Maybe it's cos I'm English but, I think that should clearly be modded funny due to the wonderful irony it contains. Maybe it's true that yanks just don't understand irony? How could anyone possibly believe that anyone would actually believe any of that? Even managers don't actually believe it, they just pretend to cos it's easier than motivating the workers.
You might have to run catman first to build the keyword indexes. Some distros do it automatically, others don't (often it depends on what options you've selected when you install).
Assuming US police are reasonably like those in other countries, you probably wouldn't even get busted for a 'loose spliff' unless you were trying to sell it to someone. It's not worth their while doing the paperwork for it.
Heck, they'd probably just confiscate it, borrow your lighter to spark it then leave you to go about your business whilst they went about their's.
It also solves the problems of if I have a letter to Smith and Sons (Builders) about a bridge construction project do I store it under letters/Smith&Sons/Bridge or Smith&Sons/letters/bridge or bridge/Smith&Sons/letters or projects/builders/bridge/smith&sons/letters or what. With a database based file system you store it once and tag it as a letter, to Smith and Sons (Builders) about the bridge construction project (and any other tags you would like to apply to it) and then when you want to find it again you can just go through which ever access path you like. Also you can then find all letters, all documents relating to Bridge construction, all documents relating to Smith&Sons &*c.
Last time I posted about something like this a coupel of people posted responses stipulating an 'ideal' directory path. To preclude this I must point out that whatever method of classification makes most sense to you and the tasks you do won't make sense to someone else and the tasks they do. For example to a project manager it makes sense to classify documents by the projects they are part of then probably by the document type as they are only interested in the projects they manage and don't want to have to navigate through multiple branches of a directory tree to locate all of the files for their projects (if they are working ont he brige construction project they want all the documents to be under a directroy called 'bridge_construction' but for a finacial director it makes sense to classify the documents by type they are as they are only interested in financial documants and don't want to have to navigate through multiple branches of a directory tree to find all of the financial documents (if they are looking for all invoices from Smith and Sons they want to find them all under invoices/smith&sons). A database based storage system allows everyone to view the data int he way that makes most sense to them and the way that they work.
There was a comparison done early in 2002. Results are here. I know from my own experience that OpenOffice.Org virtually never has problems with M$-Office files. I've now switched fully to OpenOffice.Org for everything except Access databases cos I got fed up of Word and Excel corrupting documents so I had to retype them. I have to have M$-Office on my PC due to corporate standards, I just don't use it for wordprocessing, presentations or spreadsheets. No one has complained about not being able to open one of my files (well, except one guy who complained when I sent him a PDF that he couldn't edit it, he was even more pissed off when I replied "That's the point!").
I bought a new PC a few weeks ago. The OS was Windows XP Home but that was the only Microsoft product on it. For an office suite it had Star Office 5.2. I would have prefered 6 or even OpenOffice.Org but it was better than paying Microsoft Tax.
Of course as soon as I got it home and set up I put OpenOffice.Org on it, but the fact it came with significantly less M$ than most new machines was cool. I now use OpenOffice.Org as my principle WordProcessor/SpeadSheet/Presentation package. I only use M$-Office for Access and if I have to use a template that has VBA macros in it for work.
I've now converted a number of my friends and collegues to OpenOffice.Org and many have reported that after about half an hour of playing they were just as good with it as they had been with M$ Office (they were all quite experienced users of M$ Office) and after a few days they've noticed that their productivity has improved and it's a lot easier to use.
That is why Microsoft are planning pretty much exactly what is proposed in Longhorn. And oracle have had a product on the market (albeit aimed at corporate multi user markets) to do this for a couple of years now called "Collaboration suite".
An open source equivalent shouldn't be that difficult, if sufficient people got interested enough.
By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 02 September 2003, 10:51
A REPORT ON a German web site said that SCO faces a fine of 10,000 or alternatively its CEO can spend 10 days in clink for violating an injunction.
According to Pro-Linux.de, the site kept on claiming that Linux breaches SCO intellectual property and copyrights, even though it was ordered by a German judge earlier this year to stop doing that.
The site claims that SCO has to divvy up the Euros with delay.
