ITC Judge: Motorola Mobility Infringed Microsoft Patent
Note the italicized part. Also, the text of the blurb appears to have been written by chrb, who himself is paraphrasing "Experts," referring to an ill defined 3rd party.
The "experts" seem well-defined to me (personally, I imply nothing about their degree of expertise). TFA:
"If the initial finding is confirmed, then this will put Microsoft in strong position to stop other smartphone manufacturers who have not licensed this US patent from importing phones with an operating system, and not just Android, which includes a calendar and which lets you send meeting scheduling requests by email," said Andrew Alton, European patent attorney at Urquhart-Dykes & Lord who has previously carried out patent work for Apple.
I'm an American, but here's my answer to your question: Educate.
You are past the point on which you can still educate. The school system and everything else around (contributing to informal education) is fine tuned to conditioning, not education.
Think: what is the aim of the school? I'd argue: not building an education, but passing some exams.
Educate children. Extend the schoolday to 9-10 hours long (most people work at least 8 hours a day, so a 6-7 hour school day necessitates child care of some sort), allow more time for physical activity, self-study, and hands-on learning.
Sorry, the means you a proposing for "education" are even worse: it is 9-10 hours of brain-washing. One would need to see a revolution in education.
Just because there's no directly money changing hands, it doesn't mean you aren't "selling yourself" when you make yourself look attractive.
Bottom line: just because someone is making oneself attractive, it doesn't mean the one is selling oneself (there can be many other reasons for doing it).
If somebody commits a fraud, imposing blanket ban on different objects/means that were used in defrauding is pointless.
On the case at hand: NAD banned a specific use of Photoshop in advertising, but did not blanket-ban Photoshop. This being said, please re-read the subject of the thread in the very formulation of the OP.
OK I think this is wandering off point a bit. The complaint is about using these techniques to try and sell you something by telling you that if you buy this product it will look like X when in reality it will not.
Well, that's even worse, because then the OP suggest anyone who wears makeup is trying to sell her/himself and they are trying to mislead you in the transaction (like in both are used to fake stuff.).
Do you consider makeup wearing persons a merchandise? In the last years, computer-mediated fraud is rampant: do you propose that we'd ban computers too?
Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have...
So? Stop buying them...
Right... actually something in you post suggest you aren't getting them for free, so you start blaming the "high prices" and "misleading advertising". I know that they may look a bit alien/outlandish for you now, but maybe it will get better if you'll stop treating them as "burgers to be bought" and see them more as human beings?
I'm creating an analog version of Photoshop for beauty enhancement. I'm kicking around 3 names for it right now: 1) Flugrup, 2) Snibb, and 3) Makeup.
What... is any person wearing them a merchandise? (did the economic crisis evolve bad enough that the slavery was reinstated?) Really... don't you really see any difference between wearing makeup and deceptive advertising of a product?
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
Well, on the same line: everybody in this world would need to wear a uniform - after all, different clothing are faking the stuff underneath. Should I continue?
Unfortunately, lower species tend to be much more difficult to care for properly. They're quite happy to sit in their own filth until communicable diseases break out. Then we have to use force to go in and clean their cages.
Now, maybe if we split the OWS protesters into even smaller groups....
What... aren't the fences getting too expensive already? Or is the population in the cages not significant enough (for the OWS to spreads inside them cages)?
(when will the "humans" learn to tackle the causes instead of band-aiding the symptoms? After all, both TP and OWS "lower species" seems to have some common grievances, even if they don't quite agree on the solutions. Based on the visible progress, looks like the "govt humans" care more about chimps)
So gnoseologically the atheist has rationalistic approach, but in terms of behavior he takes a voluntaristic "I do as it pleases me" approach?
First - I'm not implying that's the automated consequence of being an atheist, but this choice is possible and non contradictory with being an atheist.
