http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/07/minority_rules.phpScientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
So all we have to do is educate 10 percent of the population and make them understand patents are bad.
I don't know about the Slashdot crowd, but I never bought into the "look and feel" argument. I didn't then, and I don't now.
Does it bother you when you buy a shirt that its design is almost surely patterned after the look and feel of current fashion? This is because (unless big fashion and Lawyers can change it) fashion isn't so restricted. And I don't see anyone in the real world that complains that fashion trends propagate too quickly through the market. We shouldn't sue when trends propagate quickly through our computer interfaces for EXACTLY the same reason: Allowing this is best for the CONSUMER.
And there is no constitutional justification for slowing progress to benefit anyone, not even Oprah or Apple (the biggest two sacred relics of the current day)
"Whats wrong with developing your own bloody IP? Oh, right, its hard. Copying is easy, right, I get it."
You are infringing on at least 57 patents that cover ignorance. You have no concept of Apple's history do you? Hint: Apple didn't invent the mouse, or graphical interfaces. They copied them. They didn't invent tablets. They didn't invent gesture interfaces (one might argue that Star Trek Next Generation did, because they didn't have the money to put buttons on their computer props).
Besides, have you any idea how many patents every one of Apple's products "infringe" upon?
Do not confuse great execution with original development. Apple is great at execution, but there is little original about what they build.
...Allows an individual to avoid buying anything (digital or physical) from Apple, and even avoid installing any of their software on any computer. I Hereby grand a Royalty Free, World Wide license to everyone in the world, so that anyone can implement this technology in the course of their day to day lives, and thus save money. And I am totally fair, as I allow and even encourage Apple to import this technology to Australia.
This is getting ridiculous. I have read comic books for 45 years, and hardly ever read an "origin" story. They are there, but THEN THEY MOVE ON!
The movies can't seem to get past origin stories, and their direct aftermath.
Why not do a Starwars? Just leap into the story, and let the audience figure it out? Maybe do a flash back here and there, and move on with the plot?
We have the technology to tell the stories now. But we can't get to the meat of what it means to be Spiderman when every time we have to switch out an actor, we are forced to see the one plot we (comic fans) really know well, over and over again. We know these heros had an origin. We know they have to come to terms with their power. We know they have to find balance between being a hero and being a person. There are so many possible stories to tell! Tell one of them already!
I would point out that if comic movies suffer the flaw of origin focus, fantasy suffers the flaw of world wide destruction. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Matrix (really, this is just a tech fantasy), The Mummy, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars (really, another tech fantasy), etc. are all driven by the idea that unless the unlikely hero beats some terrible foe, the world will end.
There are many films that escape the terrible gravity wells of these plot paths, so maybe I troll when I say "All we have are...", but I just wish sometimes there were more standout exceptions to the rule....
So does copyright in this instance pay the Artists?
Wasn't this guy at least one of them? I know he didn't do the sketches, but he did the interpretation. He sold instances of his work. He never assigned his copyright formally.
And Lucas gets billions, and he gets sued? And makes from his art just enough to cover this legal fight?
And so why do we care about extensive copyright again? For the Artists? HA!
And the guy diced by the propeller after fighting on a flying plane/bomb, but you do not see actual chopping. Not materially different than the propeller scene in the Indiana Jones' films; You have the setup, then shot of blood. In Cap A, they cut to a distance shot of the plane in flight, and you see a red "cloud trail" behind the plane.
Captain America shoots people and throws knives and kills people. Bucky falls from a train, but you don't see him hit anything. You just know he is dead. The only blood is some the Red Skull wipes off his jacket after shooting someone. Mostly you have shots and people falling over or flying away from explosions or Cap's shield.
And Sex? Two kisses.
Once upon a time, I took my young son to Jurassic Park, That was much more scary in my mind than this movie.
Though I have to admit that I like all comic book films... mostly. One issue with Cap A. There isn't one scene, or an actual climax moment, that sticks to the mind. No truly stand out lines that I will be quoting.
