He did indeed "pass the data". To the Inspector General who was investigating the abuse of wiretaps. Whatever "proof" the government had that he passed it to a reporter was so Top Seeeekrit that the judge couldn't be allowed to see it under seal.
Which probably means that if that super-secret evidence (of a prior event that wasn't so secret the government could not press charges and claim publicly that this event happened) ever actually existed, the only excuse I can think of was that the evidence had been obtained illegally (ie from using the warrantless wiretaps the Inspector General was investigating on Congress and/or the Investigator General) and would have been not only inadmissible in court but would have blown the fucking lid off of the Capitol.
Funny how you skipped the 147 farmers sued under the patents, cited on your own page 6. The footnote on 7 was based on a federal circuit court of appeals decision (for a completely different circuit, meaning that it has absolutely no precedence in the circuit that this brief was filed in), has it been decided on the Supreme Court level whether it's OK to "accidentally" infringe on patents? Do keep in mind that the law makes it quite clear that "accidental infringement" is still infringement, due to the explicit separation between accidental and intentional infringement by demanding treble damages for intentional infringement. (What other kinds of infringement could there be other than "I meant to" and "I didn't mean to"?)
The only thing that saves you from completely imploding is that this Scruggs guy was caught seed from previous plantings and reselling it at his supply store.
I usually don't have to call bullshit on snopes, but they should have mentioned that the Cavendish is the second banana with widespread use. Panama Disease wiped out the Gros Michel banana plantations, and led to the development of Cavendish bananas, which were apparently resistant to Panama Disease (at the time).
Says the person who apparently believes that someone who wants to perform experiments to determine the safety of a product rather than taking the declaration of the High Priest... sorry, the manufacturer... at face value is "against science"
Assuming that everything is working, you can push the little gear icon next to the "Post Anonymously" checkbox (which I just now realized that after a year or so they finally made it not white-on-white). You can also push the Options button below the input box. Either one will open a Web 2.0!!! div that contains a checkbox with "No Karma Bonus?" and a save button. Check it, and Save. Then Post.
Posting without karma bonus, in case it doesn't work...
I was told that the cost of insurance was a major factor as to why the private hospitals were so much cheaper than in the US. The country had no liability litigation, so if something went wrong, you had no recourse. Of course there were other factors as well, such as much cheaper labor costs for nurses, maintenance, etc.. but as an example, a hospital stay was $200 a night, and an MRI was $250 wheras an MRI in the states would have been several times that.
I'm going to say that the answer was probably A) labor costs or B) cash-on-the-barrel vs health-insurance-billing-bureaucracy-overhead. Mostly A.
Texas has pretty much eliminated malpractice lawsuits for several years now, and it's still got the city with the second most expensive healthcare per-capita in the US. Doctors are spending much less on insurance here in Texas now, and they've got shiny new toys to prove it. My own doctor started wiring me up for an EKG every year. An OB I know dedicated the exam room next to the room with her ultrasound machine for some new bladder testing machine. I guess they've gotta spend their money on something, it's not like they can charge less when Aetna and everyone else dictates what they'll pay.
It really is that simple, I don't understand why everyone is up in arms... well I do.. people want something for nothing
Do you have a copy of windows? Did you pay all the companies that Microsoft had to license patents from in order to sell that copy of windows to you? No? Why not, why are you entitled to infringe their patents for free just because Microsoft paid?
Apple paid for a license for the iTunes Store. Apps use the iTunes Store to perform in-app purchases. Why should the app developers have to pay for iTunes using the patent, especially when Apple already purchased a license for the iTunes Store?
Not only that, Lodsys still has not explained how they believe in-app purchasing constitutes storing and receiving feedback from users of a commodity, as required in order to infringe on the claims in their patent, despite opening a blog to complain about their hate mail.
Additionally, the article claims that doing this would grant legitimacy to the Lodsys patent
This. I have STILL not seen any explanation from Lodsys as to how they believe making a purchase in-app is at all related to the patent they are claiming everyone needs to license:
Primary claims:
1. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
54. A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment...
60. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.
Not a single claim mentions purchasing or upgrading. One primary claim (54) requires a fax machine and is right out. Claim 60 requires that the interface is "configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve user's satisfaction" and is right out in the vast majority of cases. (Does anyone have a "buy" button that asks how they can make the user happier?) Claim 1 requires that the "commodity" be "configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity" and furthermore have a "memory" that stores the "results of the two-way local interaction,... including elicited information about user perception of the commodity".