Second - leaving a pleasant (even if shorter) life or not it's a choice that can be made rationally. Even more so that there's no religion to instil a feeling of guilt/fear-of-damnation for the choice.
Third - neither being an atheist nor choosing a hedonistic life-style excludes a set of ethical values being consistently expressed in behavior (e.g. not necessarily everything that pleases me, but as long as it doesn't hurt others, why not?)
Um, GP said Abrahamic religions, none of those are particularly "Abrahamic", unless maybe the FSM ordered an Italian chef to sacrifice his first born meatball.
One would expect an atheist taking more serious approach to his health.
Why? Being atheist doesn't require the wish to live longer - I can see a valid reason behind "Better live less but intense than be bored to death for a century".
Very good, they went to a remote place and noticed something. Is this new, or has it always been taking place and nobody noticed? How long has someone been looking there?
TFA - read it!
... the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
Nothing I see in that article suggests that this is a new phenomenon...aside from the hyperbolic statements of the scientists.
Hmmmm... TFA...
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.
So, 20 years of beating around the Arctics and seeing seepings of 10s m in diameter and, unlucky them, it is only recently that they found the larger ones... What are the chances? I mean, pretty hard luck to miss something that large and find only the smaller ones for 20 years... I wonder why the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks keeps such unlucky researchers on its payroll?
Slashdot Mirror
What the world would look like if this hack would have resulted in the equivalent of "Cyber threat/war" concepts we are seeing nowadays?
It says:
Note the italicized part. Also, the text of the blurb appears to have been written by chrb, who himself is paraphrasing "Experts," referring to an ill defined 3rd party.
Its payout lottery. Buy a patent and you might win big. Why not buy tens of thousands of them like some companies do.
In other news - it doesn't help you still need to pay MS the extortion money.
Is it where companies hoard patents on irrelevant things and use them to sue the pants off competitors?
It reckon depends on the type of knowledge: patent lawyers will surely have it, they'll be surely benefiting from this economy.
Given its performance in crash testing, you may find yourself dead should you crash one.
Last crash test I saw for it was it surviving a head-on with a wall @ 60MPH and basically bouncing off with almost no structural damage.
[Citation needed]. No, seriously, I'm not being antagonistic, I'm interested.
I'm an American, but here's my answer to your question: Educate.
You are past the point on which you can still educate. The school system and everything else around (contributing to informal education) is fine tuned to conditioning, not education.
Think: what is the aim of the school? I'd argue: not building an education, but passing some exams.
Educate children. Extend the schoolday to 9-10 hours long (most people work at least 8 hours a day, so a 6-7 hour school day necessitates child care of some sort), allow more time for physical activity, self-study, and hands-on learning.
Sorry, the means you a proposing for "education" are even worse: it is 9-10 hours of brain-washing. One would need to see a revolution in education.
Looks like you are not safe then. I'd be worried.
Nah, I'll be fine... nobody experiments on snakes.
Just because there's no directly money changing hands, it doesn't mean you aren't "selling yourself" when you make yourself look attractive.
Bottom line: just because someone is making oneself attractive, it doesn't mean the one is selling oneself (there can be many other reasons for doing it).
If somebody commits a fraud, imposing blanket ban on different objects/means that were used in defrauding is pointless.
On the case at hand: NAD banned a specific use of Photoshop in advertising, but did not blanket-ban Photoshop. This being said, please re-read the subject of the thread in the very formulation of the OP.
Questions?
OK I think this is wandering off point a bit. The complaint is about using these techniques to try and sell you something by telling you that if you buy this product it will look like X when in reality it will not.
Well, that's even worse, because then the OP suggest anyone who wears makeup is trying to sell her/himself and they are trying to mislead you in the transaction (like in both are used to fake stuff.).
Next we know, any misleading advertising will not be allowed anymore. That's just nuts. Where is the world heading to?
Towards a point in which one will watch the ads and try to skip the movies: after all, movies are fiction thus misleading.