It was all good, maybe even great. Very, very fun to watch. But it never had that "Indiana Jones under the truck" or "Indiana Jones hates snakes" or "Its just a thin mint" moment or line that we will be thinking about and/or repeating....
I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.
Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.
The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.
Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.
In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely, Kay Bailey Hutchison United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-5922 (tel) 202-224-0776 (fax) http://hutchison.senate.gov/
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay.
If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the S
We need to develop mesh networking for all sorts of reasons.
1) This will be the only way to have affordable networking over roads 2) This is the only way to compete with ATT and Verizon over the long haul 3) We need actual privacy. We can build encryption into the protocols and avoid "checkpoints" as we have in our ISP based access 4) The more devices on the network, the higher its capacity 5) As storage continues to fall in costs, such mesh networks can be increasingly important in storing data in distributed, fault tolerant fashions. 6) Once the devices become the network, freedom of speech becomes far harder to break 7) With increasing computational power in many ordinary devices, we save time by interacting with more devices that are self configuring to our needs. But this only works when all the devices can exchange information in real time.
None of this should be taken as meaning they should not modernize. It is just that they have taken this long to realize that they might make more money by being fast than by being slow. I expect they have figured out how to be either, depending on how it benefits them.
.... But the industrial military complex would not get the money they they have grown accustom to. Republicans are all for cutting government spending until you really are talking about cutting government spending. And not that the Democrats disagree. They are all on board, because we are talking serious campaign cash here.
The fact is that there is no justification for the level nuclear and conventional forces we are paying to maintain now. We should be building down, and maintaining enough nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent. We have to have perhaps even the best military technology. But the idea that we have to spend at these levels to be safe is hugely over blown. China needs us as a market. Their nuclear arsenal should be counted as protecting us. Same with Europe. Asia's Industrial giants (like Japan, S Korea, etc.) can also be counted on for conventional deterrents, if not nuclear. All these countries are safe, and not spending at the percentage of GNP nor in absolute dollars the way we are. Why? Because they don't have to, and neither do we.
We can reduce our military expenses across the board. It is great to invest in technology, and even in military infrastructure. But there isn't any point in having a great defense if we collapse under the debt required to construct and maintain a huge military. And many, many people (esp. Republicans) argue that it is this outcome, of allowing their military to destroy our economy, that brought down Russia.
Why do we think we are immune?
Cut expenses. If you don't want to cut services, and you don't want to raise taxes, then cut the military.
Is this really that hard to understand? Why doesn't the public wake up to the common sense of this? What does the military have to do, wire tap young murdered girls before anyone cares?
An open source rules engine with a focus on flexibility, small foot print, limited dependencies (no runtime dependencies), and clear descriptions of business logic. Does not implement backtracking or forward chaining, and thus very fast, very easy to use, and relatively easy to debug......and very unknown.
Google very likely knew about the patents, but in this game the particular patents are of little issue. Most likely, they just wanted a broad license to any patents Sun had, and didn't do any study of particular patents. I am not sure why they would, as that would just increase their liability, and would not have helped them anyway.
Infringing is infringing. As you point out, not having a product in the game is an advantage.
But how does this defend the system?
How can any new companies (without patent portfolios) enter the market?
Lastly, knowing that your product infringes on patents isn't the same as knowing it infringes on particular patents. The latter would be required for triple penalties.
But a smart phone isn't just about software patents, as my post indicates. You have hardware patents, business patents, process patents, software patents all at play in smart phones.
You are going to tell me that they didn't know they had to infringe on some of these?
Nobody sells a high tech product without knowing that it infringes on some patent you don't own or have license to!!!
EVERY SINGLE COMPANY that ships a smart phone today, KNOWS that they are infringing on a patent held by someone else!
