If what apple says is true, i.e., the patent was inside a standard and later Samsung raised it to claim money, there is precedent that the case will get thrown out. In an earlier case of QCOMM vs BRCM, the Qualcomm patents were disqualified as they were patented prior to the standard and were introduced into the standard without revealing that they have a patent on that topic.
This can be done without the paper part of it.
Every voter registers his email address with the election council. At the last step, instead of paper print, you send out an email with a secret code associated with that email.
Now all news channels/NGOs/Etc conduct exit polls as before and your voter can go and enter the secret code/email address to each one of those exit polls. If all the exit polls match closely with the election results then we can assume that the voting machine is fair. Also, since the voting results are with a huge section of the society [i.e., the media], it is more difficult than paper machines to tamper the results.
But I challenge you to come up with any sane argument that anyone should pay more to the government than anybody else.
Simple: Taxation is a extortion mechanism by the government to make sure that nothing happens to you are your property. You pay based on how much you own. If you own a lot, you need to pay more, since a street riot is more likely to loot your house than someone who is living under $2/day
The mouse was genetically modified to secrete high levels of CRF. Therefore a CRF blocker can grow back hair, that was lost due to high levels of CRF.
However, is baldness caused solely due to stress? I don't have the stats, but my guess would be that there are zillion reasons for baldness. Its unclear that CRF blocker would be of any benefit in these Zillion-1 cases, where baldness is not caused by stress.
AT&T screws over its customers..OK. But they are also screwing the investors? I mean, look at their P&L sheet. In the US there is very little competition, prices are sky high and even after such price gouging, the net income is 5% of your revenue? For the sake of comparison, top service providers in India routinely rake up 25-30% of their revenue in net-income. And, the place is far more competitive (> 15 operators), consumer prices are far lower.
Looking at it in another way, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for AT&T to do any price drop (or provide more for the same money) as it would effectively kill its bottom-line. So/. readers you may complain all you want about the crappy service from AT&T, but it is not going to get any better. There has to be a business innovation before any service gets any better.
I write documents a lot of it. Most of the time, one person is in charge of either reviewing, commenting or making edits. I am unable to imagine why 10 authors sitting across the globe HAVE the urge to work on a document at the same time.
Have/. users done this type of real-time collaboration? What is the scenario? Did you guys find it useful?
I mean it, seriously! What is wrong with your medical history showing up online? How can anyone monetize it?
Seriously, what is with you privacy folks?
I actually want my medical history to be online so that different doctors can view it and suggest if something different could be tried. Honestly, I never trust the doctor. Doctors have vested interest to push for a option in which they are good at. This happens very subtly and people may not notice it.
I have seen two common complaints about unlimited access to medical data. In my opinion both lack any merit.
1. Insurance rates go up: Sure they do. Its better that your insurance rates go up (if you have a problem that is), as opposed to the entire community's. You are at fault so you pay for it.
2. Employer Screening: This is even better. The employer is the best judge (at least before hiring) on what the job takes. If you have a problem and you wanna hide it, how will it help you while you are performing the duties. It is better for the employer and the employee to have the access to medical records. For example, if you are a former drug addict, I wanna know that before I hire you.
The "golden age" of the US was during the cold war. It is true that economy expanded big time, technology conquered newer heights, but most of all, there was unity! Unity among americans fighting a common enemy, the commies.
Fast forward to 2011, the biggest commie threat has disappeared and now replaced with so many other great internal threats such as Abortion rights, Gay marriage, ObamaCare, Yellow levels of terror alert.
Now think of projecting China as the greatest threat to America. I think, in another 10-20 years, the cold-war era mindset will be back, replacing Russia with China. The unity is good for the country.
This also helps China. How? Chinese own a shit load of dollars & Euros. Without a strong American economy/ European economy, their exports die quickly. Furthermore, they will be hit with a lot of refugee problems from Russia, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, India and a zillion more countries.
So, it is good to have the tension mounting.
Communication between the projectile and the gun is the key and possibly the weakest link. Given the range, it is using radio waves.
