From the article: "Quite similar to the logic of "reasonable person" used in the common law of torts as a test of negligence, the PHOSITA is a hypothetical individual, neither a genius nor a layperson, created in the mind of a patent examiner or the jury to see if a claimed invention is too obvious to be patented."
If the "mind of the examiner" has no terms of reference to understand what a PHOHISTA would know and understand they they can not create a PHOISTA in their mind. The search for prior art is a sham because if one has no idea how something works one can not break down the parts to find prior art on how they are used. One can not find something if one does not know what to look for. When an examiner realizes the patent is out of their realm of understanding they should call in experts to help them create the PHOISTA.
Lets go through those points. 1. A standard of negligence is still negligence. The patent office has been shown many times that their standard for vetting software patents is ridiculous. Continuing to follow those standards is negligence. 2. Nowhere did I say that one d1d not have to be a party to a patent suit to file suit. I was referring to the people and companies who had to defend against obvious patents bringing suit against the Government. 3. It is simple to show lawyers bills, lost revenue, man hours, incidental expenses, etc. from an patent suit files due to an obvious patent. Those are the damages I am talking about. 4. If the Patent office had not been overzealous in granting the patent the claimant would not have had to spend the money fighting it. If a private citizen failed to follow the law and granted a patent that did not pass the obviousness test they would be liable for damages caused by their negligent act; so is the Government. 5. The real quote from the statute is "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' 28 U.S.C. S 2680(a)." The telling part is "discretionary function or duty". Checking for obviousness is not a "discretionary function or duty"; it is a requirement for granting a patent. Since it is not discretionary it does not fall under that clause.
Look up Federal Tort Claims Act. Claim:Through negligence in improperly vetting patents the US Government do cause us to to lose $xx in lawyers fees, man hours and profit and is thereby liable for that amount. Sounds like a tort to me.
You are correct, and the forum moderators will tell the "anal retentives" where the lines are and that if they continue to abuse the reporting system they will be banned.
1. Running a tournament that has an entry fee and requires personal data from each player is not patentable. 2. Storing a player's information on paper is not patentable. 3. Running a tournament where the outcome of previous tournaments influence new tournaments is not patentable. 4. Storing information in a database is not patentable. 5. Client server interaction is not patentable. 6. Using the Internet is not patentable.
Yet using a database to store player information about an on-line tournament is patentable? The issue is all they have done is change the medium of storage. It would be the same as someone trying to patent storing music on a hard drive.
Did the patent reviewer have "ordinary skill in the art" of databases and/or tournaments? I doubt it.
One of the concepts of patent-ability in the US Code is non-obviousness. If a patent reviewed and approved by an examiner who does not have "ordinary skill in the art" how can he say whether or not it is obvious. The Patent Office has long been criticized for not keeping up with technology and failing to hire advisers who are up to date on current trends.
The reason people post vitriol on forums is due to the fact that it is allowed. All forums should have clear strict rules about profanity, personal attacks, non-constructive criticism, etc. If forums were moderated and any time a flame was posted the user was warned that they could be banned then maybe less flames would be posted. The warnings must be followed through. You will probably find that most of the issues are being caused by a very few people.
There are compromise positions between 'read everything' and "read nothing"; one could read the moderated forum or have someone forward only the interesting posts.
I wonder if anyone has tried or even contemplated suing the Patent Office for awarding overly broad and obvious patents. There would not be so much trouble if the Patent Office actually did their job and denied these kinds of patents.
At precisely 2:10 into the clip there is a man above and to the right of the target hairs in a light shirt. He turn to his left revealing and RPG held in his right hand. How many camera start thin, have a diamond shaped bulb near the end and end in a point. That is the classic outline of the shaped charge on an RPG. You may not be able to identify one but someone trained in weapon identification defiantly can.
And your point is? There are very few pure air superiority fighters in service today. Even the F-22 has ground attack capability. Will the F-22 have an air superiority role; you bet. It will also have a ground and sea attack role as well. Just because it is a multi-role aircraft does not mean that its air superiority role is not superior.