There are over 50 companies that hold at least 300 patents each covering smart phone technology. Who knows how many companies hold patents over various manufacturing technologies used. There are thousands of patents out there on many very basic software techniques. IBM, Motorola, HP, Intel, Apple, HTC, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, all hold thousands of patents that more or less apply to Smart phones and computers. And there are tons more. These are the guys that produce products. Many, many patents are held by trolls that produce nothing but lawsuits.
How then can any company hope to build a product that is free and clear of patents?
If knowing you might have patent issues means something significant, then ban all high tech products! Including frankly most medicines. Including every modern car. Including every T.V. Including ever significant piece of software!
In light of this rather obvious fact, what is the point this Judge is trying to make? How is any product any different?
I used to have code reviews at Microsoft. All we did was argue about the proper Hungarian notation. I understand they have given up on that (Thank Heavens) but this illustrates why code reviews can be so bad. They can degenerate into a group search down a checklist for "technical" flaws in the way code is written:
Where did you put your braces? Where are your spaces? Why did you name that variable that?
It is much harder to get (especially less geeky) people to think through the algorithms, and suggest better approaches. I have looked at code (passing code reviews) that performed quick sorts on small arrays so they could just pick up the Minimum value or Maximum value as the first element in the array. How utterly stupid is that? One pass through the array can pick up a Min or Max value O(n) as opposed to Quicksort O(n^2). A code review should pan that sort of behavior in a minute, and yet....
The more geeky among us have their own list of flaws they expect to see in the code of others. Finding these might be *more* useful, but at times also blinds the review for seeing other bigger, more difficult and subtle issues.
Sadly,formating rules, variable names, number of comments, comment formats, etc. etc. and checklists of pet issues are the easiest things to spot in a group scan of the code. The urge to find something and find many things in a group sometimes overrides the need to look past these little things and understand the code at hand, and offer feedback that is really targeted to the problem the code is trying to solve.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/07/minority_rules.php Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
So all we have to do is educate 10 percent of the population and make them understand patents are bad.
It gives me hope.
I don't know about the Slashdot crowd, but I never bought into the "look and feel" argument. I didn't then, and I don't now.
Does it bother you when you buy a shirt that its design is almost surely patterned after the look and feel of current fashion? This is because (unless big fashion and Lawyers can change it) fashion isn't so restricted. And I don't see anyone in the real world that complains that fashion trends propagate too quickly through the market. We shouldn't sue when trends propagate quickly through our computer interfaces for EXACTLY the same reason: Allowing this is best for the CONSUMER.
And there is no constitutional justification for slowing progress to benefit anyone, not even Oprah or Apple (the biggest two sacred relics of the current day)
"Whats wrong with developing your own bloody IP? Oh, right, its hard. Copying is easy, right, I get it."
You are infringing on at least 57 patents that cover ignorance. You have no concept of Apple's history do you? Hint: Apple didn't invent the mouse, or graphical interfaces. They copied them. They didn't invent tablets. They didn't invent gesture interfaces (one might argue that Star Trek Next Generation did, because they didn't have the money to put buttons on their computer props).
Besides, have you any idea how many patents every one of Apple's products "infringe" upon?
Do not confuse great execution with original development. Apple is great at execution, but there is little original about what they build.
gand == grant
grrrrr Slashdot should allow one to edit their own posts!!!!
...Allows an individual to avoid buying anything (digital or physical) from Apple, and even avoid installing any of their software on any computer. I Hereby grand a Royalty Free, World Wide license to everyone in the world, so that anyone can implement this technology in the course of their day to day lives, and thus save money. And I am totally fair, as I allow and even encourage Apple to import this technology to Australia.
This is getting ridiculous. I have read comic books for 45 years, and hardly ever read an "origin" story. They are there, but THEN THEY MOVE ON!
The movies can't seem to get past origin stories, and their direct aftermath.
Why not do a Starwars? Just leap into the story, and let the audience figure it out? Maybe do a flash back here and there, and move on with the plot?