One alternsative to the Peter Principle is to find someone who is competant at their job but maybe shows a degree of management aptitude and give them a controlled taste of management. So, for example, a member of a team might be given the opportunity to 'cover' for the team manager when they are on leave. If they rise to the challenge then they can be given increasing authority and mentoring until their current manager moves on and they're ready and able to move up. That also aids the transition as the team are already used to going to them for management decisions so it's not a total shock. If they don't rise to the challenge then they won't be in control long enough to do any serious damage or to see losing that control as a demotion (as might be the case in the 'trial promotion' scenario that often get's suggested.
The term assault rifle refers to a class of weapons characterized by high calibre and high rates of fire. They're designed for use in military assaults, hence the term 'Assault Rifle'. Think M16, AK47, Uzi &c.
I've never actually played "Redneck Rampage", whatever that is (the title gives me a mental image of a game similar to Duke Nukem but with Moonshine instead of shrink guns). I do, however, watch the news and pay attention to what's going on. I was aluding to a case, in 1992, which occured in Texas where an unemployed truck driver shot two Japanese tourists who had just walked up to his porch to ask directions as they were lost. At trial he pled not guilty citing the second and fourth ammendments, claiming that he was defending his home from an unlawful entry. I'm not sure if he has been executed yet but a key point of the decision was ratification of the right of a householder to defend their home against unlawful invasion and to consider entry into the grounds of the house in the same degree as entry into the house itself so long as a physical barrier was breached to enact such entry. Opening a gate constitutes breach of a physical barrier even if said gate was not locked. The finding of guilty was based not on the action of commiting violence on the tourists but on the degree of said violence. In other words he had the right to order them from his land and use physical means to ensure they left, shooting them dead without warning was considered excessive. It is not unknown (infact it's bloody common) for second ammendment advocates to attempt to argue that you have carte blanche to use lethal force on anyone on your land uninvited. I guess the moral is, don't stop for directions in Texas.
I find it difficult to reconcile the phrase "A well maintained militia..." with the concept of allowing you to keep an assualt rifle so you can blow away anyone who comes up you path to ask for directions because they're lost. Even if they are tourists.
What the second ammendment is 'for' in the US is to protect the right of the state government to raise, train and deploy an armed civil militia to overthrow a plutocratic federal government and the rights of the citizens to keep, bear and be trained in arms to participate in such a militia.
I get about a dozen texts a week advertising new films. Fortunately as they cost the sender but not me (unlike SPAM email which is virtually free to the sender but costs me money) I don't have to get too annoyed about them.
As an aside. I went to see "American Pie: The Wedding" last night. Overall I liked it. Started out pretty good, sagged a bit in the middle (mainly the Stiffler related bits) but finished up well. Not the best movie ever made but worth a look if you liked the other two. I'm going to see "What a girl wants" this evening (in about an hour and a half), I'll post my views in my journal on LiveJournal if anyone's interested.
These days on a big blockbuster film or major TV show (especially in the SF&F or Anime genres) the take at the box office (or advertising revenue on first showing for TV shows) is a miniscule proportion of the total income. Video/DVD adds some but still not that much. The biggest income is from the merchandising. All those posters, plastic figures, replica items in the film/show, commemorative shot glasses, comic books, tie in novels and even the picture printed on the side of a happy/kids club/whatever box feeds into the licensed products income which frequently dwarfs the initial income and will usually continue trickling in for years after the film has left the theatres.
Here in the UK items must be "...as described and fit for purpose." (my emphasis). Whilst you could get away with 'selling the sizzle' under the first part when you sell a winter coat as making you look cool even though it's not wind or water proof, by simply describing it as a coat and selling it when the winter clothing is in the stores you'll run afoul of the second part. By requiring an item to be fit for purpose, the law (Trades Descriptions Act (1957)) requires that an item not only conform to the explicitly claimed features but also to any that a reasonable consumer would expect for that class of product. For example a winter coat should be wind and rain proof; an 'Economy' car should have better miles per gallon on fuel than a car not described that way; a 'long life' light bulb should last significantly longer than an ordinary light bulb &c.
Obviously the language is quite wolly (e.g. how much longer does a 'long life' light bulb have to last?) and would require arguing in court. I have, however, sucessfully argued refunds or replacements in stores by refering to the "fit for purpose" clause int he Trades Descriptions Act.
