The next step down from barratry is to pursue disciplinary action from the relevant bar association. Being good-ol-boys clubs the end result will less satisfying than disbarment but you could still inflict some pain on a deserving shark.
That is all good and well for criminal cases. For civil cases (like patent suits) a lawyer cannot ethically proceed with a case if they know their client is lying or distorting the truth. When a case such as this boils down to an unpatentable mathematical equation the lawyers involved should know that they are exposing themselves to disciplinary action when they fail to withdraw from the suit.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that time doesn't exist. Basic causality is evident in our macroscopic world and we can assign a sequence of events to points on an arbitrary scale of "time". The pedagogical explanation of time as a fourth dimension with a linear scale is very likely a wrong or simplistic view but something with a "timeness" quality or an unknown phenomenon from which time emerges is still a reasonable possibility.
A good analogy can be drawn from the way many natural processes (in chemistry, biology, electricity, etc.) can be modeled with exponential functions to the natural base. This apparent complexity that creates structures such as the logarithmic spirals of a sunflower or Romanesco broccoli is an emergent phenomenon of more simplistic biological processes. This can be seen in the way that exponential processes can be simulated through simple difference equations that involve nothing more than iterative addition and multiplication without the involvement of any spooky transcendental numbers like e.
The quantum world is very likely to behave in a congruent way, with time (and other poorly explained things like inertia) falling out as a consequence of other fundamental processes. Newton's laws, general relativity, quantum theory, GUT, string theory are all mathematical systems based largely on observations and extrapolations thereof. They are all at least partially correct *models* of something more fundamental in the natural world. The problems facing modern physics is that we are at the limits of our observational capacity and that the act of making them distorts what is observed which is why probabilistic modeling has been resorted to in the first place.
The real world doesn't do complex arithmetic and time is likely to be a relatively simple thing once we find a way to properly describe it.
The other issue with paper systems is that they have to be transcribed by a person into the payroll system. That introduces mistakes and higher costs.
You fool. That's just another job for the union. Better yet, it's such an important job that it should be done by tag-teaming three people to fill out their busy day of a 2-hour lunch and 15-minute smoke breaks.
Except those are just a series of unrelated questions. Previous chatbot contests have required carrying on a believable conversation and responding naturally to non-interrogative statements. This just looks like Jeopardy with a little simulated opinion thrown in.
Obviousness is supposed to be one of the attributes USPTO examiners use to determine acceptance. They just do a terrible job of applying that criteria, largely because of the conflict of interest with the USPTO being funded by application and continuation fees. It's also easier for an examiner to make his quota by putting up as few roadblocks as his supervisor will tolerate.
The real legal meat of a patent is in its claims which are still reasonably brief. The problem is that so many modern patents have a bogus claim 1 which is ridiculously broad.
This won't work for devices that insist on using the USB charger protocol to negotiate higher currents from the power supply. For those that will still work without the data pins present you'll be charging much slower with the 500mA default limit.
I think an easy way to address patent trolling is to implement a loser-pays system if the suing party's patent is overturned in court. This will dissuade the trolls from exploiting the current situation where patents are used to extort settlements from people and small businesses that don't have the financial means to fight a bad patent. This doesn't require fixing the root problem of the USPTO issuing bad patents and would be easier to implement as a prelude to real patent reform.
The original Tivos were able to do scheduled recording without a network connection. They took that feature away because it hurt their revenue model when they were looking to license their tech to other companies and just operate as a service provider.
They should have used a CG Jobs "hologram" to do the iPhone 5 reveal like they did to resurrect Tupac. The fanboys would be creaming themselves over a new iNeedIt from their savior.
99% of the userbase's desire for more characters would be satisfied by supporting ISO-8859-15. I don't see how slashdot's branch of slashcode could be so crufty that using the 8th bit would be such a challenge to implement, especially since slashdot.jp seems to have figured it all out.
15 years ago I was rolling with 1600x1200 on a monitor capable of even higher resolution than that. Now you have to pay premium coin just to get a modest improvement on that vertical resolution.
I don't know about you but I love it when my robotic spreadsheet adds up a column of numbers for me and then my robotic typesetter formats the results in my TPS reports.
