Note that the claim defines a "complementary threshold" for the forward and reverse motion respectively. So it already claims two thresholds which may, or may be not identical. Contrary to popular belief, the language of claims is actually quite precise and not made for obfuscation. It might seem obfuscated at the first glance, but so would a "Hello World" program in C to someone who only knows BASIC: "What the fuck is all this int main... crap about when a simple 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" would do?". You gotta learn the language.
Claim 1, as I read it, covers one specific mode of input for computing devices, namely a forward-reverse motion combo of the device. Just the fact that such a motion combo can be detected by a device, as it is with many modern smartphones, is not enough to infringe. The smartphone must actually react to this combo - i. e. generate a control signal. So, if you leave out this specific input gesture, you can build motion controlled smartphones as freely as you wish. That's not broad in my view. As I said, on a first glance I would raise the question of obviousness in the light of known mouse-gestures, but that is another topic.
Exactly right. Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense. It may be obvious - accelerometers are known, forward-back mousgestures are known, so the combination might lead the man skilled in the art to the subject matter of claim 1, but this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".
As I read this, not only the product in violation, but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited. This is not exactly new, at least in the area of patents. If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else, you are indirectly violating that patent. The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision "at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings", which is missing here.
From reading way to many decisions of the European Court lately, I doubt that. Judging by the style of those decisions, those guys there are more machine than human - long, exceedingly dry, scholarly analyses on usually a very solid legal-theoretical basis. I think they do a pretty good job in the IP field. An influence by reputation would be so subtle that it is virtually undetectable. I'll have a look at that decision later - gotta read it sooner or later anyway.
Ok - that was the other way round. Let's try again: Neptune, Etymology: ME L Neptunus, prob. IE *nebhtus base *nebh-, moist (source: Webster). Still no relation to nephew, unless you can show a relation between indoeuropean *nebhtus and protoindoeuropean *hnépts. Linguistical fistfight! Bring it on;)
Sorry, I just switched into linguistic nitpicking mode. Nephew is not in any straight way derived from Neptune. The root is way deeper, especially from Proto-Indo-European *hnépts. Cognates include Sanskrit (nápt), Old Persian (nap), Ancient Greek (anepsios) and Old English nefa (see wiktionary for source).
And slashdot is eating my unicode. What year is this again? Anyway - the straight transliteration is Krónos. The -us ending is basically a latinization already, even if Saturnus is the Roman equivalent to Kronos. Haven't seen the "Cronus" thing up to today, which might be a locally different transliteration habit.
If you are in the whole greek thing, it is . Can't see a "u" in there. "Cronus" is already a latinized transliteration... if you're into the whole greek thing;)
See, that is what I meant - this is good. These are arguments, this is what I come here for. And I agree, especially with your last paragraph. Yes, most of the current anticipatory systems do indeed suck. But as you said, the paradigm isn't tested to the end, and with improving predictive power, it might become a very useful concept. Ahh, well, it might be just my nostalgia, but I have the feeling that we are blanketed with one-liner brainfarts these days, drowning most of the informed discussion.
Ah, Slashdot. How exactly did we come from a tech community always fascinated by new developments to this new shiny home of the technophobes? Nothing against a proper discussion about the pros and cons of a new subject, but why is every other thread these days swamped with mindless "Do not want!!", "Not going to work", "But I am a cross-eyed eskimo midget, this won't work for me so it is shit" and more and more and more crap like that. Yeah, I get it for this specific discussion - cat and STDIN/STDOUT is all a real man needs to handle data. I'll get off your fucking lawn now.
Just been discussing Christianity here, to stay vaguely on the topic of "biblical scholarship". Of course there are other flavours of serious religious study that I can respect, and, as you mention, other flavours of batshit-crazy nuts. Those shall be discussed some other day, though.
Oh, I completely agree that the prosecution of the Cathars left a stigma on ascetic practice - the tolerated ascetics after that were indeed mostly on the fringe of the church. How far asceticism really could have grown to become a core tenet of catholicism at this point is open for discussion in my opinion. Personally, I think the church was set on its way earlier. The strong ascetic lines of belief probably lost their chance to power in the early consolidation of dogma and canonical law up to the Council of Nicaea. I have to admit, though, that my recollection of early Christian heresies is flaky these days, so correct me should I be wrong.
I wouldn't say that the ascetic nature of the Cathars was the main factor for their prosecution - sure, the dualistic nature of their creed, damning everything material, which led to their rather ascetic lifestyle was a factor, but their excommunication and prosecution was mostly founded in the fact that they established the first serious counter-church. They called themselves the "True Christians" after all. The prime motivation was therefore political rather than dogmatic, at least in my opinion. The church still allowed asceticism - as long as it did not pose a political threat.
