Similarly, I've replaced pretty much all the incandescent bulbs in our house with CF... except the bathrooms. And in my basement bathroom (1930s) the fixture takes nonstandard bulbs with the tiny base.
From TFA, GE says they are developing a HE incandescent bulb by 2012... if they sell it in a form-factor that matches my fixture, I'm definitely a customer.
I read the article, but I didn't see any mention of KITT's Cylon "eye". There's a little gap there, but not sure if that's supposed to be the "eye". I am a child of the '80s, I did watch the show (sometimes), and this can't really be Knight Rider if KITT isn't a Cylon.
You don't need to register to get trademark protection. You get protection by simply using the name in commerce. That's the TM mark. You may register with either the state or with the USPTO once you register you fet the circle R mark. Simpledog.com is probably not using the name in commerce. Also the OP probably cannot register because he currently does not have a product. You must use the product first and then register. insert standard this is not legal advice here.
I'll insert my knowledge from when I claimed "FreeDOS" as a trademark in 2001. (Although I now believe there is no difference between "typed drawing" of "FreeDOS" and "FREEDOS" in this context.)
I had once considered applying for a registered trademark, which is ® not TM, but the issue is tricky. I think I have come to a reasonable understanding of trademarks in the US. First of all, to apply for a registered trademark (®) in the US, you need to pay a fee to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Even the small entity fee for basic filing is pretty expensive.
Also, there is the issue of diligence... if the mark holder fails to prosecute or take action, the mark can be found in a court to be unprotected and open for use. There are other ways to lose a mark, as well.
There are several ways to dispute use of a trademark by a third party. Depending on the situation, the Trademark Office may not be the proper forum. For a real trademark fight, you would need an attorney, preferably one specializing in trademark law. And since inaction would imply that you are giving up the right on the trademark, time to get that lawyer can be of the essence.
However, it is not necessary to register a mark with the USPTO order to claim it as a trademark. From the USPTO: "Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO."
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use an registration.
The other guy is probably doing this because he believes it is what he has to do to protect his trademark. But I don't know that there's a trademark to be protected, since there's nothing really behind it. IANAL, but if he's just using the domain name to run a link farm, and isn't actually doing anything with the name "simpledog" (he has no content on his site... every link that looks like it would have content just serves up ads from EBay and the like) then I doubt he has much ground to stand on.
Asking him for his USPTO registration number (as other posters have advised) isn't a good way to ensure if he has the right of trademark, since you don't need to register to use "TM". However, you can respond by asking for demonstrable proof for how he has used "simpledog" in a commerce-related activity related to an actual product. You can back yourself by stating in your written response that you do not consider a link farm with no original content to be an actual product (this will make it harder for him to get a lawyer involved, I think.)
Don't roll over on this. If you do, then you'll demonstrate by inaction that he holds the trademark on "simpledog" and he may further pester you by demanding you turn over your domain to him. If he gets a lawyer involved and that lawyer sends a Cease and Desist letter, then you'll have to make a decision if you want to fight by hiring your own lawyer. Or maybe you'll make an announcement on your web site at that time, that you're shutting down the site for an unrelated reason (no time to admin it, etc.)
But honestly, I suspect that this guy won't bother you after you send back your "no thanks" response.
Consider this, I would LOVE to be able to buy a console that had games priced between $15 to $20. I don't really give a squat about the graphics, I want to be entertained. You'll have a customer for life if you make that happen, as I'll be able to justify buying a game or two a week.
Have you considered downloadable games? I purchased a PS3 this summer because of the PS3 games, and was surprised about the downloadable games you can purchase at low cost from the PlayStation Network store. My fave right now is Super Rub-a-Dub - I'm 35, but I love this game. But I tell people I got it for my wife.:-)
Seriously, we will sometimes play this game for a few hours at a time. Lots of fun! Most fun you can have for only $7.
They have a ton of other games on PSN that are about the same cost. Very cheap, and fun! Especially for a casual gamer like you.
And I know it's an oldie, but Spyro the Dragon just appeared for sale on PSN. I bought my copy! Yeah, it's a PS1 game, but the PS3 upscales it really well - looks great on my 40" HD TV. You can play it on PS3 or PSP, and it's only $6. And it's still lots of fun!