Interestingly, this patent is a continuation of an abandoned application that was a continuation of another patent. As I understand it (thanks to wikipedia, since I'm not a lawyer), continuation patents cannot claim new functionality that was not present in the patent it claims to be a continuation of. (note that "continuation-in-part", which does allow adding new "subject matter", appears to be specifically noted when a patent is a CIP patent, like this one.)
As for Apple, Microsoft, etc licensing the patent. They have plenty of documentation pages that ask people to rate how helpful the documentation/support was, some of these p
Are you stumping up the cash by doubling your monthly ISP subscription for five years so that the cash is in hand for investment? No, I thought not.
Based on historical performance, if he DID "stump up the cash", AT&T would use it to buy Verizon or some other phone company instead of upgrading their infrastructure. After all, that's how AT&T was (re)born in the first place: SBC cancelling their fiber rollout and using the money they would have spent on infrastructure to buy up phone companies.
Of course, as they say, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The management might decide to pay themselves a huge bonus with the money instead.
He simply faced the consequences of saying it after the fact.
No, "consequences" are things like being mocked, ostracized, and otherwise not getting laid for the next 10 years. Action by the government because you said something the government didn't like is unconstitutional, except within the limits set forth by the Supreme Court. And no, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that hurting your feelings is anywhere near the level of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Also, what the fuck is this "after the fact" bullshit? You think the government has psychics working around the clock to prevent people from saying things they don't like? Just about everything the government does is "after the fact". That the government arrests you after you say something doesn't make it "ok" for them to arrest you for saying something.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Which is why in every state in the US I can think of, the guy who slammed into your back end is responsible.
They caught some places reducing the time it stayed yellow when they installed the cameras.
If he did indeed pass the data
He did indeed "pass the data". To the Inspector General who was investigating the abuse of wiretaps. Whatever "proof" the government had that he passed it to a reporter was so Top Seeeekrit that the judge couldn't be allowed to see it under seal.
Which probably means that if that super-secret evidence (of a prior event that wasn't so secret the government could not press charges and claim publicly that this event happened) ever actually existed, the only excuse I can think of was that the evidence had been obtained illegally (ie from using the warrantless wiretaps the Inspector General was investigating on Congress and/or the Investigator General) and would have been not only inadmissible in court but would have blown the fucking lid off of the Capitol.
never been to a break point before
I've been to a breakpoint before. If you don't want to see what's in there, you just step over it rather than stepping into it.
Hackers emailed me a grenade that blew up my PC!
It's true!
Apparently 99% isn't enough for them to fix it, since IE and Firefox both appear to have the same problem.
Das vooooosssshhhhh!
Strap on a bomb and find out how quick the government will give you all the help you need.
Slashdot has so many gurus meditating, the entire damn datacenter had better be levitating a mile off the ground.
Why would he have killed himself, when he didn't have a terminal illness and was actually expected to recover?
Even if he was hospitalized with a terminal illness and in pain, who would have helped him kill himself?
We asked if he scored with the receptionist, he said he was the receptionist, things just got a little awkward after that.
Funny how you skipped the 147 farmers sued under the patents, cited on your own page 6. The footnote on 7 was based on a federal circuit court of appeals decision (for a completely different circuit, meaning that it has absolutely no precedence in the circuit that this brief was filed in), has it been decided on the Supreme Court level whether it's OK to "accidentally" infringe on patents? Do keep in mind that the law makes it quite clear that "accidental infringement" is still infringement, due to the explicit separation between accidental and intentional infringement by demanding treble damages for intentional infringement. (What other kinds of infringement could there be other than "I meant to" and "I didn't mean to"?)
The only thing that saves you from completely imploding is that this Scruggs guy was caught seed from previous plantings and reselling it at his supply store.
He ended up losing, by the way.
I usually don't have to call bullshit on snopes, but they should have mentioned that the Cavendish is the second banana with widespread use. Panama Disease wiped out the Gros Michel banana plantations, and led to the development of Cavendish bananas, which were apparently resistant to Panama Disease (at the time).
So you're against science.
Says the person who apparently believes that someone who wants to perform experiments to determine the safety of a product rather than taking the declaration of the High Priest... sorry, the manufacturer... at face value is "against science"
The plants' own seeds will not grow into plants. The plants' pollen suffers no such restriction.
To put it into human terms, a man's wife being barren does not prevent the man from finding another woman to bear his child.