Didn't mean to generalize over every protestant/baptist there - just saying that a certain, especially rabid and vocal brand is mostly an American phenomenon. No doubt that there is respectable, serious biblical scholar work done by members of all denominations.
I only know a bit about the ancient greek habits - the strength was probably about the same as today, given that the winemaking techniques are not fundamentally different. It was, however, almost always watered down. There are different accounts on the amount of watering - during a symposion, one person, the symposiarch, was in duty of the watering. The mostly used ratio probably was 3 parts water on 2 parts wine. I think Plutarch discusses the matter in depth *somewhere*, but I'd have to dig deeper to find a quotation. Drinking the wine pure was often considered barbaric or even dangerous, apart from medical use.
The use for making the water safe is obvious, but there also was a huge culture surrounding wine, with ancient greek wine critics going into details just as the modern ones. It was also common to flavour the wines by adding honey, herbs or spices.
I see no reason to deny at least a subgroup of religiously motivated biblical scholars the "scholar" status. Anyone who doubts that should find a well-trained catholic theologian to discuss with. First, they do a lot of serious literary/language/history study, second, even within the realms of dogma, where you might question their axioms (as I do), they usually are well-trained in logic and able to deliver a hell of an argument. Not every religious scholar is a frothing at the mouth evangelical - that is pretty much an American phenomenon.
You just put up another correlation-causation-problem here. Yet another alternative: While you are in power, your lies are a matter of controlling people, when you are not in power, you gotta lie to cover your arse. Different motivations for the lies, different reactions.
Messianism not - but idolization is surely a concept in certain flavors of Buddhism. You're probably right that there is no scriptural point to that in the Sutras, but Buddhism is not homogeneous and has blended with lots of different folk religions which at least elevated the Buddha to an idol to which you can prop up altars, make donations and pray for good fortune.
This is getting a bit too... weird. Also, I'd like to stay off the no-fly list... However, let me say as much that I think this would be a classical case of overengineering for the stated goal. Besides - gene targeting of specific populations won't work with our current state of knowledge. Such groups are not identified by single genes, thankfully. And, anyway, as you said, you gotta be sure, so, the orbit it has to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that the claim defines a "complementary threshold" for the forward and reverse motion respectively. So it already claims two thresholds which may, or may be not identical. Contrary to popular belief, the language of claims is actually quite precise and not made for obfuscation. It might seem obfuscated at the first glance, but so would a "Hello World" program in C to someone who only knows BASIC: "What the fuck is all this int main... crap about when a simple 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" would do?". You gotta learn the language.
Claim 1, as I read it, covers one specific mode of input for computing devices, namely a forward-reverse motion combo of the device. Just the fact that such a motion combo can be detected by a device, as it is with many modern smartphones, is not enough to infringe. The smartphone must actually react to this combo - i. e. generate a control signal. So, if you leave out this specific input gesture, you can build motion controlled smartphones as freely as you wish. That's not broad in my view. As I said, on a first glance I would raise the question of obviousness in the light of known mouse-gestures, but that is another topic.
Exactly right. Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense. It may be obvious - accelerometers are known, forward-back mousgestures are known, so the combination might lead the man skilled in the art to the subject matter of claim 1, but this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".
As I read this, not only the product in violation, but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited. This is not exactly new, at least in the area of patents. If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else, you are indirectly violating that patent. The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision "at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings", which is missing here.
From reading way to many decisions of the European Court lately, I doubt that. Judging by the style of those decisions, those guys there are more machine than human - long, exceedingly dry, scholarly analyses on usually a very solid legal-theoretical basis. I think they do a pretty good job in the IP field. An influence by reputation would be so subtle that it is virtually undetectable. I'll have a look at that decision later - gotta read it sooner or later anyway.
Ok - that was the other way round. Let's try again: Neptune, Etymology: ME L Neptunus, prob. IE *nebhtus base *nebh-, moist (source: Webster). Still no relation to nephew, unless you can show a relation between indoeuropean *nebhtus and protoindoeuropean *hnépts. Linguistical fistfight! Bring it on ;)
God beware that we as a society pursue a diverse set of scholarly inquiries. The horror, the horror....Rather funnel more of that cash to Haliburton.
Sorry, I just switched into linguistic nitpicking mode. Nephew is not in any straight way derived from Neptune. The root is way deeper, especially from Proto-Indo-European *hnépts. Cognates include Sanskrit (nápt), Old Persian (nap), Ancient Greek (anepsios) and Old English nefa (see wiktionary for source).
And slashdot is eating my unicode. What year is this again? Anyway - the straight transliteration is Krónos. The -us ending is basically a latinization already, even if Saturnus is the Roman equivalent to Kronos. Haven't seen the "Cronus" thing up to today, which might be a locally different transliteration habit.