Hey, I've seen the screenshots and played the demo, and demos speak louder than words. In a word, the demo is AWESOME!! Loads of fun, looks just like the screenshots. Definitely on my must-play list... I'll be in line on release day, thanks. And Insomniac has a history of having good animators, storytellers, and gamemakers. Check out their track record sometime. But clearly you've never played any of the Ratchet and Clank titles on the PS2, because otherwise you wouldn't try to claim this is representative of "the possible lack of quality of the game."
I know this is already available as a Windows95/98 game, using a 3D engine... but I'd love to see this ported to a console (PS3 or XBox, I don't care) or to the Mac.
Man, I *loved* playing X-Wing and TIE Fighter - but probably more TIE Fighter, because it's great to play as the bad guy. Great space flight sim, without being *too* sim-y. And of course, it had a good story, which seems to be lacking in a lot of games today.
On this topic, I've been trying to convince *someone* at Universal to re-release the original "Spyro the Dragon (PS1)" for PSP on PlayStation Network. It was a wonderful game. Fortunately, I still have my copy, and my PS3 has hardware backwards compatibility - and yes, I do still play it.
I think Spyro would work really well on the PSP - iirc, the second stick didn't do anything, and R2/L2 (rotate camera) could be mapped to R/L... losing R1/L1 (roll left/right, which I never used afaik.)
I just played through Bioshock (which isn't coming to a Mac near you, BTW). A few times through the 30 or so hours I spent playing the game, the screen went black for 10 seconds, and then came back up. I didn't know what had happened the first time it did that until I quit the game, and there was a dialog box saying something about the video driver crashing, but apparently Vista reloaded the driver, with just a momentary hiccup. On a Mac or an XP box, a video driver crash generally means hitting the Reset button.
There's my problem. This problem occurred while playing Bioshock - a pretty intense game, according to all the reviews. It strikes me that losing my screen for 10 seconds or so while playing a game isn't a good game experience, especially if it happens during combat. Sure, it's better than rebooting your machine, but still a big problem. And you seem ok with that.
I honestly don't know why people accept this as "ok". Maybe it's conditioning. If XP came into your office and kicked you in the nuts until you curled up into a little ball, you wouldn't like it. Now Vista is in your office instead, punching you in the stomach, and you're thrilled?
"Relax and Race," where two people control a dragon, and the goal is to race a course as fast as possible.
Because I am most relaxed when playing a racing game head-to-head against someone else... Wouldn't a more appropriate theme have been to control a floating Buddha around a screen, collecting jade statues or some such?
What amazes me is that 47 lawmakers can unanimously pass a blatantly unconstitutional bill. When the courts have to fix what that many politicians unanimously messed up, it's obvious and undeniable proof that the current method of government just does not work.
On the flip side, 47 lawmakers will use this at the next election, and talk about how they vote to protect the children. It all comes down to politics.
I'd be able to answer this question for you if I knew more about what "pay information" was on the stub. I work for a public university, and our salary is public information. However, our deductions are not. You have a right to know how much I earn (state taxpayers essentially pay my salary) but you don't have a right to see what I may be taking out as child support, medical, investment, transportation, garnishment, etc. That's included on a typical pay stub where I work, and by law is considered private information. I'm sure it's the same in California.
Ok, went back to the original blog site, and found this post. In it, he takes a swipe at Google and the Claremont City Attorney, and then gives a blanked-out version of the pay stub scan: here.
The four sections on the pay stub are: Earnings, Leave, Deductions, Benefits. There's also a section at the top for employee name & number (not SSN), gross pay, net pay. That top section (name, gross pay, net pay) is certainly public information; the taxpayers of Claremont have the right to know what the public employees are being paid. The Earnings section is probably public information, not sure about Leave (technically, I think it's considered a Benefit, so not public), and Deductions & Benefits are definitely considered private information.
The city was right to take this down. Yes, if he got the scans via a search on their web site, it was a mistake for the search system to give it to him. But this is still private information that should not be shared. Game over.
Nice straw man, did you bother to actually look at what he scanned? There was no information about any of the things you mentioned(Except marital status, you could tell whether a girl was married by the Ms or Mrs.). All it had was a dollar amount of benefits given, Salary, and name.
