You're correct that power drops with the square of distance, however it does not mean efficiency follows the same relation. It can be improved through resonance. This phenomenon allows the power of the magnetic field to be much higher than the electrical power put in the antenna. Think of somebody pushing a child on a swing. This works because an induction antenna does not simply send energy into space, but it sets up a magnetic field that can be recaptured and reused in the next cycle, adding up the energy. If the system is well built a large percentage of the unused energy can be recycled this way. Transmitters such as the ones used in RFiD aim for quality factors (the ratio of energy input vs energy loss per cycle) of up to 1000. That allows for energy transfer at relatively large distances.
The benefit of the doubt should always go to the suspect, not the plaintiff, unless you take the risk to send innocents to jail for crimes they *might* have committed or intended to commit, which is unacceptable.
They've always looked like a commercial operation to me. I've been reading the Make blog for a long time, almost as long as it existed and it didn't take long for them to start pushing their commercial products. Unfortunately a lot of "open source" hardware companies behave the same. Calling your product Open source -it should be open design, really- is a nice buzzword to appeal to geeks, but as soon as someone actually tests this by exploiting it (and making this possible is the whole point of open source), they shut it down. Hypocrites.
Jury instructions were: If you think that Apple has shown convincing evidence that Samsung's patents are invalid, then state that they are invalid, otherwise state that they are valid. And if you think that Samsung has shown convincing evidence that Apple's patents are invalid, then state that they are invalid, otherwise state that they are valid. The jury followed these instructions. The fandroids don't like it, many think the decisions were wrong (of course only as far as Apple's patents are concerned), and they are welcome to their opinion, but saying that the jury didn't follow jury instructions is a lie.
You're the one lying and oversimplifying things here. The jury instructions were more than 100 pages long (that does not include the questions), and clearly explained prior art and damages.
Regarding prior art, the instructions explain that:
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31 UTILITY PATENTS—ANTICIPATION
A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called “prior art references.” If a patent claim is not new we say it is “anticipated” by a prior art reference.
The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention.
The jury foreman was interviewed saying : The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there. (Bloomberg)
Regarding damages, the instructions say that:
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
What about techniques similar to HDR ? You take several shots in rapid succession, each with a different exposure. Then you use a post-processing software to choose for each pixel the image where the pixel is neither overexposed nor underexposed, and by combining pixel value + image exposure value you get a much higher resolution for the brightness than what the sensor alone is capable. The problem once you have your non-clipped data is to display it, and I don't know of any medium that has the dynamic range of a sunset...
As much as I care about Firefox, in the end it is just a tool to me. I choose to allocate my time to other projects and I trust your UX team to make the right calls. Maybe that is my error. Besides, other people than me filed multiple bugs to revert the behaviour to the de facto standard everyone had been using (and still do), but they were all closed with the argument that the change had already been decided and that we just could write a plugin if we were not happy, so I'm not even convinced that would have been any use.
I actually thought this was a joke at first glance. So overall they went from white, to grayish, to grayish with some noise, to this. It's so nice working with such a consistent interface.
Could we speculate about whether the same effect could be observed with computer languages ? I think a lot of people would agree that studying another computer language, especially if it has differing base paradigms (functional, OO, procedural, dynamic, static, etc.) would give them new hindsights when they came back to their "main" language.
It's probably run from a botnet rented by someone. A search warrant would give you a big list of zombie PCs but not much more. Something I'd like to know is if Facebook are aware that this is going on, and how widespread it is.
Or it could be someone wanting to hurt Facebook. If all the advertisers on Facebook get a similarly high number of bot clicks, that could be staggering. And if Facebook has had any knowledge of this and withdrew information from the advertisers, letting them assume they were getting similar clicks as on other advertising platforms, we might be in for some quality entertainment in the near future.
Any idea about who the bots are run by? You don't directly benefit from clicking ads, unless they're Facebook, and even if it is possible that they're inflating their ad clicks numbers for a variety of reasons that seems unlikely as it would hurt them more in the long run. Another possibility would be someone wanting to hurt the start-up in question, but they don't look threatening and you need pretty motivated enemies to actually bother to run a botnet against you. The last possibility I see is someone wanting to hurt Facebook by decreasing their global attractiveness. If other advertisers get similar figures that could be huge. That seems the most likely considering the kind of money in play. But who precisely? And if it's not this, what else ?
Drivers already don't look where they're going when using a GPS, now they won't lookout for dangers or other users of the road because the car will tell them.
If you stopped producing the object what good does it do society if you're allowed to keep the patent? Other companies should be able to make use of the patent if you don't make use of your government granted monopoly.
Microsoft has been imposing restricted boot to be certified for Windows 8 ARM. How long until they impose that too for Windows 8 x86 ? At this point, considering their market share there's a high probability that a large portion of manufacturers will produce only Restricted boot machines.
Switching to Python however is just a matter of changing the P in your LAMP server, while Groovy requires a more substantial change in infrastructure, and somewhat beefier system needs.
Let's face it, as long as free hosting provider will have PHP available and nothing else, PHP will thrive. I bet most people who use PHP today first used it there.
The project relies on reality TV for funding, but once the participants are there, or maybe after a few years when the station is complete, they can decide to stop the video stream and there's very little you can do about it. How do you prepare for such a risk?
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct that power drops with the square of distance, however it does not mean efficiency follows the same relation. It can be improved through resonance. This phenomenon allows the power of the magnetic field to be much higher than the electrical power put in the antenna. Think of somebody pushing a child on a swing. This works because an induction antenna does not simply send energy into space, but it sets up a magnetic field that can be recaptured and reused in the next cycle, adding up the energy. If the system is well built a large percentage of the unused energy can be recycled this way. Transmitters such as the ones used in RFiD aim for quality factors (the ratio of energy input vs energy loss per cycle) of up to 1000. That allows for energy transfer at relatively large distances.