Assuming that everything is working, you can push the little gear icon next to the "Post Anonymously" checkbox (which I just now realized that after a year or so they finally made it not white-on-white). You can also push the Options button below the input box. Either one will open a Web 2.0!!! div that contains a checkbox with "No Karma Bonus?" and a save button. Check it, and Save. Then Post.
Posting without karma bonus, in case it doesn't work...
(it's verb/cancel, for youse unaware folk. always verb/cancel)
What if you need to cancel your appointment? Cancel/Cancel?
I'm going to say that the answer was probably A) labor costs or B) cash-on-the-barrel vs health-insurance-billing-bureaucracy-overhead. Mostly A.
Texas has pretty much eliminated malpractice lawsuits for several years now, and it's still got the city with the second most expensive healthcare per-capita in the US. Doctors are spending much less on insurance here in Texas now, and they've got shiny new toys to prove it. My own doctor started wiring me up for an EKG every year. An OB I know dedicated the exam room next to the room with her ultrasound machine for some new bladder testing machine. I guess they've gotta spend their money on something, it's not like they can charge less when Aetna and everyone else dictates what they'll pay.
It really is that simple, I don't understand why everyone is up in arms... well I do.. people want something for nothing
Do you have a copy of windows? Did you pay all the companies that Microsoft had to license patents from in order to sell that copy of windows to you? No? Why not, why are you entitled to infringe their patents for free just because Microsoft paid?
Apple paid for a license for the iTunes Store. Apps use the iTunes Store to perform in-app purchases. Why should the app developers have to pay for iTunes using the patent, especially when Apple already purchased a license for the iTunes Store?
Not only that, Lodsys still has not explained how they believe in-app purchasing constitutes storing and receiving feedback from users of a commodity, as required in order to infringe on the claims in their patent, despite opening a blog to complain about their hate mail.
Additionally, the article claims that doing this would grant legitimacy to the Lodsys patent
This. I have STILL not seen any explanation from Lodsys as to how they believe making a purchase in-app is at all related to the patent they are claiming everyone needs to license:
Primary claims:
Not a single claim mentions purchasing or upgrading. One primary claim (54) requires a fax machine and is right out. Claim 60 requires that the interface is "configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve user's satisfaction" and is right out in the vast majority of cases. (Does anyone have a "buy" button that asks how they can make the user happier?) Claim 1 requires that the "commodity" be "configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity" and furthermore have a "memory" that stores the "results of the two-way local interaction, ... including elicited information about user perception of the commodity".
Interestingly, this patent is a continuation of an abandoned application that was a continuation of another patent. As I understand it (thanks to wikipedia, since I'm not a lawyer), continuation patents cannot claim new functionality that was not present in the patent it claims to be a continuation of. (note that "continuation-in-part", which does allow adding new "subject matter", appears to be specifically noted when a patent is a CIP patent, like this one.)
As for Apple, Microsoft, etc licensing the patent. They have plenty of documentation pages that ask people to rate how helpful the documentation/support was, some of these p
Are you stumping up the cash by doubling your monthly ISP subscription for five years so that the cash is in hand for investment? No, I thought not.
Based on historical performance, if he DID "stump up the cash", AT&T would use it to buy Verizon or some other phone company instead of upgrading their infrastructure. After all, that's how AT&T was (re)born in the first place: SBC cancelling their fiber rollout and using the money they would have spent on infrastructure to buy up phone companies.
Of course, as they say, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The management might decide to pay themselves a huge bonus with the money instead.
The whole issue could be resolved by him giving the password to someone who he thought was qualified to run the system.
The issue was that he thought he was the only person who was qualified.
We have two systems -- One that seems to be working and one that doesn't. You propose getting rid of the one that works?
As opposed to getting rid of the one that "doesn't work"?
Both systems need to stay. Otherwise, where would the "one that works" send the students that don't?
He simply faced the consequences of saying it after the fact.
No, "consequences" are things like being mocked, ostracized, and otherwise not getting laid for the next 10 years. Action by the government because you said something the government didn't like is unconstitutional, except within the limits set forth by the Supreme Court. And no, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that hurting your feelings is anywhere near the level of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Also, what the fuck is this "after the fact" bullshit? You think the government has psychics working around the clock to prevent people from saying things they don't like? Just about everything the government does is "after the fact". That the government arrests you after you say something doesn't make it "ok" for them to arrest you for saying something.