From the article:
The city did not contact this blog, nor have we been told what information in the documents is confidential - there were no Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal identifiers. The documents only contained name and pay information. What praytell was the top secret information that must be hidden from the public? Salary? Bonuses? But all of that is public information in the state of California.
I'd be able to answer this question for you if I knew more about what "pay information" was on the stub. I work for a public university, and our salary is public information. However, our deductions are not. You have a right to know how much I earn (state taxpayers essentially pay my salary) but you don't have a right to see what I may be taking out as child support, medical, investment, transportation, garnishment, etc. That's included on a typical pay stub where I work, and by law is considered private information. I'm sure it's the same in California.
So while my university doesn't make employee pay stubs available to the public, we do have other reports showing base salary that anyone can view.
Just as in any store run by humans, there are good store locations and bad store locations. I have two GameStops near my house. One is about a mile south of me, and seems to employ a lot of weenies who think you are taking up their valuable time that could be better spent goofing off behind the counter. One of them even fakes a British accent. I go there because it's convenient, and when I know what I'm looking for. I never ask those assholes for advice.
The other GameStop is about 3 miles north of me, and is generally filled with helpful people. I go there when I may need them to look up something in the computer for me ("you don't have ____ here, but does one of the other stores have it?") The last time I was there, the guy behind the counter commented on my games: "if you like this one, you'll love ___." I thought it was great he'd make recommendations like that. Probably helps out the soccer moms and such that buy games for their kids.
Microsoft is tying its Windows Live services directly to Vista -- a move that should sound vaguely familiar, as it is precisely what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users. 'A new unified installer for Windows Live services will help users download Wednesday's updates of photo-sharing, mail, instant messaging, online safety and other services, the company said on its Windows Live Wire blog. The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward.
I hope I'm not misreading the article, but the summary appears to be incorrect. As I understand the article, Microsoft is integrating Windows Live more within Windows... but I didn't see that it was being tied specifically to Vista. In fact, the article says "The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward."
Call me confused, but I think Windows Live will still install on XP. You don't need to upgrade to Vista to run Windows Live, if you already have XP.
I was going to point out that the officer has every right to ask for identification if he/she is investigating a crime that may have been committed. You are supposed to provide that ID if you have it, upon request. And as the blog points out, the officer did request the ID.
The blog even points out the statute:
ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties.
I believe that's the only mistake this guy made that day - if an officer is investigating a possible crime that involves you, and requests your ID, you should provide it if you have it. If you don't, then simply state "I'm sorry, but I don't have ID on me."
As I pointed out in another response, the store didn't really have the right to search his bag, since no they didn't have cause to believe shoplifting had been committed. IANAL.
IANAL, but the legal right to unlawful search applies to government officials & police only; it does not apply to private security. The store may, if they believe shoplifting may have occurred, insist to search your shopping bag and compare those items to the receipt. The store must be careful about personal privacy, however - it is ok for them to search the shopping bag, as you bought those items while in plain view of others in the store, but it generally not ok to search your purse or jacket without reason.
At the same time, the private operator needs to be very careful about detaining you if they believe a crime has been committed (i.e. shoplifting.) Detaining someone steps close to restricting personal liberty, and needs to be handled carefully.
Legal Lad has a very interesting podcast, and he covered this in one of his episodes. Quoting from his site:
The short answer is that merchants do, in fact, have the right to search and detain you if they have sufficient reasons to believe that you have shoplifted. However, with regard to Matt's question: Yes, if you are just leaving the store after a routine shopping trip, you generally have the right to exit a store without inspection. If a security guard at Best Buy asks to see your receipt, you have two options. You may voluntarily agree to be searched. Alternatively, you may say no and simply walk by. The guard must have some reason to believe you stole something before he can search you and refusing to allow the guard to check your bag is not a good enough reason on its own. There must be something more.
To accommodate the competing policies of controlling theft and freedom from harassing searches, most states have enacted "shoplifting statutes." These statutes vary from state to state, but generally operate to allow merchants to search a customer where they have a reasonable ground to do so. Once the merchant has reasonable grounds to search, the merchant may conduct a search with reasonable force, and for a reasonable amount of time to determine whether the suspected shoplifter has indeed stolen something or not.