There is precedent in the special restrictions placed on recording analog cell phone communication which were/are freely audible in the clear with a suitable tuner*. The solution of the powers that be was to classify recordings of cell phone traffic as equivalent to wiretaps. They are extending that analogy to intercepting wifi data, even that which is purposely broadcast for the purpose of network discovery and identification.
Curiously, the government now doesn't want this concept of "reasonable expectation" of privacy for voice cell phone communication to be applied to e-mail and other electronic communication under the contrary presumption that they are just the equivalent to the exposed cover of a mailed letter. Naturally a corrupt government doesn't want their citizens to have the same power to set up a radio for recording the activities of corrupt government officials that the government enjoys for recording their citizens.
*Most multi-band radios made until the late-80s could readily tune in analog cell traffic as could older televisions able to select channels 70-83.
You need to change your computer to remove any identifying signature the trackers can use to correlate with their old records of you. Then you have to assume your ISP is ratting you out so you'll have to leech off of someone else's WiFi (with a spoofed MAC changed daily). For the really paranoid you should also consider completely changing the websites you visit (switch from Google to Bing, etc.) since that "metadata" can be used to identify you through your behavioral profile.
Once you've established a sanitized connection you must ensure that you never transmit identifying information or allow malicious code to execute that could search for identifying information on your computer. You did remember to run GNU shred on that hard drive you reformatted, right?
Those were called TabletPCs. They didn't sell so well. That being said it would be sweet to have a touch screen and a Wacom digitizer combined in one portable device.
That late generation P4 used a 31-stage pipeline to achieve those high clock speeds. The ivy bridge architecture uses a 14-stage pipeline giving it higher IPC than the power hungry NetBurst line could ever hope to achieve.
Phone recordings where only one party has knowledge of the recording are legal in most US states. Maryland (presumably where the operator was located) isn't one of them but international calls would fall under federal jurisdiction which does also permit recordings with consent from one party (i.e. the caller making the recording).
Slashdot Mirror
The judges who made the rulings don't think they approved what was actually going on.
They knew exactly what was going on but now that the secret is out they are pointing the finger to avoid hurting their careers.
The next step down from barratry is to pursue disciplinary action from the relevant bar association. Being good-ol-boys clubs the end result will less satisfying than disbarment but you could still inflict some pain on a deserving shark.
That is all good and well for criminal cases. For civil cases (like patent suits) a lawyer cannot ethically proceed with a case if they know their client is lying or distorting the truth. When a case such as this boils down to an unpatentable mathematical equation the lawyers involved should know that they are exposing themselves to disciplinary action when they fail to withdraw from the suit.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that time doesn't exist. Basic causality is evident in our macroscopic world and we can assign a sequence of events to points on an arbitrary scale of "time". The pedagogical explanation of time as a fourth dimension with a linear scale is very likely a wrong or simplistic view but something with a "timeness" quality or an unknown phenomenon from which time emerges is still a reasonable possibility.
A good analogy can be drawn from the way many natural processes (in chemistry, biology, electricity, etc.) can be modeled with exponential functions to the natural base. This apparent complexity that creates structures such as the logarithmic spirals of a sunflower or Romanesco broccoli is an emergent phenomenon of more simplistic biological processes. This can be seen in the way that exponential processes can be simulated through simple difference equations that involve nothing more than iterative addition and multiplication without the involvement of any spooky transcendental numbers like e.
The quantum world is very likely to behave in a congruent way, with time (and other poorly explained things like inertia) falling out as a consequence of other fundamental processes. Newton's laws, general relativity, quantum theory, GUT, string theory are all mathematical systems based largely on observations and extrapolations thereof. They are all at least partially correct *models* of something more fundamental in the natural world. The problems facing modern physics is that we are at the limits of our observational capacity and that the act of making them distorts what is observed which is why probabilistic modeling has been resorted to in the first place.
The real world doesn't do complex arithmetic and time is likely to be a relatively simple thing once we find a way to properly describe it.
The other issue with paper systems is that they have to be transcribed by a person into the payroll system. That introduces mistakes and higher costs.
You fool. That's just another job for the union. Better yet, it's such an important job that it should be done by tag-teaming three people to fill out their busy day of a 2-hour lunch and 15-minute smoke breaks.
Except those are just a series of unrelated questions. Previous chatbot contests have required carrying on a believable conversation and responding naturally to non-interrogative statements. This just looks like Jeopardy with a little simulated opinion thrown in.