The benefit of the doubt should always go to the suspect, not the plaintiff, unless you take the risk to send innocents to jail for crimes they *might* have committed or intended to commit, which is unacceptable.
They've always looked like a commercial operation to me. I've been reading the Make blog for a long time, almost as long as it existed and it didn't take long for them to start pushing their commercial products. Unfortunately a lot of "open source" hardware companies behave the same. Calling your product Open source -it should be open design, really- is a nice buzzword to appeal to geeks, but as soon as someone actually tests this by exploiting it (and making this possible is the whole point of open source), they shut it down. Hypocrites.
Something that reduces symptoms could be called an effective treatment, no ?
Jury instructions were: If you think that Apple has shown convincing evidence that Samsung's patents are invalid, then state that they are invalid, otherwise state that they are valid. And if you think that Samsung has shown convincing evidence that Apple's patents are invalid, then state that they are invalid, otherwise state that they are valid. The jury followed these instructions. The fandroids don't like it, many think the decisions were wrong (of course only as far as Apple's patents are concerned), and they are welcome to their opinion, but saying that the jury didn't follow jury instructions is a lie.
You're the one lying and oversimplifying things here. The jury instructions were more than 100 pages long (that does not include the questions), and clearly explained prior art and damages.
Regarding prior art, the instructions explain that :
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31
UTILITY PATENTS—ANTICIPATION
A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called “prior art references.” If a patent claim is not new we say it is “anticipated” by a prior art reference.
The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention.
The jury foreman was interviewed saying :
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
(Bloomberg)
Regarding damages, the instructions say that :
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
The foreman in another interview explained that:
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
(Reuters, http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idINBRE87O09U20120825)
These declarations clearly show that he didn't act accordingly to the jury instructions.
I think that's the point, it should not be used as a secret, but many companies/services do and known secret => access granted.
What about techniques similar to HDR ? You take several shots in rapid succession, each with a different exposure. Then you use a post-processing software to choose for each pixel the image where the pixel is neither overexposed nor underexposed, and by combining pixel value + image exposure value you get a much higher resolution for the brightness than what the sensor alone is capable. The problem once you have your non-clipped data is to display it, and I don't know of any medium that has the dynamic range of a sunset ...
Considering she already handled around 20 cases involving Apple, she's not a very fast learner ...
Suggestions?
Parkinson's, and also don't rely on comments from random strangers on the Internet for medical advice.
As much as I care about Firefox, in the end it is just a tool to me. I choose to allocate my time to other projects and I trust your UX team to make the right calls. Maybe that is my error. Besides, other people than me filed multiple bugs to revert the behaviour to the de facto standard everyone had been using (and still do), but they were all closed with the argument that the change had already been decided and that we just could write a plugin if we were not happy, so I'm not even convinced that would have been any use.
I actually thought this was a joke at first glance. So overall they went from white, to grayish, to grayish with some noise, to this. It's so nice working with such a consistent interface.
Could we speculate about whether the same effect could be observed with computer languages ? I think a lot of people would agree that studying another computer language, especially if it has differing base paradigms (functional, OO, procedural, dynamic, static, etc.) would give them new hindsights when they came back to their "main" language.
Another possibility :
4) To hurt Facebook by destroying their credibility and make them tank even faster that they were already going to. May be someone shorting FB stock.
It's probably run from a botnet rented by someone. A search warrant would give you a big list of zombie PCs but not much more. Something I'd like to know is if Facebook are aware that this is going on, and how widespread it is.
Or it could be someone wanting to hurt Facebook. If all the advertisers on Facebook get a similarly high number of bot clicks, that could be staggering. And if Facebook has had any knowledge of this and withdrew information from the advertisers, letting them assume they were getting similar clicks as on other advertising platforms, we might be in for some quality entertainment in the near future.
Any idea about who the bots are run by? You don't directly benefit from clicking ads, unless they're Facebook, and even if it is possible that they're inflating their ad clicks numbers for a variety of reasons that seems unlikely as it would hurt them more in the long run. Another possibility would be someone wanting to hurt the start-up in question, but they don't look threatening and you need pretty motivated enemies to actually bother to run a botnet against you. The last possibility I see is someone wanting to hurt Facebook by decreasing their global attractiveness. If other advertisers get similar figures that could be huge. That seems the most likely considering the kind of money in play. But who precisely? And if it's not this, what else ?
Drivers already don't look where they're going when using a GPS, now they won't lookout for dangers or other users of the road because the car will tell them.
If you stopped producing the object what good does it do society if you're allowed to keep the patent? Other companies should be able to make use of the patent if you don't make use of your government granted monopoly.
Microsoft has been imposing restricted boot to be certified for Windows 8 ARM. How long until they impose that too for Windows 8 x86 ? At this point, considering their market share there's a high probability that a large portion of manufacturers will produce only Restricted boot machines.
Switching to Python however is just a matter of changing the P in your LAMP server, while Groovy requires a more substantial change in infrastructure, and somewhat beefier system needs.
Let's face it, as long as free hosting provider will have PHP available and nothing else, PHP will thrive. I bet most people who use PHP today first used it there.
The project relies on reality TV for funding, but once the participants are there, or maybe after a few years when the station is complete, they can decide to stop the video stream and there's very little you can do about it. How do you prepare for such a risk?
You can't make good cheese with pasteurized milk.
Yeah, all they had to do was come up with their own arrangements of 4 square block pieces.
What's the frequency of magenta ?
Nah, bribing the lawmakers of the world is going to get more expensive, but in the end it will still be profitable. Their business model is fine.