well, i may not agree with the assertion that Bush is a smart man, i do believe he's come a long way since last year.
i mean, i know it was a bit of a tough quiz and all, but goddammit, i want my president to know at least something about the world outside of texas and mexico.
yeah, people used to argue similar points WRT Clinton, i.e. he's the commander-in-chief of the military, yet has on many occasions participated in behavior that would get any normal soldier thrown out on his ass.
seems, when it comes to the president, i guess most people don't care about such things. hmph.
actually, i was only referring to the use of the word "lockbox" to describe holding onto money, a phrase gore has annoyingly used many, many times. that's why i mentioned it was probably his speech writers "ripping off gore". but thanks anyway.
not only that, but he (or his speech writers) are starting to rip off gore
Of that surplus, I want to take over half of it to help save Social Security. I will put that money into a "Lockbox" so that government can't spend it, except on Social Security benefits.
it hasn't been around for very long, there's a bunch of squabbling over who owns what, with no end in sight, like the net. instead of jews and palestinians, its consumers/users and lawyers/corporations.
wow, i'm agreeing with Katz, that's messed up like a soup sandwich...
Carver believes that by forgoing the prize they may not be required to sign any nondisclosure agreements.
The group doesn't believe watermarks are useless -- but merely inadequate for this kind of project. As Craver puts it, "We are not out to get the recording industry; if our results can help anyone develop a better security system, we're happy."
Scott Craver is my brother (i'm so proud *sniff*). For some reason, nobody, not the press, the post office, those fucks at TV Guide, NOBODY can spell our last name right. COME ON, PEOPLE, ITS ONLY SIX DAMN LETTERS!!
Is it really too much to believe that every great once in a while the liberal left, otherwise known as the United States media, could take a break from bashing anything even remotely conservative, to actually report the lies and scandals of the current administration? If a conservative president had done anything remotely like what Clinton has done he would have been removed from office.
so i take it that for the last few years you've been on Mars, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears. I mean, the guy was friggin impeached for cryin' out loud! and his not being thrown out of office had a lot to do with the fact that a republican senate and house couldn't even get a majority to condemn the guy. i mean, Clinton has unfortunately gotten away with a lot more than he should have, but to act as if the media ignored the (many) Clinton scnadals is ludicrous.
You are accusing me of doing the same thing you have done
um... no, i'm accusing you of being ignorant. to think that someone should "get back on the boat they arrived on and go away" because they happen to (god forbid) believe that socialism really might not be that bad, is reprehensible and insulting. christ, man, this isn't the 50's anymore, anti-foreign sentiment is no longer what the US is all about. grow up.
This is America. If you don't like it, you can leave it!! Nuff said.
no offense man, but i think its attitudes like yours which are screwing things up here. do you honestly think anything is ever going to change if some douchebag starts screaming "America: love it or leave it, punk" everytime someone offers a new point of view? jeez, get a grip.
I'll still pull my Apple//c out of mothballs every few weeks just to play Ultima IV because it's a story I've been engrossed in for well over 10 years.
Hell yeah, i just finally beat Ultima V a few months ago. took me the better part of 12 years. funny thing is, when i got the C64 emulator for my PC and got U5, i thought i'd never get through it because i'd just get bored.
turns out it was even cooler than i remembered. felt fuckin great to finally make it all the way through it, too.
FPS are good and all, but give me Maniac Mansion anyday.
---
Re:Field's Medal==Nobel Prizes for Mathematics
on
Nobel Prizes
·
· Score: 1
Anyone got a link to the solution to Fermat's Last Theorem?
yes, i have the link to the solution; unfortunately, it is too small to fit in the comment box.
a container for the holding of a liquid beverage, comprising a generally cylindrical hollow glass container with a top opening for addition or removal of said beverage.
well, i guess OpenTV has only held assignment of the patent for about a year or so anyway (before it was Thompson Consumer Electonics Inc.). assignment data shows the patent has been assigned to OpenTV since late september 1999. ten bux sez OpenTV didn't even realize they had the patent until some patent agent or attorney noticed it cited in another application or something, who knows.
i would love it if all the drug companies didn't patent their inventions, and the new drugs were open to all to be made cheaply. problem is, tell that to the bank. no pharmaceutical company would invest in R&D if there wasn't a chance they'd get any return. you could give the government the responsibility, but that would open a brand new can o' worms... a lot of drugs would never be investigated due to things like precedence, lobbying efforts, etc. it would probably streamline the FDA system tho.
isn't this what the patent office is supposed to do - make sure an invention can't be patented twice, either by the same individual, or another individual
not quite. technically, an inventor can get the same invention patented as many times as he wants, because we can't use the old patents against his new app. (since the art is too new). that's why we have the doctrine of double patenting, which says you can get as many patents as you want on your (by you i mean an assignee or an inventor) invention, but none of them can extend past the oldest one. so person A can get a patent on person B's already patented invention IF they are both assigned to a common assignee and the latter portion of the later invention is disclaimed.