Why can't I turn on a cheap EMI jammer? Shouldn't that break the whole thing
There is a fundamental problem with the DHS thought process here.
Terrorists are not interested ONLY in blowing up planes. They are willing to do anything that can bring peace/economy down.
Single act of failed terrorist plot is costing american taxpayers and travelers so much money. This is exactly what the "terrorists" want.
If planes become difficult to bomb, they will bomb the airport. If airport becomes difficult, they will move on to bombing embassies. If you patch that, then they will move on to UPS cargo planes. How many patches will you put?
The real solution is a holistic economic development, one where all these "terrorist havens" are economically developed. If people have real jobs to work on, they don't have time to go around bombing others. They might just have enough time to vent their anger on/.
The problem is that the article takes pains to explain that it was shot at the same place, but cleverly (or rather dumbly) leaves out of the fact on the timing.
Secondly, the question "what time of the year in 2010 would correspond to the same time as the 1929 photo was shot" is quite tricky so answer. There is the variability due to earth's revolution not being 1 year exact (Given that we take 365.25 years, he needs to have visited the place 20 days later in 2010 than when it was visited in 1929), other factors (non-global warming related) such as direction of the wind and its changes, etc
Only after this has been well scrutinized, one could possibly conclude that the loss is due to AGW.
A week is short even to make TV Soaps. How do they do it?
Typically, the soaps are shot continuously for an entire season and delivered piece meal over several weeks.
I suspect the model will be quite similar here too.
The 2kw load is based on the fact that you would plug in at home and charge it only at night times. This business model of plugin hybrids is impractical on many fronts.
Alternatively, where by electric recharge stations are set up to charge the cars much faster (typically under 15 mins). The load of each one of those charging stations is close to 75 kw.
If you replace 10-12 pumps (your typical gas station capacity) with 10-12 charging station each one will be running close to a MW!!! Thats enough power to power 1000 homes!!
How is that for overloading the grid?
There are three possible explanations
1. The size of proton depends on how you measure it.
2. The 1960 measurements were done in Summer, while this was done in Winter.
3. Global Warming
1. The reason why healthcare insurance policies are counterintuitive to other insurances is to foster preventive care. If I am covered only for catastrophe, then I will sit and wait for the catastrophe to happen rather than going and getting things fixed early. Because, from my perspectives, my costs are identical in both cases.
2. What constitutes a catastrophe varies wildly with person to person. For someone earning 1,000,000 per year, it could be that a bill of 500,000 is a catastrophe. But for someone who is earning only 10,000 per year, a bill of 5,000 is a catastrophe. The cost of covering a person earning 10,000 per year would be orders of magnitude higher (which he wouldn't be able to afford) than the cost of covering a person earning 1,000,000. For this reason, the insurance HAS to be provided by some agency like a government which can take losses on covering someone who is earning 10,000 and recover some of the insurance costs by charging a premium to the person earning 1,000,000.
3. The model could be as follows. Currently, govt collects 7.5% as Medicare. This 7.5% can be increased to say 10%. But now Medicare will also come cover the person paying the premium in the following manner: The person is covered 100% above a certain threshold which is the function of his/her yearly income (So for example, a person earning $10,000 is covered for all medical expenses higher than $1,000. Someone earning $1,000,000 will have their coverage begin after they spend $500,000). In addition, all are allowed to purchase secondary insurance from the various insurance companies if they so desire (to limit their loss during catastrophe).
The highway safety researchers estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002.
That's less than 0.5% of all the accidents. Why is so much attention being given to cell phone usage when there are bigger issues like DUI? It appears to me that either banning or limiting cell phone usage leads to no tangible benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
If what apple says is true, i.e., the patent was inside a standard and later Samsung raised it to claim money, there is precedent that the case will get thrown out. In an earlier case of QCOMM vs BRCM, the Qualcomm patents were disqualified as they were patented prior to the standard and were introduced into the standard without revealing that they have a patent on that topic.