I think that it would be interesting if someone were to contact a film distributor that advertised a film with the slogan "The funniest film you'll see this year!" (or scariest, most thirlling, most romantic or whatever) and point out that they'd seen another film that year that was funnier (or scarier, more thrilling &c).
The guy who invented the Work Mate made several prototypes in the process of inventing it. When he was going round trying to find a manufacturer he had a rough model made of timber and held together with screws and nails which demonstrated the principles but looks nothing like the finished article.
If you're going to accept making one prototype as preventing you from losing your patent then you run into the problem I outlined in the last paragraph of my comment:
You couldn't even start producing units on a small scale yourself whilst looking for a manufacturer, it wouldn't take long for a lawyer to find a judge who agreed that you were not making a real effort to produce a product but were just trying to prevent others from producing a competing product by complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.
Your patent could be overturned by someone who could afford a bigger lawyer than you because you can't afford to move to large scale production. Sure you could appeal but in the time it would take they could have a line of products at or ready to go to market and would say "He was just sitting on the patent not letting anyone else produce product. Anyhow, he reads Slashdot so he must be a commie terrorist, don't let him get away with it!" (it's been a long day).
Or put it another way. Supposing I invented a very highly efficient electric motor that would produce high torque over long periods, say it would propel a typical family car 500 miles on a fully charged typical 12 volt lead-acid accumulator without needing to recharge. I patented it and built a prototype which I put into a family car and drove 500 miles using only one 12 volt lead-acid accumulator without needing to recharge. Under your proposal I can keep my patent for the next however many years, I believe it's 15-20 depending on the country and style of patent. Dubbya pops around to see me that next day and says his pals in the oil industry want to buy my patent for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. So I sell it to them and go buy an island somewhere. They then take my patent and lock it away in a big safe, only bringing it out to sue into oblivion anyone who tries to invent highly efficient electric motors claiming my patent (now their patent) constitutes prior art and they're in violation of that patent. My motor never gets made until the patent runs out, well except in Japan.
If you allow a single prototype to satisfy the requirement to actually build something using the patent then all you do is require patent holding companies to hire someone to make a prototype/working model, but if you don't you destroy a load of small/independant innovators. Life sucks sometimes.
This isn't something non-obvious or hard to research.... It's like patenting vulcanization and then suing every tire manufacturer after they've been doing it for years. That is the silliness.
Vulcanization was patented in 1838 by Nathaniel Manley Hayward (US Patent 1090 with was granted in 1839) and immedietly assigned to Goodyear. There is evidence of prior art (Leuchs and Ludersdorf, both in Germany) and even a competing patent (BP9952/1843)for a similar process.
What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires?
That would actually be quite dangerous and would disadvantage a lot of small/independant inventers (ranging from people who do R&D for a living through to people who just had a good idea and decided to see if they could make some money off it). Supposing you have an idea for some gadget that is novel enough to be considered original and patentable. You draw it out, write some decriptions and if appropriate make a few models to demonstrate it. You then go to the patent office, pay the fees and get a shiny new patent.
As so often happens these days (these days being anytime since the Industrial Revolution) whilst you came up with the idea you simply don't have the resources to produce the product and bring it to market. Maybe it needs large scale production to be viable (e.g. a new DIY tool) or it is only really useful as part of a larger item that already exists (e.g. a rebreather valve for the oxygen system of a diving suit). You can't make it yourself (not for a price you could realistically sell it at) and couldn't market it if you did because you don't have the infrastructure. You have to go to various companies and try to get them to license your idea, probably going to companies already in the market you're invention fits into. This can take more than a year, more than 2 years, more than 5 years. If I recall correctly the inventer of the 'Workmate' took 8 years of hawking around various tools companies from getting his patent until Black and Decker finally decided to produce it.
Setting a time limit from patent to when the first unit must be in production would probably lead to either inventers losing their patents despite their best efforts or having to show a product to potential manufacturers without the protection of a patent so having no recourse if they then started to produce it or a product based upon it. You couldn't even start producing units on a small scale yourself whilst looking for a manufacturer, it would take long for a lawyer to find a judge who agreed that you were not making a real effort to produce a product but were just trying to prevent others from producing a competing product by complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.