2. That is what I meant - getting rid of the assignee system (in addition). I don't mind the number of submissions, and the courts should hear any grievances, etc - if it causes headaches, so be it - at least it will be heard (or maybe a better system could be come up with to lessen the court problems).
yeah, but think about it this way: using the doctrine of double patenting, we connect patents together so that one inventor cannot get several patents on the same invention (i.e. extend his right to exclude). we also do it to tie the inventions to the same assignee so that the inventor can't get three patents on the same invention and sell 'em to three different assignees and cause massive infringement lawsuits. i think removing the assignee system would be more trouble than its worth.
In the case of such a network - I tend to wonder if it would be patentable at all (under my suggested guidlines). Sticking an attenna up in the air and flashing data between nodes is old hat, so anything patentable would have to be hardware related
yeah, flashing data between nodes may be old, but I'm talking about large-scale big motherfucking networks, with wireless, wireline portions etc. the networks i examine aren't as simple as that (don't i wish), in fact they're pretty complex.
1. Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business methods (and possibly naturally occuring things - like DNA/genes).
a good idea. but you have to be more specific as to what youmean by 'algorithm'. we patent processes all the time, they make up a big portion of patents. we can't get rid of them that easily. business methods, IMHO, can go to hell.
2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.
a good idea. problem is, all US Patents are by individula inventors. we could get rid of the assignee system (i.e. companies holding a stake in the patent) but it wouldn't change the number of applications per year, and would only mean more headaches at the level of the courts.
3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.
good idea.
4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.
not sure about that one.
5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.
that's a bit hard in the area where i work. i'd like to see a scale model of a cellular data network. (no really, i would actually like to see one.)
i don't know about that... unfortunately, R&D costs money. no company is going to lay down billions of dollars to develop the next AIDS drug just to watch some other company copy it once its been perfected. that's one of the reasons we give people patents, to allow them to make $ back after all the work they may have put into developing the technology.
I understand that at the moment there is an incentive for them to grant as many patents as possible, since they get paid by number of patents granted.
that's not even wrong. we at the PTO get paid in salary like everybody else. if anything, we overreject cases, i.e. hold out as long as possible; most of my rejections will probably get tossed out by the appeals board, but in my opinion, most stuff just isn't inventive/nonobvious. i've been working at the PTO for like 2 years, and i've only allowed about 15 applications. and i work on about 7 or 8 a biweek.
To fix that, there should be added an incentive not to grant wrong patents: for every patent that is overthrown later, they should get a (hefty) fine.
yeah, great idea. examiners are leaving the PTO in droves 'cause they're underpaid, so let's make us responsible for any mistakes we make in the few hours we're given per case. wise.
Slashdot Mirror
i mean, i know it was a bit of a tough quiz and all, but goddammit, i want my president to know at least something about the world outside of texas and mexico.
---
seems, when it comes to the president, i guess most people don't care about such things. hmph.
---
actually, i was only referring to the use of the word "lockbox" to describe holding onto money, a phrase gore has annoyingly used many, many times. that's why i mentioned it was probably his speech writers "ripping off gore". but thanks anyway.
---
Of that surplus, I want to take over half of it to help save Social Security. I will put that money into a "Lockbox" so that government can't spend it, except on Social Security benefits.
---
i thought hippies started that program in the 60's...
---
it hasn't been around for very long, there's a bunch of squabbling over who owns what, with no end in sight, like the net. instead of jews and palestinians, its consumers/users and lawyers/corporations.
wow, i'm agreeing with Katz, that's messed up like a soup sandwich...
---
or, as some of us like to call it, "the supercollider"
---
The group doesn't believe watermarks are useless -- but merely inadequate for this kind of project. As Craver puts it, "We are not out to get the recording industry; if our results can help anyone develop a better security system, we're happy."
Scott Craver is my brother (i'm so proud *sniff*). For some reason, nobody, not the press, the post office, those fucks at TV Guide, NOBODY can spell our last name right. COME ON, PEOPLE, ITS ONLY SIX DAMN LETTERS!!
well, they spelled it right a few times at least.
---
so i take it that for the last few years you've been on Mars, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears. I mean, the guy was friggin impeached for cryin' out loud! and his not being thrown out of office had a lot to do with the fact that a republican senate and house couldn't even get a majority to condemn the guy. i mean, Clinton has unfortunately gotten away with a lot more than he should have, but to act as if the media ignored the (many) Clinton scnadals is ludicrous.
---
i thought Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1436...
---
um... no, i'm accusing you of being ignorant. to think that someone should "get back on the boat they arrived on and go away" because they happen to (god forbid) believe that socialism really might not be that bad, is reprehensible and insulting. christ, man, this isn't the 50's anymore, anti-foreign sentiment is no longer what the US is all about. grow up.
