T-Mobile execs are in the perfect position to stop doing it themselves.
So why don't they? We already know that. They more than make back that subsidy by charging their customers inflated fees for service that pay them back in a few months but lock their customers in for much longer at that inflated rate. It's a corrupt scheme. If T-Mobile wants to quit screwing its customers over they're more than welcome to stop doing it any time.
What they're looking for (so they suggest) is for somebody to force their hand . Only the government can do that.
Perhaps more there's an instinctual recognition that the people involved in the fight are a threat. You are drawn to see the violence because it helps you assess the level of threat. And it may present an opportunity to eliminate a threat. (Knife a bully who's been harassing you, for instance).
It also puts you where you may need to be if the violence should come to threaten you or the people in whom you have a survival interest. In pre-modern societies, there was almost always a high probability that a close relative or a person who was important to your survival could be involved in the fight. If one of those people gets involved, you are going to have to make a decision whether you need to get involved too.
If there is a bug in the car software of or sensor design it could cause systematic problems. You would want to review whether similarly equipped cars have elevated risk of certain kinds of accidents and make the manufactures liable for the elevated risk cases. The consumer and his unsurprisingly shouldn't pay because they don't have control.
No need to resort to such stupidity. Let your car drop you off then go park itself in the cheapest spot within a couple minutes' drive. Then call it when you want to leave.
Parking can be simplified for the automatic drivers if cars announce the locations of empty parking spots around them and of the spots they are leaving.
Such cooperation can only happen if every car is driven by a computer driver operating to the same interooerability standard, so it would have to be government mandated in every car and owners would have to be required to maintain it.
Everybody. Using the internet is now so essential to getting any business done that every military supplier uses it. Suppose you are selling tanks to the military. How do you order components? How do you get paid and how do you pay your suppliers and your employees?
And that brings up an even more troubling thought. Are the pwn2own incentives creating a perverse incentive to conceal vulnerabilities?
I think so. If this is how Google will find and fix its flaws, exploiters are basically safe between events.
If you want flaws and exploits identified and fixed fast, pay on a first-to identify basis and never announce what the exploits found were. Just quietly fix them as fast as you can and distribute patches regularly.
Hasn't yet been show statistically effective to treat cancer in humans Hasn't yet been shown safe in humans Requires use of a potentially unsafe HIV variant that could mutate back to a virulent strain. Extreme care would be required to ensure that the modified virus can be contained.
The unmentioned pain for reviewers is the realization that all of the people in the pictures have way more money than they have and are still obviously living empty, miserable lives.
A shock absorber is a piston in a fluid column. It's force is dependent on the velocity through the working fluid. A spring on the other hand produces a force proportional to its displacement not its velocity.
Confusion could arise because modern cars don't use separate units but instead use a strut assembly which is a shock + spring.
Nerds! You made me unmod:(
A shock absorber is a piston in a fluid column. It's force is dependent on the velocity through the working fluid. A spring on the other hand produces a force proportional to its displacement not its velocity.
Confusion could arise because modern cars don't use separate units but instead use a strut assembly which is a shock + spring.
That's not the only possible kind of shock absorber. For instance, one could make magnetic shock absorbers that dissipate energy by moving a powerful magnet by a metal plate. Or you could have electromechanical shock absorbers that sense motion and acceleration and use fast-acting linear motors to actively absorb the shock. The energy could be captured and used to recharge the batteries in your car.
or 3. Recognize that there is legitimate room within patents for doing something that has already been done but doing it in a non obvious, novel way.
I'm not saying this is the case for this particular patent, but just pointing out that in my understanding patents aren't always about doing a certain thing but rather doing a certain thing in a certain way. Obviously this limits the scope of the patent to that one certain way.
So, to put it in slashdot terms (i.e. a car analogy), pretty much every car sold today has shock absorbers, and the standard way of doing this is to use metal coil springs. If somebody were to put time and research into improving the design of shock absorbers and came up with a design that used marshmallows instead of metal coil springs, I would consider that novel and I think you would agree that it is non-obvious. To me, if we have the patent system that we have, that is at least a legitimate use of it. You aren't patenting shock absorbers, you are patenting shock absorbers that use marshmallows to absorb the shock of the impact.
Most patents are about doing something a certain way. They ALL should be. But many patents and even more so claims of infringement involve unjustified extension of the patented invention to anything that's resembles its function at a much higher level.
And now the patent office is allowing people to patent *ideas* that have never been reduced to practice, so that the invention that's patented can't actually be demonstrated until somebody else invents an enabling technology that doesn't exist yet. This only feeds patent trolls without producing any useful technology.
Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile execs are in the perfect position to stop doing it themselves.
So why don't they? We already know that. They more than make back that subsidy by charging their customers inflated fees for service that pay them back in a few months but lock their customers in for much longer at that inflated rate. It's a corrupt scheme. If T-Mobile wants to quit screwing its customers over they're more than welcome to stop doing it any time.
What they're looking for (so they suggest) is for somebody to force their hand . Only the government can do that.
Is it wrong that my first thought when I see this is
What's his plan to make money off all this free development help he's hoping go get?
It's pathetic to suggest that after years of effort you are almost as good as the competition.