Obviousness is supposed to be one of the attributes USPTO examiners use to determine acceptance. They just do a terrible job of applying that criteria, largely because of the conflict of interest with the USPTO being funded by application and continuation fees. It's also easier for an examiner to make his quota by putting up as few roadblocks as his supervisor will tolerate.
The real legal meat of a patent is in its claims which are still reasonably brief. The problem is that so many modern patents have a bogus claim 1 which is ridiculously broad.
erased his patent i'll just see myself to the exit
No you're doing it all wrong. It's:
It looks like they ... *puts on sunglasses* ... erased his patent.
*WAHHHH!!!*
This won't work for devices that insist on using the USB charger protocol to negotiate higher currents from the power supply. For those that will still work without the data pins present you'll be charging much slower with the 500mA default limit.
I think an easy way to address patent trolling is to implement a loser-pays system if the suing party's patent is overturned in court. This will dissuade the trolls from exploiting the current situation where patents are used to extort settlements from people and small businesses that don't have the financial means to fight a bad patent. This doesn't require fixing the root problem of the USPTO issuing bad patents and would be easier to implement as a prelude to real patent reform.
The Nobel committee needs to give him a peace prize first.
The original Tivos were able to do scheduled recording without a network connection. They took that feature away because it hurt their revenue model when they were looking to license their tech to other companies and just operate as a service provider.
MS had native USB support in Win98 and available for Win95 through OSR2.
They should have used a CG Jobs "hologram" to do the iPhone 5 reveal like they did to resurrect Tupac. The fanboys would be creaming themselves over a new iNeedIt from their savior.
99% of the userbase's desire for more characters would be satisfied by supporting ISO-8859-15. I don't see how slashdot's branch of slashcode could be so crufty that using the 8th bit would be such a challenge to implement, especially since slashdot.jp seems to have figured it all out.
15 years ago I was rolling with 1600x1200 on a monitor capable of even higher resolution than that. Now you have to pay premium coin just to get a modest improvement on that vertical resolution.
I don't know about you but I love it when my robotic spreadsheet adds up a column of numbers for me and then my robotic typesetter formats the results in my TPS reports.
There is precedent in the special restrictions placed on recording analog cell phone communication which were/are freely audible in the clear with a suitable tuner*. The solution of the powers that be was to classify recordings of cell phone traffic as equivalent to wiretaps. They are extending that analogy to intercepting wifi data, even that which is purposely broadcast for the purpose of network discovery and identification.
Curiously, the government now doesn't want this concept of "reasonable expectation" of privacy for voice cell phone communication to be applied to e-mail and other electronic communication under the contrary presumption that they are just the equivalent to the exposed cover of a mailed letter. Naturally a corrupt government doesn't want their citizens to have the same power to set up a radio for recording the activities of corrupt government officials that the government enjoys for recording their citizens.
*Most multi-band radios made until the late-80s could readily tune in analog cell traffic as could older televisions able to select channels 70-83.
You need to change your computer to remove any identifying signature the trackers can use to correlate with their old records of you. Then you have to assume your ISP is ratting you out so you'll have to leech off of someone else's WiFi (with a spoofed MAC changed daily). For the really paranoid you should also consider completely changing the websites you visit (switch from Google to Bing, etc.) since that "metadata" can be used to identify you through your behavioral profile.
Once you've established a sanitized connection you must ensure that you never transmit identifying information or allow malicious code to execute that could search for identifying information on your computer. You did remember to run GNU shred on that hard drive you reformatted, right?
Good luck.
What do you mean. The RT is perfectly balanced so you can spin and twirl it around with ease. It is a triumph of form and function.
I'm holding out for the five position kickstand.
Those were called TabletPCs. They didn't sell so well. That being said it would be sweet to have a touch screen and a Wacom digitizer combined in one portable device.
That late generation P4 used a 31-stage pipeline to achieve those high clock speeds. The ivy bridge architecture uses a 14-stage pipeline giving it higher IPC than the power hungry NetBurst line could ever hope to achieve.
Phone recordings where only one party has knowledge of the recording are legal in most US states. Maryland (presumably where the operator was located) isn't one of them but international calls would fall under federal jurisdiction which does also permit recordings with consent from one party (i.e. the caller making the recording).