I took a similar class. The main things I remember is that "competent employees are promoted until they become uncompetent" and "It is more advantageous to have a technical person doing technical work and an incompetent person doing mangerial work instead of vice-versa".
While funny, your comment doesn't do much to encourage the OP to move upward into management.
Effective/successful management is a combination of leadership and management. Management is the process of getting things done, repeatability, auditability, process, etc. Leadership is defining direction, pushing initiatives, etc. A typical boss only does management - you see that all the time. But great bosses are a combination of the two. Note that just being a leader is not a complete picture for a good boss, as nothing really gets done.
Yes, it is important for the successful manager/leader to not do the technical work. When a manager/leader starts to do that, he or she becomes too focused on the "what are we doing" and isn't able to focus on the "what should we be doing". Yes, as a line manager you need to retain technical skills, but you shouldn't do so by doing programming or sysadmin. I try to encourage people at that level to not get their hands on systems - you hired competent staff to do it. A big part of making the transition into management is learning to let go of some of your current technical duties. I'd advise the OP, when he makes the move into management/leadership, to stop coding. Do your best to avoid giving too-technical requirements - "we'll use an AJAX app to do ___" is less good than "we need to do ___". Let the tech team decide what technology to use. Your job should not involve technical details.
Slashdot Mirror
Similarly, I've replaced pretty much all the incandescent bulbs in our house with CF ... except the bathrooms. And in my basement bathroom (1930s) the fixture takes nonstandard bulbs with the tiny base.
From TFA, GE says they are developing a HE incandescent bulb by 2012 ... if they sell it in a form-factor that matches my fixture, I'm definitely a customer.
I read the article, but I didn't see any mention of KITT's Cylon "eye". There's a little gap there, but not sure if that's supposed to be the "eye". I am a child of the '80s, I did watch the show (sometimes), and this can't really be Knight Rider if KITT isn't a Cylon.
When I first saw the title, I read it as "Synthetic DNA About To Yield to New Life Forms".
I guess that's about the only time the "overlords" joke really is called for ... and funny! :-)
Do you have any example files ... you know, that work well for this? I'm only interested to keep my files safe. And for the articles. :-)
I'll insert my knowledge from when I claimed "FreeDOS" as a trademark in 2001. (Although I now believe there is no difference between "typed drawing" of "FreeDOS" and "FREEDOS" in this context.)
I had once considered applying for a registered trademark, which is ® not TM, but the issue is tricky. I think I have come to a reasonable understanding of trademarks in the US. First of all, to apply for a registered trademark (®) in the US, you need to pay a fee to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Even the small entity fee for basic filing is pretty expensive.
Also, there is the issue of diligence ... if the mark holder fails to prosecute or take action, the mark can be found in a court to be unprotected and open for use. There are other ways to lose a mark, as well.
There are several ways to dispute use of a trademark by a third party. Depending on the situation, the Trademark Office may not be the proper forum. For a real trademark fight, you would need an attorney, preferably one specializing in trademark law. And since inaction would imply that you are giving up the right on the trademark, time to get that lawyer can be of the essence.
However, it is not necessary to register a mark with the USPTO order to claim it as a trademark. From the USPTO: "Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO."
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use an registration.
The other guy is probably doing this because he believes it is what he has to do to protect his trademark. But I don't know that there's a trademark to be protected, since there's nothing really behind it. IANAL, but if he's just using the domain name to run a link farm, and isn't actually doing anything with the name "simpledog" (he has no content on his site ... every link that looks like it would have content just serves up ads from EBay and the like) then I doubt he has much ground to stand on.
Asking him for his USPTO registration number (as other posters have advised) isn't a good way to ensure if he has the right of trademark, since you don't need to register to use "TM". However, you can respond by asking for demonstrable proof for how he has used "simpledog" in a commerce-related activity related to an actual product. You can back yourself by stating in your written response that you do not consider a link farm with no original content to be an actual product (this will make it harder for him to get a lawyer involved, I think.)
Don't roll over on this. If you do, then you'll demonstrate by inaction that he holds the trademark on "simpledog" and he may further pester you by demanding you turn over your domain to him. If he gets a lawyer involved and that lawyer sends a Cease and Desist letter, then you'll have to make a decision if you want to fight by hiring your own lawyer. Or maybe you'll make an announcement on your web site at that time, that you're shutting down the site for an unrelated reason (no time to admin it, etc.)