If you are in the whole greek thing, it is . Can't see a "u" in there. "Cronus" is already a latinized transliteration... if you're into the whole greek thing ;)
See, that is what I meant - this is good. These are arguments, this is what I come here for. And I agree, especially with your last paragraph. Yes, most of the current anticipatory systems do indeed suck. But as you said, the paradigm isn't tested to the end, and with improving predictive power, it might become a very useful concept. Ahh, well, it might be just my nostalgia, but I have the feeling that we are blanketed with one-liner brainfarts these days, drowning most of the informed discussion.
Ah, Slashdot. How exactly did we come from a tech community always fascinated by new developments to this new shiny home of the technophobes? Nothing against a proper discussion about the pros and cons of a new subject, but why is every other thread these days swamped with mindless "Do not want!!", "Not going to work", "But I am a cross-eyed eskimo midget, this won't work for me so it is shit" and more and more and more crap like that. Yeah, I get it for this specific discussion - cat and STDIN/STDOUT is all a real man needs to handle data. I'll get off your fucking lawn now.
Just been discussing Christianity here, to stay vaguely on the topic of "biblical scholarship". Of course there are other flavours of serious religious study that I can respect, and, as you mention, other flavours of batshit-crazy nuts. Those shall be discussed some other day, though.
Oh, I completely agree that the prosecution of the Cathars left a stigma on ascetic practice - the tolerated ascetics after that were indeed mostly on the fringe of the church. How far asceticism really could have grown to become a core tenet of catholicism at this point is open for discussion in my opinion. Personally, I think the church was set on its way earlier. The strong ascetic lines of belief probably lost their chance to power in the early consolidation of dogma and canonical law up to the Council of Nicaea. I have to admit, though, that my recollection of early Christian heresies is flaky these days, so correct me should I be wrong.
I wouldn't say that the ascetic nature of the Cathars was the main factor for their prosecution - sure, the dualistic nature of their creed, damning everything material, which led to their rather ascetic lifestyle was a factor, but their excommunication and prosecution was mostly founded in the fact that they established the first serious counter-church. They called themselves the "True Christians" after all. The prime motivation was therefore political rather than dogmatic, at least in my opinion. The church still allowed asceticism - as long as it did not pose a political threat.
Didn't mean to generalize over every protestant/baptist there - just saying that a certain, especially rabid and vocal brand is mostly an American phenomenon. No doubt that there is respectable, serious biblical scholar work done by members of all denominations.
I only know a bit about the ancient greek habits - the strength was probably about the same as today, given that the winemaking techniques are not fundamentally different. It was, however, almost always watered down. There are different accounts on the amount of watering - during a symposion, one person, the symposiarch, was in duty of the watering. The mostly used ratio probably was 3 parts water on 2 parts wine. I think Plutarch discusses the matter in depth *somewhere*, but I'd have to dig deeper to find a quotation. Drinking the wine pure was often considered barbaric or even dangerous, apart from medical use.
The use for making the water safe is obvious, but there also was a huge culture surrounding wine, with ancient greek wine critics going into details just as the modern ones. It was also common to flavour the wines by adding honey, herbs or spices.
I see no reason to deny at least a subgroup of religiously motivated biblical scholars the "scholar" status. Anyone who doubts that should find a well-trained catholic theologian to discuss with. First, they do a lot of serious literary/language/history study, second, even within the realms of dogma, where you might question their axioms (as I do), they usually are well-trained in logic and able to deliver a hell of an argument. Not every religious scholar is a frothing at the mouth evangelical - that is pretty much an American phenomenon.
To be fair - this is a hard day for the poor average slashbot. Should he praise nukular power or damn Bill Gates to hell? Decisions, decisions...
You just put up another correlation-causation-problem here. Yet another alternative: While you are in power, your lies are a matter of controlling people, when you are not in power, you gotta lie to cover your arse. Different motivations for the lies, different reactions.
Messianism not - but idolization is surely a concept in certain flavors of Buddhism. You're probably right that there is no scriptural point to that in the Sutras, but Buddhism is not homogeneous and has blended with lots of different folk religions which at least elevated the Buddha to an idol to which you can prop up altars, make donations and pray for good fortune.
Gotta give you that it develops a certain depth together with your sig. Bit more work on the delivery would be nice, though.
This is getting a bit too... weird. Also, I'd like to stay off the no-fly list... However, let me say as much that I think this would be a classical case of overengineering for the stated goal. Besides - gene targeting of specific populations won't work with our current state of knowledge. Such groups are not identified by single genes, thankfully. And, anyway, as you said, you gotta be sure, so, the orbit it has to be.
Mu?
Might come in useful as bait if I go the full survival route - however, I'd rather cleanse the place with fire before I leave. Without the... spam...