Try opening a Word 2010 in Office 3.1. It won't work. The fact that the PDF was even able to be opened in older software is astounding. One would have to be clairvoyant to be able to make software compatible with all possible future extensions.
To me this sparks a hubris; I want the computer to do what I want when I want no matter what version of software I use. The fact that someone opens a new version document in an old version of the software and there is an issue is not the problem of the software but a problem of the user. Going by this logic there would only ever be one version of software.
Lowest common denominator. So you don't care that some systems are more compliant that others and can display things better than others. That would require the format to only support formatting that available on all computers.
One of the big differences between html and PDF is data storage. When using a pdf form someone opens the form inputs the data and that data is saved inside that form; everything is in one place. Html requires three separate pieces; The form to enter the information, the scripts to save the information and the data store (database or file system) to save the data. PDFs are much simpler for handling small quantities of forms.
This is in the same vein as someone running "rm -rf" on a hard rive full of sensitive information and then selling it. Anyone with a little tech experience knows that the data is still there. Ignorance of how a system works is not a problem wit the system; it is a problem with the user.
With an output of less than 1mW; not much of an amplifier. Wouldn't that be a light sensor powering a light sensor? Why not just use the solar cells as the light sensor?
There is an option between "auto-update" and "update when you want"; depricated versions. If a version has a known major bug in it that could compromise the system require updates only those versions. That way only the bad version will be replaced and we won't be updating everyone at every release. The main advantage is that the system is kept safe without unnecessary updates.
I guess you have never dealt with the jerk that comes along every so often. I used to work in an open office environment with 50 people in one room. Almost everyone used headphones to listen to music. There was one person who insisted on blaring his music over his desktop speakers. I asked a number of people around me if it bothered them and the reaction I got was " Yeah but that's him. I put on my headphones". I wear glasses and headphones hurt after a while. I asked him to use headphones and he referred me to his boss. I went to HR instead. HR then sent out an email stating the policy about using headphones. A few days later he was back using speakers again. It turns out he had a lot more clout that I knew because the policy was changed for him and my contract was not renewed.
Others can just ignore your requests as happens more often in today's "me first" generation. Opening you mouth at the wrong time can be bad.
The plane did not have any of the following: 1. A payload adding extra weight and extra energy to keep aloft. 2. Sensors to gather data. These sensors would require power to run decreasing the amount of energy going into the battery. 3. Transmitters to sends data to the ground. Same energy drain as above.
With all that extra energy drain will the plane stay up over night.
I also shake my head when I see that the test is done in Summer when the days are the longest and the nights are the shortest. This way one has the longest charge time and the shortest discharge time. Try the same thing in winter when the charge time is shorter and the discharge time is longer and the plane may not stay aloft through the night. A UAV that can be used only part of the year is not very viable.
Without an energy draining payload flown in winter all they managed to do was demonstrate a very expensive RC toy not a viable surveillance UAV.
I bet that the optimal setup, for throughput, would a hybrid of the one line/multiple line strategy.
What about one main line but each of the registers there is a 'on deck circle' for one customer to unload while the cashier is dealing with the first customer. This way the cashier is always dealing with a customer and never waiting for them to get to the register from the single line. Sure, one person could be delayed but that is much better than a whole line being delayed.
A further refinement would be "register groups". Say a store had 12 registers. Making one line for all 12 is inefficient as the walk from the front of the line to an open register could be a long one. Instead split the registers into 3 groups each with 4 registers. Shorter walk times but still benefits from the single line.
The psychological reason for preferring multiple lines is simple to explain. When one comes up on a single line one automatically estimates the time in line from past experience. Since most stores use multiple lines one's calculations will be based on that and the wait time will be greatly overestimated causing anxiety. Some stores try to decrease this issue by having a series of signs that estimate how long the wait will be. The issue is that most people do not believe the signs.
And on a final note; when there is a single line, one is always in the fastest line; one is also always in the slowest line.
Gauging speed of each line takes time. The time wasted surveying speed could be used advancing in one of the lines.
