However, the article also mentions things like urinating and defecating on people, which while I think it is disgusting, is really not hurting anyone, with the possible exception of spreading disease.
". Are you going to sue congress or your congress man?"
You seem to forget that congressmen are pawns too. Since they're on big business' AND the tax payers' payroll, I think they can more than afford their lawyers.
"spells out that congress should create IP laws for the sake of fostering inovation and creativity"
And there you have it. What software or business method exists that deserves a patent and also helps to "fosters inovation and creativity"? I bet you'll find none. That don't have prior art.
Let's face facts - the PTO is just a pawn for big business to abuse the patent system to do the exact opposite of this charter - they outright kill and cripple innovation and competition; and the US/PTO lets them do that, and, of course, face no consequences when such abuse, which they've contributed to, occurs. It's up to others to clean up the mess they created.
Lawsuits against the PTO/US gov will be the only solution.
Once the "people" at the PTO realize that B.S. software and business method patents are becoming a liability for them, then they might finally wake the hell up and stop granting them.
"In other words, the goverment can simply ignore them (and it will be legal too). Of course every other site on the planet is in trouble"
And I hope the US Gov/USPTO will enjoy the class-action lawsuit resulting from its action of granting a vague patent that destroys competition and innovation from those affected by said patents.
I agree. People are usually reluctant to answer because they fear their answer will be wrong and be ridiculed. If they answer anonymously and it isn't ridiculed, they'll have more confidence in their future answers, anonymous or not.
Yeah, well as the article suggest, "Don't insult anyone's intelligence"
What I mean is like: // Take NodeID value from Nodes array; verify that it's a valid integer. // Display it in the matrix column for NodeID values, // then add it into the DoneIDs array.
This, in (properly formatted) C code will end up being a few lines; the comment gives you what you need to do to get it done, without describing every bit movements needed:)
Of course, for a Perl addict, they can probably squeeze that into 20 bytes of code.
It is a good practice to write comments at the same time (or earlier than) you write your code.
This is what I do; I've always thought comments should allow one to reproduce the functionality of the code just by reading the comments. Also makes it much easier to understand what you've done when you or someone gets back to it later.
I agree, the more ridiculous suits, the more attention this problem gets.
But I feel the real way to 'fix' the PTO is to find a patent that causes some company/ies to suffer financially (due to the likes of Amazon strong-arming them), get the PTO to invalidate it later on, then, since they originally validated an invalid patent causing said companies harm, sue the PTO for damages (class action preferably), and win the suit.
Then the PTO might finally clue in that software patents are bad, and potentially a liability to them.
Sorry, but seeing someone play the guitar, especially when they totally love doing it, is far more entertaining than any robot (even if it played perfectly) could ever be, much like a mechanical piano.
So, guitarists' days are NOT numbered, no more than pianists' by the mechanical piano.
It was the parent that discussed the vertical launch concept, there a link s/he provided. The chapter I spoke of only talks about the design desicions, etc... though the other volumes might go into more details.
(In hindsight it is always easy to see how an accident could have been avoided. The trick is to in advance make sure that every accident is avoided...)
Agreed; it's impossible to predict every eventuality. But in both shuttle losses, a known problem manifested itself (again), engineers raised their concerns, and were overruled by management.
An undetected meteorite hitting the heatshield in orbit is an accident; a piece of foam that falls off the tank (yet again) and hits the shield could have been avoided, and borders on negligence.
technically true, though if the tank (launch system) foam hadn't failed, the heat sheild wouldn't have either. There was a direct causal effect of the tank foam failure.
This is absolutely correct; the CAIB report, in one of its chapters, does a good job of going through the history of the design, and how crappy compromises were done to try to satify several different parties (congress, army, nasa itself) whose requirements conflicted with each others', and lead to this (clearly flawed) design.
And I stronly agree with its statements that they don't believe in the end that nasa will really change its ways and really 'fix' things (I guess we'll see with the next launch system) and that there will probably be other 'accidents'* caused by failures of the system that could have been avoided (not their exact words - I don't have the quote right now).
* After reading both reports, I never considered either 'accidents' as such given that nasa ignored engineers' recommendations and common sense when faced with serious potential problems; more like 'serious fuck-ups' on their part.
But imagine this: suppose I spend a lot of time and money developing some computing method that drastically reduce, say, the number of transistors in a CPU and its power consumption
Then it is a HARDWARE patent (duh!)
Slashdot Mirror
really? perhaps you should learn to look things up.
True for defecation, but urine is sterile.
You seem to forget that congressmen are pawns too. Since they're on big business' AND the tax payers' payroll, I think they can more than afford their lawyers.
And there you have it. What software or business method exists that deserves a patent and also helps to "fosters inovation and creativity"?
I bet you'll find none. That don't have prior art.
Let's face facts - the PTO is just a pawn for big business to abuse the patent system to do the exact opposite of this charter - they outright kill and cripple innovation and competition; and the US/PTO lets them do that, and, of course, face no consequences when such abuse, which they've contributed to, occurs. It's up to others to clean up the mess they created.
Lawsuits against the PTO/US gov will be the only solution.
Once the "people" at the PTO realize that B.S. software and business method patents are becoming a liability for them, then they might finally wake the hell up and stop granting them.
And I hope the US Gov/USPTO will enjoy the class-action lawsuit resulting from its action of granting a vague patent that destroys competition and innovation from those affected by said patents.
Well said. But of course, your post will most likely get modded down now. See my sig.
Yep, I'm greedy. So are a whole lot of you.
What I mean is like:
This, in (properly formatted) C code will end up being a few lines; the comment gives you what you need to do to get it done, without describing every bit movements needed
Of course, for a Perl addict, they can probably squeeze that into 20 bytes of code.
This is what I do; I've always thought comments should allow one to reproduce the functionality of the code just by reading the comments. Also makes it much easier to understand what you've done when you or someone gets back to it later.
IE7 (in this context) is NOT an updated version of IE, check out the link.
" After this is said and done, you paypal me $90 for doing your job."
;)
Cool. So what's your address...?
That's assuming every province adopts it. Saskatchewan never adopted the original change.
But I feel the real way to 'fix' the PTO is to find a patent that causes some company/ies to suffer financially (due to the likes of Amazon strong-arming them), get the PTO to invalidate it later on, then, since they originally validated an invalid patent causing said companies harm, sue the PTO for damages (class action preferably), and win the suit.
Then the PTO might finally clue in that software patents are bad, and potentially a liability to them.
No harder than you being a troll apparently, hmm?
So, guitarists' days are NOT numbered, no more than pianists' by the mechanical piano.
(In hindsight it is always easy to see how an accident could have been avoided. The trick is to in advance make sure that every accident is avoided...)
Agreed; it's impossible to predict every eventuality. But in both shuttle losses, a known problem manifested itself (again), engineers raised their concerns, and were overruled by management.
An undetected meteorite hitting the heatshield in orbit is an accident; a piece of foam that falls off the tank (yet again) and hits the shield could have been avoided, and borders on negligence.
And I stronly agree with its statements that they don't believe in the end that nasa will really change its ways and really 'fix' things (I guess we'll see with the next launch system) and that there will probably be other 'accidents'* caused by failures of the system that could have been avoided (not their exact words - I don't have the quote right now).
* After reading both reports, I never considered either 'accidents' as such given that nasa ignored engineers' recommendations and common sense when faced with serious potential problems; more like 'serious fuck-ups' on their part.