The second ammendment to the US constitution, when read completely and bearing in mind the context of the times it was written, seems to be more talking about the right of the state's governments to raise militias to overthrow a federal government.
Or, to put it another way, the second ammendment doesn't guarentee your right to overthrow the federal government but it does guarentee the right of your state to raise, maintain and train a militia to overthrow a federal government and your right to bear arms to participate in such a militia. The text of the second ammendment is:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
Note that the first clause refers to the concept of a well regulated militia, implying a body of trained men under military style command. The second clause gives them the purpose of ensuring the security of a free state. It is only in the third clause that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", the part that is most often quoted and many seem to believe is the totality of the second ammendment, appears. Comparisons of the actual text with what some claim it means is left as an exercise for the reader.
I was trying for 'Funny'. Oh well, I suppose humor does tend to be rather subjective.
Given the predilection for US based companies to sue overseas people and companies in florida I thought it might be fitting that SCO be sued in Europe and elsewhere. The thing about the photos was a joke referencing the frequent suggestions of linking people out of favor with the/. crowd with either copyright infringement (thus making them a target of RIAA or MPAA) or terrorism (thus making themn a target for Dubbya). Like I said, subjective.
What would happen if the next version of the kernel simply rewrote the disputed parts of the code? Or, at least if there were some parts that were more in question than others, just these?
The problem with that is that SCO have yet to actually tell anyone what the disputed parts are without making them sign loads of Non-Disclosure Agreements. It is likely that these NDAs prevent them from removing/rewriting the kernel to remove the disputed code. If they did then the disputed code could be identified by simply running diff against the source containing the disputed code and the source with it removed/rewritten, which would constitute an implicit disclosure.
I was thinking earlier today how cool it would be if SuSe were to sue SCO in Germany, Novell (through Ximian) in Mexico, Chinese government in China &c. Screw them as much as possible in as many different legal systems as possible. Where possible get some sort of judgement against the directors as individuals as well as corporately against SCO. Destroy their stock price and make sure they can't travel out side the US (preferably inside as well) without getting arrested for contempt of court or something like that.
Even better! does anyone have photos of McBride playing golf with Bin Laden and Saddam?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's cos I'm English but, I think that should clearly be modded funny due to the wonderful irony it contains. Maybe it's true that yanks just don't understand irony? How could anyone possibly believe that anyone would actually believe any of that? Even managers don't actually believe it, they just pretend to cos it's easier than motivating the workers.
Keep up the irony! One day it will get through.
Stephen
You might have to run catman first to build the keyword indexes. Some distros do it automatically, others don't (often it depends on what options you've selected when you install).
Stephen
Assuming US police are reasonably like those in other countries, you probably wouldn't even get busted for a 'loose spliff' unless you were trying to sell it to someone. It's not worth their while doing the paperwork for it.
Heck, they'd probably just confiscate it, borrow your lighter to spark it then leave you to go about your business whilst they went about their's.
Stephen
It also solves the problems of if I have a letter to Smith and Sons (Builders) about a bridge construction project do I store it under letters/Smith&Sons/Bridge or Smith&Sons/letters/bridge or bridge/Smith&Sons/letters or projects/builders/bridge/smith&sons/letters or what. With a database based file system you store it once and tag it as a letter, to Smith and Sons (Builders) about the bridge construction project (and any other tags you would like to apply to it) and then when you want to find it again you can just go through which ever access path you like. Also you can then find all letters, all documents relating to Bridge construction, all documents relating to Smith&Sons &*c.
Last time I posted about something like this a coupel of people posted responses stipulating an 'ideal' directory path. To preclude this I must point out that whatever method of classification makes most sense to you and the tasks you do won't make sense to someone else and the tasks they do. For example to a project manager it makes sense to classify documents by the projects they are part of then probably by the document type as they are only interested in the projects they manage and don't want to have to navigate through multiple branches of a directory tree to locate all of the files for their projects (if they are working ont he brige construction project they want all the documents to be under a directroy called 'bridge_construction' but for a finacial director it makes sense to classify the documents by type they are as they are only interested in financial documants and don't want to have to navigate through multiple branches of a directory tree to find all of the financial documents (if they are looking for all invoices from Smith and Sons they want to find them all under invoices/smith&sons). A database based storage system allows everyone to view the data int he way that makes most sense to them and the way that they work.