Do you consider makeup wearing persons a merchandise? In the last years, computer-mediated fraud is rampant: do you propose that we'd ban computers too?
Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.
Should I link to goatse? Or would you propose to euthanise bad looking people? Or lock them out of sight?
BTW: what about the eye of the beholder?
Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have...
So? Stop buying them...
Right... actually something in you post suggest you aren't getting them for free, so you start blaming the "high prices" and "misleading advertising".
I know that they may look a bit alien/outlandish for you now, but maybe it will get better if you'll stop treating them as "burgers to be bought" and see them more as human beings?
And... your point is?
I'm creating an analog version of Photoshop for beauty enhancement. I'm kicking around 3 names for it right now: 1) Flugrup, 2) Snibb, and 3) Makeup.
What... is any person wearing them a merchandise? (did the economic crisis evolve bad enough that the slavery was reinstated?)
Really... don't you really see any difference between wearing makeup and deceptive advertising of a product?
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
Well, on the same line: everybody in this world would need to wear a uniform - after all, different clothing are faking the stuff underneath. Should I continue?
Unfortunately, lower species tend to be much more difficult to care for properly. They're quite happy to sit in their own filth until communicable diseases break out. Then we have to use force to go in and clean their cages.
Now, maybe if we split the OWS protesters into even smaller groups ....
What... aren't the fences getting too expensive already? Or is the population in the cages not significant enough (for the OWS to spreads inside them cages)?
(when will the "humans" learn to tackle the causes instead of band-aiding the symptoms? After all, both TP and OWS "lower species" seems to have some common grievances, even if they don't quite agree on the solutions. Based on the visible progress, looks like the "govt humans" care more about chimps)
So gnoseologically the atheist has rationalistic approach, but in terms of behavior he takes a voluntaristic "I do as it pleases me" approach?
First - I'm not implying that's the automated consequence of being an atheist, but this choice is possible and non contradictory with being an atheist.
Second - leaving a pleasant (even if shorter) life or not it's a choice that can be made rationally. Even more so that there's no religion to instil a feeling of guilt/fear-of-damnation for the choice.
Third - neither being an atheist nor choosing a hedonistic life-style excludes a set of ethical values being consistently expressed in behavior (e.g. not necessarily everything that pleases me, but as long as it doesn't hurt others, why not?)
Um, GP said Abrahamic religions, none of those are particularly "Abrahamic", unless maybe the FSM ordered an Italian chef to sacrifice his first born meatball.
Duuude... you disappoint me.
Now, mind you, those were early times... it was later that the I'd really rather that you didn'ts came to settle the shit better.
One would expect an atheist taking more serious approach to his health.
Why? Being atheist doesn't require the wish to live longer - I can see a valid reason behind "Better live less but intense than be bored to death for a century".
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions originated in the Middle East. The only exception that I can think of is Mormonism.
Add to this Scientology... uh, and pastafarianism and Jedi-Knightism.
Look, I have disagreements with Tea Party supporters too .. but to outright ban them from labs? That doesn't seem right to me.
Non sequitur. NIH banned the use of evolutionary closer relatives of humans, didn't say anything about lower species.
Very good, they went to a remote place and noticed something. Is this new, or has it always been taking place and nobody noticed? How long has someone been looking there?
TFA - read it!
... the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
It could be that such methane plumes have existed forever, we just never detected them. This is the EIGHTH such cruise/survey.
BTW: it is the "8th joint US-Russia cruise", not the absolute eighth.
Nothing I see in that article suggests that this is a new phenomenon...aside from the hyperbolic statements of the scientists.
Hmmmm... TFA...
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.
So, 20 years of beating around the Arctics and seeing seepings of 10s m in diameter and, unlucky them, it is only recently that they found the larger ones... What are the chances? I mean, pretty hard luck to miss something that large and find only the smaller ones for 20 years... I wonder why the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks keeps such unlucky researchers on its payroll?