We have the technology to tell the stories now. But we can't get to the meat of what it means to be Spiderman when every time we have to switch out an actor, we are forced to see the one plot we (comic fans) really know well, over and over again. We know these heros had an origin. We know they have to come to terms with their power. We know they have to find balance between being a hero and being a person. There are so many possible stories to tell! Tell one of them already!
I would point out that if comic movies suffer the flaw of origin focus, fantasy suffers the flaw of world wide destruction. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Matrix (really, this is just a tech fantasy), The Mummy, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars (really, another tech fantasy), etc. are all driven by the idea that unless the unlikely hero beats some terrible foe, the world will end.
There are many films that escape the terrible gravity wells of these plot paths, so maybe I troll when I say "All we have are...", but I just wish sometimes there were more standout exceptions to the rule....
So does copyright in this instance pay the Artists?
Wasn't this guy at least one of them? I know he didn't do the sketches, but he did the interpretation. He sold instances of his work. He never assigned his copyright formally.
And Lucas gets billions, and he gets sued? And makes from his art just enough to cover this legal fight?
And so why do we care about extensive copyright again? For the Artists? HA!
That one was pretty good.
And the guy diced by the propeller after fighting on a flying plane/bomb, but you do not see actual chopping. Not materially different than the propeller scene in the Indiana Jones' films; You have the setup, then shot of blood. In Cap A, they cut to a distance shot of the plane in flight, and you see a red "cloud trail" behind the plane.
Captain America shoots people and throws knives and kills people. Bucky falls from a train, but you don't see him hit anything. You just know he is dead. The only blood is some the Red Skull wipes off his jacket after shooting someone. Mostly you have shots and people falling over or flying away from explosions or Cap's shield.
And Sex? Two kisses.
Once upon a time, I took my young son to Jurassic Park, That was much more scary in my mind than this movie.
Though I have to admit that I like all comic book films... mostly. One issue with Cap A. There isn't one scene, or an actual climax moment, that sticks to the mind. No truly stand out lines that I will be quoting.
It was all good, maybe even great. Very, very fun to watch. But it never had that "Indiana Jones under the truck" or "Indiana Jones hates snakes" or "Its just a thin mint" moment or line that we will be thinking about and/or repeating....
I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.
Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.
The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.
Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.
In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay .
If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the S
We need to develop mesh networking for all sorts of reasons.
1) This will be the only way to have affordable networking over roads
2) This is the only way to compete with ATT and Verizon over the long haul
3) We need actual privacy. We can build encryption into the protocols and avoid "checkpoints" as we have in our ISP based access
4) The more devices on the network, the higher its capacity
5) As storage continues to fall in costs, such mesh networks can be increasingly important in storing data in distributed, fault tolerant fashions.
6) Once the devices become the network, freedom of speech becomes far harder to break
7) With increasing computational power in many ordinary devices, we save time by interacting with more devices that are self configuring to our needs. But this only works when all the devices can exchange information in real time.
Why are we waiting for Ford to build these kinds of systems?
What do you need? A radio? A computer? A display?
Sounds like an android app. Then I can use it in any car.
None of this should be taken as meaning they should not modernize. It is just that they have taken this long to realize that they might make more money by being fast than by being slow. I expect they have figured out how to be either, depending on how it benefits them.
.... But the industrial military complex would not get the money they they have grown accustom to. Republicans are all for cutting government spending until you really are talking about cutting government spending. And not that the Democrats disagree. They are all on board, because we are talking serious campaign cash here.
The fact is that there is no justification for the level nuclear and conventional forces we are paying to maintain now. We should be building down, and maintaining enough nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent. We have to have perhaps even the best military technology. But the idea that we have to spend at these levels to be safe is hugely over blown. China needs us as a market. Their nuclear arsenal should be counted as protecting us. Same with Europe. Asia's Industrial giants (like Japan, S Korea, etc.) can also be counted on for conventional deterrents, if not nuclear. All these countries are safe, and not spending at the percentage of GNP nor in absolute dollars the way we are. Why? Because they don't have to, and neither do we.