Stephen
There was a comparison done early in 2002. Results are here. I know from my own experience that OpenOffice.Org virtually never has problems with M$-Office files. I've now switched fully to OpenOffice.Org for everything except Access databases cos I got fed up of Word and Excel corrupting documents so I had to retype them. I have to have M$-Office on my PC due to corporate standards, I just don't use it for wordprocessing, presentations or spreadsheets. No one has complained about not being able to open one of my files (well, except one guy who complained when I sent him a PDF that he couldn't edit it, he was even more pissed off when I replied "That's the point!").
Stephen
The most famous geek in the world was Milo Hoffman!
Stephen
I bought a new PC a few weeks ago. The OS was Windows XP Home but that was the only Microsoft product on it. For an office suite it had Star Office 5.2. I would have prefered 6 or even OpenOffice.Org but it was better than paying Microsoft Tax.
Of course as soon as I got it home and set up I put OpenOffice.Org on it, but the fact it came with significantly less M$ than most new machines was cool. I now use OpenOffice.Org as my principle WordProcessor/SpeadSheet/Presentation package. I only use M$-Office for Access and if I have to use a template that has VBA macros in it for work.
I've now converted a number of my friends and collegues to OpenOffice.Org and many have reported that after about half an hour of playing they were just as good with it as they had been with M$ Office (they were all quite experienced users of M$ Office) and after a few days they've noticed that their productivity has improved and it's a lot easier to use.
Stephen
That is why Microsoft are planning pretty much exactly what is proposed in Longhorn. And oracle have had a product on the market (albeit aimed at corporate multi user markets) to do this for a couple of years now called "Collaboration suite".
An open source equivalent shouldn't be that difficult, if sufficient people got interested enough.
Stephen
The Inquirer:
Stephen
One alternsative to the Peter Principle is to find someone who is competant at their job but maybe shows a degree of management aptitude and give them a controlled taste of management. So, for example, a member of a team might be given the opportunity to 'cover' for the team manager when they are on leave. If they rise to the challenge then they can be given increasing authority and mentoring until their current manager moves on and they're ready and able to move up. That also aids the transition as the team are already used to going to them for management decisions so it's not a total shock. If they don't rise to the challenge then they won't be in control long enough to do any serious damage or to see losing that control as a demotion (as might be the case in the 'trial promotion' scenario that often get's suggested.
Stephen
The term assault rifle refers to a class of weapons characterized by high calibre and high rates of fire. They're designed for use in military assaults, hence the term 'Assault Rifle'. Think M16, AK47, Uzi &c.
I've never actually played "Redneck Rampage", whatever that is (the title gives me a mental image of a game similar to Duke Nukem but with Moonshine instead of shrink guns). I do, however, watch the news and pay attention to what's going on. I was aluding to a case, in 1992, which occured in Texas where an unemployed truck driver shot two Japanese tourists who had just walked up to his porch to ask directions as they were lost. At trial he pled not guilty citing the second and fourth ammendments, claiming that he was defending his home from an unlawful entry. I'm not sure if he has been executed yet but a key point of the decision was ratification of the right of a householder to defend their home against unlawful invasion and to consider entry into the grounds of the house in the same degree as entry into the house itself so long as a physical barrier was breached to enact such entry. Opening a gate constitutes breach of a physical barrier even if said gate was not locked. The finding of guilty was based not on the action of commiting violence on the tourists but on the degree of said violence. In other words he had the right to order them from his land and use physical means to ensure they left, shooting them dead without warning was considered excessive. It is not unknown (infact it's bloody common) for second ammendment advocates to attempt to argue that you have carte blanche to use lethal force on anyone on your land uninvited. I guess the moral is, don't stop for directions in Texas.
Stephen
I find it difficult to reconcile the phrase "A well maintained militia..." with the concept of allowing you to keep an assualt rifle so you can blow away anyone who comes up you path to ask for directions because they're lost. Even if they are tourists.