But honestly, I suspect that this guy won't bother you after you send back your "no thanks" response.
Have you considered downloadable games? I purchased a PS3 this summer because of the PS3 games, and was surprised about the downloadable games you can purchase at low cost from the PlayStation Network store. My fave right now is Super Rub-a-Dub - I'm 35, but I love this game. But I tell people I got it for my wife. :-)
Seriously, we will sometimes play this game for a few hours at a time. Lots of fun! Most fun you can have for only $7.
They have a ton of other games on PSN that are about the same cost. Very cheap, and fun! Especially for a casual gamer like you.
And I know it's an oldie, but Spyro the Dragon just appeared for sale on PSN. I bought my copy! Yeah, it's a PS1 game, but the PS3 upscales it really well - looks great on my 40" HD TV. You can play it on PS3 or PSP, and it's only $6. And it's still lots of fun!
Hey, I've seen the screenshots and played the demo, and demos speak louder than words. In a word, the demo is AWESOME!! Loads of fun, looks just like the screenshots. Definitely on my must-play list ... I'll be in line on release day, thanks. And Insomniac has a history of having good animators, storytellers, and gamemakers. Check out their track record sometime. But clearly you've never played any of the Ratchet and Clank titles on the PS2, because otherwise you wouldn't try to claim this is representative of "the possible lack of quality of the game."
My god, man .. where would we find the time to do that?
For shame! :-)
Hey, for once I win the "low UID" pissing match ... although barely! :-)
I know this is already available as a Windows95/98 game, using a 3D engine ... but I'd love to see this ported to a console (PS3 or XBox, I don't care) or to the Mac.
Man, I *loved* playing X-Wing and TIE Fighter - but probably more TIE Fighter, because it's great to play as the bad guy. Great space flight sim, without being *too* sim-y. And of course, it had a good story, which seems to be lacking in a lot of games today.
On this topic, I've been trying to convince *someone* at Universal to re-release the original "Spyro the Dragon (PS1)" for PSP on PlayStation Network. It was a wonderful game. Fortunately, I still have my copy, and my PS3 has hardware backwards compatibility - and yes, I do still play it.
I think Spyro would work really well on the PSP - iirc, the second stick didn't do anything, and R2/L2 (rotate camera) could be mapped to R/L ... losing R1/L1 (roll left/right, which I never used afaik.)
Sometimes, the original is good enough as-is.
There's my problem. This problem occurred while playing Bioshock - a pretty intense game, according to all the reviews. It strikes me that losing my screen for 10 seconds or so while playing a game isn't a good game experience, especially if it happens during combat. Sure, it's better than rebooting your machine, but still a big problem. And you seem ok with that.
I honestly don't know why people accept this as "ok". Maybe it's conditioning. If XP came into your office and kicked you in the nuts until you curled up into a little ball, you wouldn't like it. Now Vista is in your office instead, punching you in the stomach, and you're thrilled?
Because I am most relaxed when playing a racing game head-to-head against someone else... Wouldn't a more appropriate theme have been to control a floating Buddha around a screen, collecting jade statues or some such?
On the flip side, 47 lawmakers will use this at the next election, and talk about how they vote to protect the children. It all comes down to politics.
If he was playing Enemy Territory, you gotta be careful on "Rail Gun". It's a real killer.
(There, I said it. Oh yes, I went there.)
Ok, went back to the original blog site, and found this post. In it, he takes a swipe at Google and the Claremont City Attorney, and then gives a blanked-out version of the pay stub scan: here.
The four sections on the pay stub are: Earnings, Leave, Deductions, Benefits. There's also a section at the top for employee name & number (not SSN), gross pay, net pay. That top section (name, gross pay, net pay) is certainly public information; the taxpayers of Claremont have the right to know what the public employees are being paid. The Earnings section is probably public information, not sure about Leave (technically, I think it's considered a Benefit, so not public), and Deductions & Benefits are definitely considered private information.
The city was right to take this down. Yes, if he got the scans via a search on their web site, it was a mistake for the search system to give it to him. But this is still private information that should not be shared. Game over.