This can be done without the paper part of it. Every voter registers his email address with the election council. At the last step, instead of paper print, you send out an email with a secret code associated with that email. Now all news channels/NGOs/Etc conduct exit polls as before and your voter can go and enter the secret code/email address to each one of those exit polls. If all the exit polls match closely with the election results then we can assume that the voting machine is fair. Also, since the voting results are with a huge section of the society [i.e., the media], it is more difficult than paper machines to tamper the results.
Of course they have to contribute.
But I challenge you to come up with any sane argument that anyone should pay more to the government than anybody else.
Simple: Taxation is a extortion mechanism by the government to make sure that nothing happens to you are your property. You pay based on how much you own. If you own a lot, you need to pay more, since a street riot is more likely to loot your house than someone who is living under $2/day
The mouse was genetically modified to secrete high levels of CRF. Therefore a CRF blocker can grow back hair, that was lost due to high levels of CRF. However, is baldness caused solely due to stress? I don't have the stats, but my guess would be that there are zillion reasons for baldness. Its unclear that CRF blocker would be of any benefit in these Zillion-1 cases, where baldness is not caused by stress.
AT&T screws over its customers ..OK. But they are also screwing the investors? I mean, look at their P&L sheet. In the US there is very little competition, prices are sky high and even after such price gouging, the net income is 5% of your revenue? For the sake of comparison, top service providers in India routinely rake up 25-30% of their revenue in net-income. And, the place is far more competitive (> 15 operators), consumer prices are far lower.
Looking at it in another way, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for AT&T to do any price drop (or provide more for the same money) as it would effectively kill its bottom-line. So /. readers you may complain all you want about the crappy service from AT&T, but it is not going to get any better. There has to be a business innovation before any service gets any better.
I write documents a lot of it. Most of the time, one person is in charge of either reviewing, commenting or making edits. I am unable to imagine why 10 authors sitting across the globe HAVE the urge to work on a document at the same time.
Have /. users done this type of real-time collaboration? What is the scenario? Did you guys find it useful?
I mean it, seriously! What is wrong with your medical history showing up online? How can anyone monetize it?
Seriously, what is with you privacy folks?
I actually want my medical history to be online so that different doctors can view it and suggest if something different could be tried. Honestly, I never trust the doctor. Doctors have vested interest to push for a option in which they are good at. This happens very subtly and people may not notice it.
I have seen two common complaints about unlimited access to medical data. In my opinion both lack any merit.
1. Insurance rates go up: Sure they do. Its better that your insurance rates go up (if you have a problem that is), as opposed to the entire community's. You are at fault so you pay for it.
2. Employer Screening: This is even better. The employer is the best judge (at least before hiring) on what the job takes. If you have a problem and you wanna hide it, how will it help you while you are performing the duties. It is better for the employer and the employee to have the access to medical records. For example, if you are a former drug addict, I wanna know that before I hire you.
Of course it is science. It is being taught aggressively in Hogwarts
Don't you know they gave it to Obama as he helped the world by funding the ships while bracing for 2012 disaster. Haven't you seen the movie?
Its none of that. Goldmann is investing in Facebook to bypass SEC regulations of forcing Facebook to go public. Ask Stewart...
The "golden age" of the US was during the cold war. It is true that economy expanded big time, technology conquered newer heights, but most of all, there was unity! Unity among americans fighting a common enemy, the commies. Fast forward to 2011, the biggest commie threat has disappeared and now replaced with so many other great internal threats such as Abortion rights, Gay marriage, ObamaCare, Yellow levels of terror alert. Now think of projecting China as the greatest threat to America. I think, in another 10-20 years, the cold-war era mindset will be back, replacing Russia with China. The unity is good for the country. This also helps China. How? Chinese own a shit load of dollars & Euros. Without a strong American economy/ European economy, their exports die quickly. Furthermore, they will be hit with a lot of refugee problems from Russia, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, India and a zillion more countries. So, it is good to have the tension mounting.