There is no way of knowing if the people in front of you will be as fast as the people you saw go through the till. Current performance does not predict future performance when the speed is based on the customer.
For simplicity sake I will use some round numbers. Vf = 100m/s d= 100 m
By the constant acceleration equation 100^2/2*100 = a = 50m/s^2 Since the acceleration is constant the average speed is Vf/2 = 50m/s therefore dt = 2 seconds. By definition constant acceleration is also average acceleration.
Now what would happen if all the acceleration happened in the first ten feet. The constant acceleration equation would be 100^2/2*10 = 500m/s^2 Average speed is still 50m/s therefore it would take 10/50 =.2 Seconds to travel the 10 m. The other 90M would be covered at a speed of 100m/s therefore dt for that segment would be 90/100 =.9. The average acceleration would be (500*.0.2 + 0*0.9)/(0.2+0.9) = 90.9m/sec2
Since 50m/s^2 90.0m/s^2 the poster is correct that average acceleration is dependant on the shape of the acceleration curve.
Where fighter and bombers get all the glory there are a few equally important heavy aircraft that need catapults to launch:
AEW: Aircraft such as the the E-2 Hawkeye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye are critical to hiding the location of the fleet. If the enemy sees a ship based radar they know where the ship and usually the fleet is. If they see an airborne radar the fleet could be very far away. Also airborne radar can see further.
COD; Carier Onboad Delivery, Need those critical parts or personel delivered outside of helicopter range? Need to evacuate critically injured personnel? You need a long range aircraft to do it.
Tankers; Need to extend range to a target? Need to loiter for long periods on CAP. Need a sip of fuel to get back to the carrier because you used to much afterburners in the fight? Tankers are your friend. This role is currently done in the US Navy by the F/A-18E/F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Tanker_role
Without catapults none of these aircraft would get off the deck.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"Quite similar to the logic of "reasonable person" used in the common law of torts as a test of negligence, the PHOSITA is a hypothetical individual, neither a genius nor a layperson, created in the mind of a patent examiner or the jury to see if a claimed invention is too obvious to be patented."
If the "mind of the examiner" has no terms of reference to understand what a PHOHISTA would know and understand they they can not create a PHOISTA in their mind. The search for prior art is a sham because if one has no idea how something works one can not break down the parts to find prior art on how they are used. One can not find something if one does not know what to look for. When an examiner realizes the patent is out of their realm of understanding they should call in experts to help them create the PHOISTA.
Lets go through those points.
1. A standard of negligence is still negligence. The patent office has been shown many times that their standard for vetting software patents is ridiculous. Continuing to follow those standards is negligence.
2. Nowhere did I say that one d1d not have to be a party to a patent suit to file suit. I was referring to the people and companies who had to defend against obvious patents bringing suit against the Government.
3. It is simple to show lawyers bills, lost revenue, man hours, incidental expenses, etc. from an patent suit files due to an obvious patent. Those are the damages I am talking about.
4. If the Patent office had not been overzealous in granting the patent the claimant would not have had to spend the money fighting it. If a private citizen failed to follow the law and granted a patent that did not pass the obviousness test they would be liable for damages caused by their negligent act; so is the Government.
5. The real quote from the statute is "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' 28 U.S.C. S 2680(a)." The telling part is "discretionary function or duty". Checking for obviousness is not a "discretionary function or duty"; it is a requirement for granting a patent. Since it is not discretionary it does not fall under that clause.
Look up Federal Tort Claims Act. Claim:Through negligence in improperly vetting patents the US Government do cause us to to lose $xx in lawyers fees, man hours and profit and is thereby liable for that amount. Sounds like a tort to me.
You are correct, and the forum moderators will tell the "anal retentives" where the lines are and that if they continue to abuse the reporting system they will be banned.
1. Running a tournament that has an entry fee and requires personal data from each player is not patentable.
2. Storing a player's information on paper is not patentable.
3. Running a tournament where the outcome of previous tournaments influence new tournaments is not patentable.
4. Storing information in a database is not patentable.
5. Client server interaction is not patentable.
6. Using the Internet is not patentable.
Yet using a database to store player information about an on-line tournament is patentable? The issue is all they have done is change the medium of storage. It would be the same as someone trying to patent storing music on a hard drive.