Perhaps more there's an instinctual recognition that the people involved in the fight are a threat. You are drawn to see the violence because it helps you assess the level of threat. And it may present an opportunity to eliminate a threat. (Knife a bully who's been harassing you, for instance).
It also puts you where you may need to be if the violence should come to threaten you or the people in whom you have a survival interest. In pre-modern societies, there was almost always a high probability that a close relative or a person who was important to your survival could be involved in the fight. If one of those people gets involved, you are going to have to make a decision whether you need to get involved too.
If there is a bug in the car software of or sensor design it could cause systematic problems. You would want to review whether similarly equipped cars have elevated risk of certain kinds of accidents and make the manufactures liable for the elevated risk cases. The consumer and his unsurprisingly shouldn't pay because they don't have control.
No need to resort to such stupidity. Let your car drop you off then go park itself in the cheapest spot within a couple minutes' drive. Then call it when you want to leave.
Parking can be simplified for the automatic drivers if cars announce the locations of empty parking spots around them and of the spots they are leaving.
Such cooperation can only happen if every car is driven by a computer driver operating to the same interooerability standard, so it would have to be government mandated in every car and owners would have to be required to maintain it.
If that is ever to happen, it's a long way off.
A slightly broader reading of US price fixing laws would find that it's already illegal.
Everybody. Using the internet is now so essential to getting any business done that every military supplier uses it. Suppose you are selling tanks to the military. How do you order components? How do you get paid and how do you pay your suppliers and your employees?
... to be bought?
It's not unreality that makes violence attractive. If it were, a real fight wouldn't draw a crowd.
The difference is a fight between two OTHER people doesn't threaten you.
People are averse to violence that could directly involve themselves and probably only to that threat.
Comprising.
Sounds like more thermal emissions than operation of a diode.
Tell the that's the same as asking to know your age, religion and national origin and you intend to file a claim with the EEOC.
No it's not. It's Ann incentive to create and CONCEAL cracks while drawing attention to Ans glorifying crackers.
And that brings up an even more troubling thought. Are the pwn2own incentives creating a perverse incentive to conceal vulnerabilities?
I think so. If this is how Google will find and fix its flaws, exploiters are basically safe between events.
If you want flaws and exploits identified and fixed fast, pay on a first-to identify basis and never announce what the exploits found were. Just quietly fix them as fast as you can and distribute patches regularly.
Remaining issues are
Hasn't yet been show statistically effective to treat cancer in humans
Hasn't yet been shown safe in humans
Requires use of a potentially unsafe HIV variant that could mutate back to a virulent strain. Extreme care would be required to ensure that the modified virus can be contained.
Close enough and big enough to make some finer measurements.
Then we can decide whether we need to do anything. Chances are pretty remote that it needs action and we have a few years to decide what.
What the hell does anybody Thule I'd wrong with buying companies for their patents?
The unmentioned pain for reviewers is the realization that all of the people in the pictures have way more money than they have and are still obviously living empty, miserable lives.
Nerds! You made me unmod :(
A shock absorber is a piston in a fluid column. It's force is dependent on the velocity through the working fluid.
A spring on the other hand produces a force proportional to its displacement not its velocity.
Confusion could arise because modern cars don't use separate units but instead use a strut assembly which is a shock + spring.
Nerds! You made me unmod :(
A shock absorber is a piston in a fluid column. It's force is dependent on the velocity through the working fluid.
A spring on the other hand produces a force proportional to its displacement not its velocity.
Confusion could arise because modern cars don't use separate units but instead use a strut assembly which is a shock + spring.
That's not the only possible kind of shock absorber. For instance, one could make magnetic shock absorbers that dissipate energy by moving a powerful magnet by a metal plate. Or you could have electromechanical shock absorbers that sense motion and acceleration and use fast-acting linear motors to actively absorb the shock. The energy could be captured and used to recharge the batteries in your car.
or
3. Recognize that there is legitimate room within patents for doing something that has already been done but doing it in a non obvious, novel way.
I'm not saying this is the case for this particular patent, but just pointing out that in my understanding patents aren't always about doing a certain thing but rather doing a certain thing in a certain way. Obviously this limits the scope of the patent to that one certain way.
So, to put it in slashdot terms (i.e. a car analogy), pretty much every car sold today has shock absorbers, and the standard way of doing this is to use metal coil springs. If somebody were to put time and research into improving the design of shock absorbers and came up with a design that used marshmallows instead of metal coil springs, I would consider that novel and I think you would agree that it is non-obvious. To me, if we have the patent system that we have, that is at least a legitimate use of it. You aren't patenting shock absorbers, you are patenting shock absorbers that use marshmallows to absorb the shock of the impact.
Most patents are about doing something a certain way. They ALL should be. But many patents and even more so claims of infringement involve unjustified extension of the patented invention to anything that's resembles its function at a much higher level.
And now the patent office is allowing people to patent *ideas* that have never been reduced to practice, so that the invention that's patented can't actually be demonstrated until somebody else invents an enabling technology that doesn't exist yet. This only feeds patent trolls without producing any useful technology.
Lerting the IAEA see whatever they wanted didn't help Iraq.
If I was going to make bombproof bunkers, I'd use the best concrete available.
If I was Iran, I'd make a lot of bunkers. Who's more likely to get bombed?
They didn't make Bam out of it.