---
no offense man, but i think its attitudes like yours which are screwing things up here. do you honestly think anything is ever going to change if some douchebag starts screaming "America: love it or leave it, punk" everytime someone offers a new point of view? jeez, get a grip.
---
Hell yeah, i just finally beat Ultima V a few months ago. took me the better part of 12 years. funny thing is, when i got the C64 emulator for my PC and got U5, i thought i'd never get through it because i'd just get bored.
turns out it was even cooler than i remembered. felt fuckin great to finally make it all the way through it, too.
FPS are good and all, but give me Maniac Mansion anyday.
---
yes, i have the link to the solution; unfortunately, it is too small to fit in the comment box.
sorry.
---
the scary thing is, THE RUSSIANS BEAT ME TO IT BY PATENTING THE BOTTLE!
no joke. then again, this is at the russian patent office, which is even more lenient than the USPTO...
---
you've got a robotic broad and you're going to make yourself a sandwich??
---
CYGQ RTTY FAPRRG QYIDH GBNV XCM SKAF LPQFRPLS!! or the machine gets it...
---
well, i guess OpenTV has only held assignment of the patent for about a year or so anyway (before it was Thompson Consumer Electonics Inc.). assignment data shows the patent has been assigned to OpenTV since late september 1999. ten bux sez OpenTV didn't even realize they had the patent until some patent agent or attorney noticed it cited in another application or something, who knows.
---
i would love it if all the drug companies didn't patent their inventions, and the new drugs were open to all to be made cheaply. problem is, tell that to the bank. no pharmaceutical company would invest in R&D if there wasn't a chance they'd get any return. you could give the government the responsibility, but that would open a brand new can o' worms... a lot of drugs would never be investigated due to things like precedence, lobbying efforts, etc. it would probably streamline the FDA system tho.
---
not quite. technically, an inventor can get the same invention patented as many times as he wants, because we can't use the old patents against his new app. (since the art is too new). that's why we have the doctrine of double patenting, which says you can get as many patents as you want on your (by you i mean an assignee or an inventor) invention, but none of them can extend past the oldest one. so person A can get a patent on person B's already patented invention IF they are both assigned to a common assignee and the latter portion of the later invention is disclaimed.
---
yeah, but think about it this way: using the doctrine of double patenting, we connect patents together so that one inventor cannot get several patents on the same invention (i.e. extend his right to exclude). we also do it to tie the inventions to the same assignee so that the inventor can't get three patents on the same invention and sell 'em to three different assignees and cause massive infringement lawsuits. i think removing the assignee system would be more trouble than its worth.
In the case of such a network - I tend to wonder if it would be patentable at all (under my suggested guidlines). Sticking an attenna up in the air and flashing data between nodes is old hat, so anything patentable would have to be hardware related
yeah, flashing data between nodes may be old, but I'm talking about large-scale big motherfucking networks, with wireless, wireline portions etc. the networks i examine aren't as simple as that (don't i wish), in fact they're pretty complex.
---
the very first patent ever awarded was for a process (for making potash if i remember...)
---
a good idea. but you have to be more specific as to what youmean by 'algorithm'. we patent processes all the time, they make up a big portion of patents. we can't get rid of them that easily. business methods, IMHO, can go to hell.
2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.
a good idea. problem is, all US Patents are by individula inventors. we could get rid of the assignee system (i.e. companies holding a stake in the patent) but it wouldn't change the number of applications per year, and would only mean more headaches at the level of the courts.
3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.
good idea.
4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.
not sure about that one.
5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.
that's a bit hard in the area where i work. i'd like to see a scale model of a cellular data network. (no really, i would actually like to see one.)
---
i don't know about that... unfortunately, R&D costs money. no company is going to lay down billions of dollars to develop the next AIDS drug just to watch some other company copy it once its been perfected. that's one of the reasons we give people patents, to allow them to make $ back after all the work they may have put into developing the technology.
---
highly paid? *giggle*
I understand that at the moment there is an incentive for them to grant as many patents as possible, since they get paid by number of patents granted.
that's not even wrong. we at the PTO get paid in salary like everybody else. if anything, we overreject cases, i.e. hold out as long as possible; most of my rejections will probably get tossed out by the appeals board, but in my opinion, most stuff just isn't inventive/nonobvious. i've been working at the PTO for like 2 years, and i've only allowed about 15 applications. and i work on about 7 or 8 a biweek.
To fix that, there should be added an incentive not to grant wrong patents: for every patent that is overthrown later, they should get a (hefty) fine.
yeah, great idea. examiners are leaving the PTO in droves 'cause they're underpaid, so let's make us responsible for any mistakes we make in the few hours we're given per case. wise.
---