Did the patent reviewer have "ordinary skill in the art" of databases and/or tournaments? I doubt it.
One of the concepts of patent-ability in the US Code is non-obviousness. If a patent reviewed and approved by an examiner who does not have "ordinary skill in the art" how can he say whether or not it is obvious. The Patent Office has long been criticized for not keeping up with technology and failing to hire advisers who are up to date on current trends.
The reason people post vitriol on forums is due to the fact that it is allowed. All forums should have clear strict rules about profanity, personal attacks, non-constructive criticism, etc. If forums were moderated and any time a flame was posted the user was warned that they could be banned then maybe less flames would be posted. The warnings must be followed through. You will probably find that most of the issues are being caused by a very few people.
There are compromise positions between 'read everything' and "read nothing"; one could read the moderated forum or have someone forward only the interesting posts.
I wonder if anyone has tried or even contemplated suing the Patent Office for awarding overly broad and obvious patents. There would not be so much trouble if the Patent Office actually did their job and denied these kinds of patents.
At precisely 2:10 into the clip there is a man above and to the right of the target hairs in a light shirt. He turn to his left revealing and RPG held in his right hand. How many camera start thin, have a diamond shaped bulb near the end and end in a point. That is the classic outline of the shaped charge on an RPG. You may not be able to identify one but someone trained in weapon identification defiantly can.
And your point is? There are very few pure air superiority fighters in service today. Even the F-22 has ground attack capability. Will the F-22 have an air superiority role; you bet. It will also have a ground and sea attack role as well. Just because it is a multi-role aircraft does not mean that its air superiority role is not superior.
Try opening a Word 2010 in Office 3.1. It won't work. The fact that the PDF was even able to be opened in older software is astounding. One would have to be clairvoyant to be able to make software compatible with all possible future extensions.
To me this sparks a hubris; I want the computer to do what I want when I want no matter what version of software I use. The fact that someone opens a new version document in an old version of the software and there is an issue is not the problem of the software but a problem of the user. Going by this logic there would only ever be one version of software.
Lowest common denominator. So you don't care that some systems are more compliant that others and can display things better than others. That would require the format to only support formatting that available on all computers.
One of the big differences between html and PDF is data storage. When using a pdf form someone opens the form inputs the data and that data is saved inside that form; everything is in one place. Html requires three separate pieces; The form to enter the information, the scripts to save the information and the data store (database or file system) to save the data. PDFs are much simpler for handling small quantities of forms.
This is in the same vein as someone running "rm -rf" on a hard rive full of sensitive information and then selling it. Anyone with a little tech experience knows that the data is still there. Ignorance of how a system works is not a problem wit the system; it is a problem with the user.
You have succeeded in describing all light sensors in use today; a solar call with an externally powered amplifier.
With an output of less than 1mW; not much of an amplifier. Wouldn't that be a light sensor powering a light sensor? Why not just use the solar cells as the light sensor?
Considering the power drain must be "well below 1 milliwatt", what could such a chip be used for?
Since the solar cell piggybacks on the chip, wouldn't the chip be exposed to the elements in order to generate electricity?
All the article states is that it could be manufactured not what it could be used for..
There is an option between "auto-update" and "update when you want"; depricated versions. If a version has a known major bug in it that could compromise the system require updates only those versions. That way only the bad version will be replaced and we won't be updating everyone at every release. The main advantage is that the system is kept safe without unnecessary updates.
I guess you have never dealt with the jerk that comes along every so often. I used to work in an open office environment with 50 people in one room. Almost everyone used headphones to listen to music. There was one person who insisted on blaring his music over his desktop speakers. I asked a number of people around me if it bothered them and the reaction I got was " Yeah but that's him. I put on my headphones". I wear glasses and headphones hurt after a while. I asked him to use headphones and he referred me to his boss. I went to HR instead. HR then sent out an email stating the policy about using headphones. A few days later he was back using speakers again. It turns out he had a lot more clout that I knew because the policy was changed for him and my contract was not renewed.