From the article:
I'd be able to answer this question for you if I knew more about what "pay information" was on the stub. I work for a public university, and our salary is public information. However, our deductions are not. You have a right to know how much I earn (state taxpayers essentially pay my salary) but you don't have a right to see what I may be taking out as child support, medical, investment, transportation, garnishment, etc. That's included on a typical pay stub where I work, and by law is considered private information. I'm sure it's the same in California.
So while my university doesn't make employee pay stubs available to the public, we do have other reports showing base salary that anyone can view.
Just as in any store run by humans, there are good store locations and bad store locations. I have two GameStops near my house. One is about a mile south of me, and seems to employ a lot of weenies who think you are taking up their valuable time that could be better spent goofing off behind the counter. One of them even fakes a British accent. I go there because it's convenient, and when I know what I'm looking for. I never ask those assholes for advice.
The other GameStop is about 3 miles north of me, and is generally filled with helpful people. I go there when I may need them to look up something in the computer for me ("you don't have ____ here, but does one of the other stores have it?") The last time I was there, the guy behind the counter commented on my games: "if you like this one, you'll love ___." I thought it was great he'd make recommendations like that. Probably helps out the soccer moms and such that buy games for their kids.
No kidding. Discussing whether or not to make a sequel is like discussion whether or not to pick up the bag of money on the table.
No kidding. I've lost patience for this "editor". Fortunately, I can take him out of my profile so I don't see stories posted by him.
But I hope CmdrTaco or someone else in charge of the site gets the hint and takes this guy off editor duty.
I hope I'm not misreading the article, but the summary appears to be incorrect. As I understand the article, Microsoft is integrating Windows Live more within Windows ... but I didn't see that it was being tied specifically to Vista. In fact, the article says "The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward."
Call me confused, but I think Windows Live will still install on XP. You don't need to upgrade to Vista to run Windows Live, if you already have XP.
I was going to point out that the officer has every right to ask for identification if he/she is investigating a crime that may have been committed. You are supposed to provide that ID if you have it, upon request. And as the blog points out, the officer did request the ID.
The blog even points out the statute:
ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2) (a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties.I believe that's the only mistake this guy made that day - if an officer is investigating a possible crime that involves you, and requests your ID, you should provide it if you have it. If you don't, then simply state "I'm sorry, but I don't have ID on me."
As I pointed out in another response, the store didn't really have the right to search his bag, since no they didn't have cause to believe shoplifting had been committed. IANAL.
IANAL, but the legal right to unlawful search applies to government officials & police only; it does not apply to private security. The store may, if they believe shoplifting may have occurred, insist to search your shopping bag and compare those items to the receipt. The store must be careful about personal privacy, however - it is ok for them to search the shopping bag, as you bought those items while in plain view of others in the store, but it generally not ok to search your purse or jacket without reason.
At the same time, the private operator needs to be very careful about detaining you if they believe a crime has been committed (i.e. shoplifting.) Detaining someone steps close to restricting personal liberty, and needs to be handled carefully.
Legal Lad has a very interesting podcast, and he covered this in one of his episodes. Quoting from his site:
I think you were looking for Pen Island instead. :-)
While funny, your comment doesn't do much to encourage the OP to move upward into management.
Effective/successful management is a combination of leadership and management. Management is the process of getting things done, repeatability, auditability, process, etc. Leadership is defining direction, pushing initiatives, etc. A typical boss only does management - you see that all the time. But great bosses are a combination of the two. Note that just being a leader is not a complete picture for a good boss, as nothing really gets done.
Yes, it is important for the successful manager/leader to not do the technical work. When a manager/leader starts to do that, he or she becomes too focused on the "what are we doing" and isn't able to focus on the "what should we be doing". Yes, as a line manager you need to retain technical skills, but you shouldn't do so by doing programming or sysadmin. I try to encourage people at that level to not get their hands on systems - you hired competent staff to do it. A big part of making the transition into management is learning to let go of some of your current technical duties. I'd advise the OP, when he makes the move into management/leadership, to stop coding. Do your best to avoid giving too-technical requirements - "we'll use an AJAX app to do ___" is less good than "we need to do ___". Let the tech team decide what technology to use. Your job should not involve technical details.