Stephen
What the second ammendment is 'for' in the US is to protect the right of the state government to raise, train and deploy an armed civil militia to overthrow a plutocratic federal government and the rights of the citizens to keep, bear and be trained in arms to participate in such a militia.
Stephen
"They're called boobs, Ed."
I get about a dozen texts a week advertising new films. Fortunately as they cost the sender but not me (unlike SPAM email which is virtually free to the sender but costs me money) I don't have to get too annoyed about them.
As an aside. I went to see "American Pie: The Wedding" last night. Overall I liked it. Started out pretty good, sagged a bit in the middle (mainly the Stiffler related bits) but finished up well. Not the best movie ever made but worth a look if you liked the other two. I'm going to see "What a girl wants" this evening (in about an hour and a half), I'll post my views in my journal on LiveJournal if anyone's interested.
Stephen
These days on a big blockbuster film or major TV show (especially in the SF&F or Anime genres) the take at the box office (or advertising revenue on first showing for TV shows) is a miniscule proportion of the total income. Video/DVD adds some but still not that much. The biggest income is from the merchandising. All those posters, plastic figures, replica items in the film/show, commemorative shot glasses, comic books, tie in novels and even the picture printed on the side of a happy/kids club/whatever box feeds into the licensed products income which frequently dwarfs the initial income and will usually continue trickling in for years after the film has left the theatres.
Stephen
Here in the UK items must be "...as described and fit for purpose." (my emphasis). Whilst you could get away with 'selling the sizzle' under the first part when you sell a winter coat as making you look cool even though it's not wind or water proof, by simply describing it as a coat and selling it when the winter clothing is in the stores you'll run afoul of the second part. By requiring an item to be fit for purpose, the law (Trades Descriptions Act (1957)) requires that an item not only conform to the explicitly claimed features but also to any that a reasonable consumer would expect for that class of product. For example a winter coat should be wind and rain proof; an 'Economy' car should have better miles per gallon on fuel than a car not described that way; a 'long life' light bulb should last significantly longer than an ordinary light bulb &c.
Obviously the language is quite wolly (e.g. how much longer does a 'long life' light bulb have to last?) and would require arguing in court. I have, however, sucessfully argued refunds or replacements in stores by refering to the "fit for purpose" clause int he Trades Descriptions Act.
I think that it would be interesting if someone were to contact a film distributor that advertised a film with the slogan "The funniest film you'll see this year!" (or scariest, most thirlling, most romantic or whatever) and point out that they'd seen another film that year that was funnier (or scarier, more thrilling &c).
Stephen
The guy who invented the Work Mate made several prototypes in the process of inventing it. When he was going round trying to find a manufacturer he had a rough model made of timber and held together with screws and nails which demonstrated the principles but looks nothing like the finished article.
If you're going to accept making one prototype as preventing you from losing your patent then you run into the problem I outlined in the last paragraph of my comment:
Your patent could be overturned by someone who could afford a bigger lawyer than you because you can't afford to move to large scale production. Sure you could appeal but in the time it would take they could have a line of products at or ready to go to market and would say "He was just sitting on the patent not letting anyone else produce product. Anyhow, he reads Slashdot so he must be a commie terrorist, don't let him get away with it!" (it's been a long day).Or put it another way. Supposing I invented a very highly efficient electric motor that would produce high torque over long periods, say it would propel a typical family car 500 miles on a fully charged typical 12 volt lead-acid accumulator without needing to recharge. I patented it and built a prototype which I put into a family car and drove 500 miles using only one 12 volt lead-acid accumulator without needing to recharge. Under your proposal I can keep my patent for the next however many years, I believe it's 15-20 depending on the country and style of patent. Dubbya pops around to see me that next day and says his pals in the oil industry want to buy my patent for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. So I sell it to them and go buy an island somewhere. They then take my patent and lock it away in a big safe, only bringing it out to sue into oblivion anyone who tries to invent highly efficient electric motors claiming my patent (now their patent) constitutes prior art and they're in violation of that patent. My motor never gets made until the patent runs out, well except in Japan.
If you allow a single prototype to satisfy the requirement to actually build something using the patent then all you do is require patent holding companies to hire someone to make a prototype/working model, but if you don't you destroy a load of small/independant innovators. Life sucks sometimes.