We can reduce our military expenses across the board. It is great to invest in technology, and even in military infrastructure. But there isn't any point in having a great defense if we collapse under the debt required to construct and maintain a huge military. And many, many people (esp. Republicans) argue that it is this outcome, of allowing their military to destroy our economy, that brought down Russia.
Why do we think we are immune?
Cut expenses. If you don't want to cut services, and you don't want to raise taxes, then cut the military.
Is this really that hard to understand? Why doesn't the public wake up to the common sense of this? What does the military have to do, wire tap young murdered girls before anyone cares?
An open source rules engine with a focus on flexibility, small foot print, limited dependencies (no runtime dependencies), and clear descriptions of business logic. Does not implement backtracking or forward chaining, and thus very fast, very easy to use, and relatively easy to debug... ...and very unknown.
Google very likely knew about the patents, but in this game the particular patents are of little issue. Most likely, they just wanted a broad license to any patents Sun had, and didn't do any study of particular patents. I am not sure why they would, as that would just increase their liability, and would not have helped them anyway.
Infringing is infringing. As you point out, not having a product in the game is an advantage.
But how does this defend the system?
How can any new companies (without patent portfolios) enter the market?
Lastly, knowing that your product infringes on patents isn't the same as knowing it infringes on particular patents. The latter would be required for triple penalties.
But a smart phone isn't just about software patents, as my post indicates. You have hardware patents, business patents, process patents, software patents all at play in smart phones.
You are going to tell me that they didn't know they had to infringe on some of these?
Nobody sells a high tech product without knowing that it infringes on some patent you don't own or have license to!!!
EVERY SINGLE COMPANY that ships a smart phone today, KNOWS that they are infringing on a patent held by someone else!
There are over 50 companies that hold at least 300 patents each covering smart phone technology. Who knows how many companies hold patents over various manufacturing technologies used. There are thousands of patents out there on many very basic software techniques. IBM, Motorola, HP, Intel, Apple, HTC, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, all hold thousands of patents that more or less apply to Smart phones and computers. And there are tons more. These are the guys that produce products. Many, many patents are held by trolls that produce nothing but lawsuits.
How then can any company hope to build a product that is free and clear of patents?
If knowing you might have patent issues means something significant, then ban all high tech products! Including frankly most medicines. Including every modern car. Including every T.V. Including ever significant piece of software!
In light of this rather obvious fact, what is the point this Judge is trying to make? How is any product any different?
...that precludes the killing of all the lawyers.
I used to have code reviews at Microsoft. All we did was argue about the proper Hungarian notation. I understand they have given up on that (Thank Heavens) but this illustrates why code reviews can be so bad. They can degenerate into a group search down a checklist for "technical" flaws in the way code is written:
Where did you put your braces? Where are your spaces? Why did you name that variable that?
It is much harder to get (especially less geeky) people to think through the algorithms, and suggest better approaches. I have looked at code (passing code reviews) that performed quick sorts on small arrays so they could just pick up the Minimum value or Maximum value as the first element in the array. How utterly stupid is that? One pass through the array can pick up a Min or Max value O(n) as opposed to Quicksort O(n^2). A code review should pan that sort of behavior in a minute, and yet....
The more geeky among us have their own list of flaws they expect to see in the code of others. Finding these might be *more* useful, but at times also blinds the review for seeing other bigger, more difficult and subtle issues.
Sadly,formating rules, variable names, number of comments, comment formats, etc. etc. and checklists of pet issues are the easiest things to spot in a group scan of the code. The urge to find something and find many things in a group sometimes overrides the need to look past these little things and understand the code at hand, and offer feedback that is really targeted to the problem the code is trying to solve.
I didn't write it.
Much improved with "Cha Cha Cha...."