Communication between the projectile and the gun is the key and possibly the weakest link. Given the range, it is using radio waves. Why can't I turn on a cheap EMI jammer? Shouldn't that break the whole thing
There is a fundamental problem with the DHS thought process here. Terrorists are not interested ONLY in blowing up planes. They are willing to do anything that can bring peace/economy down. Single act of failed terrorist plot is costing american taxpayers and travelers so much money. This is exactly what the "terrorists" want. If planes become difficult to bomb, they will bomb the airport. If airport becomes difficult, they will move on to bombing embassies. If you patch that, then they will move on to UPS cargo planes. How many patches will you put? The real solution is a holistic economic development, one where all these "terrorist havens" are economically developed. If people have real jobs to work on, they don't have time to go around bombing others. They might just have enough time to vent their anger on /.
The problem is that the article takes pains to explain that it was shot at the same place, but cleverly (or rather dumbly) leaves out of the fact on the timing. Secondly, the question "what time of the year in 2010 would correspond to the same time as the 1929 photo was shot" is quite tricky so answer. There is the variability due to earth's revolution not being 1 year exact (Given that we take 365.25 years, he needs to have visited the place 20 days later in 2010 than when it was visited in 1929), other factors (non-global warming related) such as direction of the wind and its changes, etc Only after this has been well scrutinized, one could possibly conclude that the loss is due to AGW.
A week is short even to make TV Soaps. How do they do it? Typically, the soaps are shot continuously for an entire season and delivered piece meal over several weeks. I suspect the model will be quite similar here too.
Actually, RIAA needs all the money that they are making. They need it because, they can pay their lawyers $16million every year to recoup $391K.
The 2kw load is based on the fact that you would plug in at home and charge it only at night times. This business model of plugin hybrids is impractical on many fronts. Alternatively, where by electric recharge stations are set up to charge the cars much faster (typically under 15 mins). The load of each one of those charging stations is close to 75 kw. If you replace 10-12 pumps (your typical gas station capacity) with 10-12 charging station each one will be running close to a MW!!! Thats enough power to power 1000 homes!! How is that for overloading the grid?
There are three possible explanations 1. The size of proton depends on how you measure it. 2. The 1960 measurements were done in Summer, while this was done in Winter. 3. Global Warming
1. The reason why healthcare insurance policies are counterintuitive to other insurances is to foster preventive care. If I am covered only for catastrophe, then I will sit and wait for the catastrophe to happen rather than going and getting things fixed early. Because, from my perspectives, my costs are identical in both cases. 2. What constitutes a catastrophe varies wildly with person to person. For someone earning 1,000,000 per year, it could be that a bill of 500,000 is a catastrophe. But for someone who is earning only 10,000 per year, a bill of 5,000 is a catastrophe. The cost of covering a person earning 10,000 per year would be orders of magnitude higher (which he wouldn't be able to afford) than the cost of covering a person earning 1,000,000. For this reason, the insurance HAS to be provided by some agency like a government which can take losses on covering someone who is earning 10,000 and recover some of the insurance costs by charging a premium to the person earning 1,000,000. 3. The model could be as follows. Currently, govt collects 7.5% as Medicare. This 7.5% can be increased to say 10%. But now Medicare will also come cover the person paying the premium in the following manner: The person is covered 100% above a certain threshold which is the function of his/her yearly income (So for example, a person earning $10,000 is covered for all medical expenses higher than $1,000. Someone earning $1,000,000 will have their coverage begin after they spend $500,000). In addition, all are allowed to purchase secondary insurance from the various insurance companies if they so desire (to limit their loss during catastrophe).
Bah! Already done and perhaps much better than what these guys have. http://earthblips.dailyradar.com/story/the-kiran/
The only solution to real 3D gaming is direct Retinal Projection. One step Better, wire your brain like in Matrix.
Are there similar horror stories about car repair?
The highway safety researchers estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002. That's less than 0.5% of all the accidents. Why is so much attention being given to cell phone usage when there are bigger issues like DUI? It appears to me that either banning or limiting cell phone usage leads to no tangible benefits.