Stephen
Vulcanization was patented in 1838 by Nathaniel Manley Hayward (US Patent 1090 with was granted in 1839) and immedietly assigned to Goodyear. There is evidence of prior art (Leuchs and Ludersdorf, both in Germany) and even a competing patent (BP9952/1843)for a similar process.
Perhaps you might like to choose another example?
Stephen
That would actually be quite dangerous and would disadvantage a lot of small/independant inventers (ranging from people who do R&D for a living through to people who just had a good idea and decided to see if they could make some money off it). Supposing you have an idea for some gadget that is novel enough to be considered original and patentable. You draw it out, write some decriptions and if appropriate make a few models to demonstrate it. You then go to the patent office, pay the fees and get a shiny new patent.
As so often happens these days (these days being anytime since the Industrial Revolution) whilst you came up with the idea you simply don't have the resources to produce the product and bring it to market. Maybe it needs large scale production to be viable (e.g. a new DIY tool) or it is only really useful as part of a larger item that already exists (e.g. a rebreather valve for the oxygen system of a diving suit). You can't make it yourself (not for a price you could realistically sell it at) and couldn't market it if you did because you don't have the infrastructure. You have to go to various companies and try to get them to license your idea, probably going to companies already in the market you're invention fits into. This can take more than a year, more than 2 years, more than 5 years. If I recall correctly the inventer of the 'Workmate' took 8 years of hawking around various tools companies from getting his patent until Black and Decker finally decided to produce it.
Setting a time limit from patent to when the first unit must be in production would probably lead to either inventers losing their patents despite their best efforts or having to show a product to potential manufacturers without the protection of a patent so having no recourse if they then started to produce it or a product based upon it. You couldn't even start producing units on a small scale yourself whilst looking for a manufacturer, it would take long for a lawyer to find a judge who agreed that you were not making a real effort to produce a product but were just trying to prevent others from producing a competing product by complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.
Stephen
What do you do if you're in a crowded theatre and notice a fire?
Stephen
The second ammendment to the US constitution, when read completely and bearing in mind the context of the times it was written, seems to be more talking about the right of the state's governments to raise militias to overthrow a federal government.
Or, to put it another way, the second ammendment doesn't guarentee your right to overthrow the federal government but it does guarentee the right of your state to raise, maintain and train a militia to overthrow a federal government and your right to bear arms to participate in such a militia. The text of the second ammendment is:
Note that the first clause refers to the concept of a well regulated militia, implying a body of trained men under military style command. The second clause gives them the purpose of ensuring the security of a free state. It is only in the third clause that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", the part that is most often quoted and many seem to believe is the totality of the second ammendment, appears. Comparisons of the actual text with what some claim it means is left as an exercise for the reader.
Stephen
I was trying for 'Funny'. Oh well, I suppose humor does tend to be rather subjective.
Given the predilection for US based companies to sue overseas people and companies in florida I thought it might be fitting that SCO be sued in Europe and elsewhere. The thing about the photos was a joke referencing the frequent suggestions of linking people out of favor with the /. crowd with either copyright infringement (thus making them a target of RIAA or MPAA) or terrorism (thus making themn a target for Dubbya). Like I said, subjective.
Stephen
The problem with that is that SCO have yet to actually tell anyone what the disputed parts are without making them sign loads of Non-Disclosure Agreements. It is likely that these NDAs prevent them from removing/rewriting the kernel to remove the disputed code. If they did then the disputed code could be identified by simply running diff against the source containing the disputed code and the source with it removed/rewritten, which would constitute an implicit disclosure.
IANAL, but I sometimes think a bit like one.
Stephen
I was thinking earlier today how cool it would be if SuSe were to sue SCO in Germany, Novell (through Ximian) in Mexico, Chinese government in China &c. Screw them as much as possible in as many different legal systems as possible. Where possible get some sort of judgement against the directors as individuals as well as corporately against SCO. Destroy their stock price and make sure they can't travel out side the US (preferably inside as well) without getting arrested for contempt of court or something like that.
Even better! does anyone have photos of McBride playing golf with Bin Laden and Saddam?
Vindicitve? Moi?
Stephen