Others can just ignore your requests as happens more often in today's "me first" generation. Opening you mouth at the wrong time can be bad.
The plane did not have any of the following:
1. A payload adding extra weight and extra energy to keep aloft.
2. Sensors to gather data. These sensors would require power to run decreasing the amount of energy going into the battery.
3. Transmitters to sends data to the ground. Same energy drain as above.
With all that extra energy drain will the plane stay up over night.
I also shake my head when I see that the test is done in Summer when the days are the longest and the nights are the shortest. This way one has the longest charge time and the shortest discharge time. Try the same thing in winter when the charge time is shorter and the discharge time is longer and the plane may not stay aloft through the night. A UAV that can be used only part of the year is not very viable.
Without an energy draining payload flown in winter all they managed to do was demonstrate a very expensive RC toy not a viable surveillance UAV.
So you are not picking the fastest line you are picking the shortest line and inferring the speed from the length.
I bet that the optimal setup, for throughput, would a hybrid of the one line/multiple line strategy.
What about one main line but each of the registers there is a 'on deck circle' for one customer to unload while the cashier is dealing with the first customer. This way the cashier is always dealing with a customer and never waiting for them to get to the register from the single line. Sure, one person could be delayed but that is much better than a whole line being delayed.
A further refinement would be "register groups". Say a store had 12 registers. Making one line for all 12 is inefficient as the walk from the front of the line to an open register could be a long one. Instead split the registers into 3 groups each with 4 registers. Shorter walk times but still benefits from the single line.
The psychological reason for preferring multiple lines is simple to explain. When one comes up on a single line one automatically estimates the time in line from past experience. Since most stores use multiple lines one's calculations will be based on that and the wait time will be greatly overestimated causing anxiety. Some stores try to decrease this issue by having a series of signs that estimate how long the wait will be. The issue is that most people do not believe the signs.
And on a final note; when there is a single line, one is always in the fastest line; one is also always in the slowest line.
Gauging speed of each line takes time. The time wasted surveying speed could be used advancing in one of the lines.
There is no way of knowing if the people in front of you will be as fast as the people you saw go through the till. Current performance does not predict future performance when the speed is based on the customer.
For simplicity sake I will use some round numbers.
Vf = 100m/s
d= 100 m
By the constant acceleration equation 100^2/2*100 = a = 50m/s^2 Since the acceleration is constant the average speed is Vf/2 = 50m/s therefore dt = 2 seconds. By definition constant acceleration is also average acceleration.
Now what would happen if all the acceleration happened in the first ten feet. .2 Seconds to travel the 10 m. The other 90M would be covered at a speed of 100m/s therefore dt for that segment would be 90/100 = .9. The average acceleration would be (500*.0.2 + 0*0.9)/(0.2+0.9) = 90.9m/sec2
The constant acceleration equation would be 100^2/2*10 = 500m/s^2 Average speed is still 50m/s therefore it would take 10/50 =
Since 50m/s^2 90.0m/s^2 the poster is correct that average acceleration is dependant on the shape of the acceleration curve.
Where fighter and bombers get all the glory there are a few equally important heavy aircraft that need catapults to launch:
AEW:
Aircraft such as the the E-2 Hawkeye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye are critical to hiding the location of the fleet. If the enemy sees a ship based radar they know where the ship and usually the fleet is. If they see an airborne radar the fleet could be very far away. Also airborne radar can see further.
COD;
Carier Onboad Delivery, Need those critical parts or personel delivered outside of helicopter range? Need to evacuate critically injured personnel? You need a long range aircraft to do it.
Tankers;
Need to extend range to a target? Need to loiter for long periods on CAP. Need a sip of fuel to get back to the carrier because you used to much afterburners in the fight? Tankers are your friend. This role is currently done in the US Navy by the F/A-18E/F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Tanker_role
Without catapults none of these aircraft would get off the deck.