigeration unit. There was a fair amount of design and planning that went into making sure the natural evaporation rate of the fuel roughly matched the consumption rate during cruise.
Gliding and coast segments are not so interesting.
In this case, they are. The aircraft was powered by cryogenic liquid hydrogen. Even when they were coasting, they were still generating fuel (hydrogen gas), and that fuel could only be stored for a short period before rising tank pressures would have necessitated venting. Their fuel had a limited lifetime regardless of whether they were actually using it.
Global Hawk is a turbofan. Phantom Eye is a turbocharged piston. This one is electric. As a general rule, turbines are more efficient than pistons, and fuelcells/electrics are more efficient than turbines. The more important trait here is cruise velocity. The electrically powered Ion Tiger is going to be much slower than either of the other two, and thus will inherently consume considerably less fuel.
The average RTG weighs several hundred pounds, and runs upwards of a kilowatt output. I would be very much interested in any viable aircraft you could design under those constraints.
You can't claim something as harmless, nor can you provide evidence to back up that position. All you can do is show a repeated lack of evidence against any potential harm. The point I was trying to make is that no one has ever been able to provide any meaningful evidence of any increased cancer risk associated with cell phone usage. Since only one side can show evidence to their claim, there is no argument at all until such evidence is presented. Without evidence, the only conclusion that can be made is that it is not harmful.
You misunderstand me. I agree completely that there is no significant risk from use of cell phone. What I'm saying is that you can never prove that something is not harmful, as you can never perform every possible test for every possible known and unknown vector. You can only prove that something is harmful. You can never provide evidence that something is not harmful, you can only infer that conclusion after a large number of tests have failed to provide any evidence that something is harmful. Hence, the burden of proof is on those claiming there is a risk.
This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer. Considering the burden of proof is always on the accuser, the ball is in your court.
Slashdot Mirror
Does that mean the AC is learned?
They can't cover the idea because the idea has already been implemented multiple times before through other mechanisms. There is not only prior art, there is patented prior art. All they can do is patent their implementation of that concept, in however broad of language they can.
No, you shouldn't, because that's not an invention to be patented. The car already exists as prior art. You would patent the engine design used to make it so efficient. You would patent the material composition or internal cellular structure used to make it so light yet sufficiently strong. You would patent any special, novel manufacturing techniques used to produce either of those. The car manufactured using those patents is covered under copyright, or potentially trademark.
What are you even talking about? This isn't some natural process. They invented glyphosate. Then they invented a gene that would make plants immune to glyphosate, and spliced it into plants. That's some unquestionably serious bit of engineering there, and the patent protection on it lapses in just three more years. There are plenty of abuses of the patent system in recent years, but surely this one rates pretty low on the scale.
Insects? This is an herbicide-resistant crop.
Fascism would imply the farmer were first forced by the government to use Monsanto seeds.
If those traditional seed suppliers can prove no prior use, then absolutely. The trouble is that traditional seed suppliers are merely selecting for genetic variations that have been around for centuries. By the time they have cycled a novel mutation through enough generations to have sufficient purity to market, the "technology" is already long past any potential patent expiration. The rules surrounding genetically modified crops are no different, only the development time is radically reduced.
My point was that while I feel the ruling on cases such as cross-pollination should have gone to the farmer, as a completely unintended consequence of the natural behavior of plants, this particular case was a clear cut attempt on the part of the farmer to use Monsanto's patented technology, while circumventing the necessary licensing fees. There was obvious and unabashed intent. The farmer even confirmed in court that's what he was trying to do.
Monsanto developed the genetically modified seeds, they can restrict their use however they want. Nothing prevents a competitor from developing a strain resistant to a different herbicide. Nothing prevents a farmer from just using normal soybean seeds.
While there may be a case of the big evil Monsanto against the little guy in situations of cross-pollination, or otherwise unintended use of the modified crop, in this case, the "poor farmer" willfully purchased modified seed from a third party, not intended for replantation, to bypass the patent licensing. This situation was the little guy trying to screw the big evil Monsanto.
A couple movies on Netflix will do that.
On the other hand, you have to insulate the tank extensively, and you still have constant evaporation. A small aircraft like this can't afford a heavy refrigeration unit. There was a fair amount of design and planning that went into making sure the natural evaporation rate of the fuel roughly matched the consumption rate during cruise.
Gliding and coast segments are not so interesting.
In this case, they are. The aircraft was powered by cryogenic liquid hydrogen. Even when they were coasting, they were still generating fuel (hydrogen gas), and that fuel could only be stored for a short period before rising tank pressures would have necessitated venting. Their fuel had a limited lifetime regardless of whether they were actually using it.
90% seems awfully high. I was under the impression typical performance was around 40%-70%, depending on the chemistry and materials.
I suppose I should have specified heavier-than-air-craft...
Global Hawk is a turbofan. Phantom Eye is a turbocharged piston. This one is electric. As a general rule, turbines are more efficient than pistons, and fuelcells/electrics are more efficient than turbines. The more important trait here is cruise velocity. The electrically powered Ion Tiger is going to be much slower than either of the other two, and thus will inherently consume considerably less fuel.
The average RTG weighs several hundred pounds, and runs upwards of a kilowatt output. I would be very much interested in any viable aircraft you could design under those constraints.
You can't claim something as harmless, nor can you provide evidence to back up that position. All you can do is show a repeated lack of evidence against any potential harm. The point I was trying to make is that no one has ever been able to provide any meaningful evidence of any increased cancer risk associated with cell phone usage. Since only one side can show evidence to their claim, there is no argument at all until such evidence is presented. Without evidence, the only conclusion that can be made is that it is not harmful.
You misunderstand me. I agree completely that there is no significant risk from use of cell phone. What I'm saying is that you can never prove that something is not harmful, as you can never perform every possible test for every possible known and unknown vector. You can only prove that something is harmful. You can never provide evidence that something is not harmful, you can only infer that conclusion after a large number of tests have failed to provide any evidence that something is harmful. Hence, the burden of proof is on those claiming there is a risk.
This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer. Considering the burden of proof is always on the accuser, the ball is in your court.
More radiation means higher power output and shorter battery life.
If you feel your organs starting to cook, you should mitigate the damage by leaving the vicinity of the radar device.
It doesn't say that.... Now I'm disappointed, I was hoping the WHO had a macabre sense of humor....
Any idea what made memory prices jump so high? Just a few months ago, I upgraded two of my computers to 16GB for $80 each.
Perhaps they were expecting you to log in with it, and set it back to your original password?
Or you know... burn it. It's the only way to be sure.
Wouldn't being anatomically incompatible imply that you can't?