Hmm, what reality is your post from? ANA is an airline, they have requirements but they do no engineering. Not sure how you think ANA "stepped in" to save the day...
Not sure why, but when I switched to Android in Feb of this year I found that Android versions of apps I already used on my iPhone 3G were uglier and buggier than their IOS cousins - Flixster is a prime example. I rapidly found myself not bothering with apps on the HTC.
This month, I got an iPhone 4S and have already welcomed apps back.
I just didn't find the Android Market Place a great sell.
Uhm, your comment makes no sense at all - really, it doesn't.
The original point equated banning the site (highways) based on the content (peoples actions) - my point is that that analogy is only correct if 99% of all people did those actions on the highway, because as we all know these file sharing sites are heavily weighted toward illegitimate content...
Oh, and I have never broken the speed limit. Not to over take (not an excuse, if you can't safely overtake within the speed limit then you shouldnt be overtaking), not to prevent someone tailgating (I slow down in that circumstance), and I have never had wind affect my speed (if the wind is that strong, I'm going well under the speed limit because wind can seriously affect your direction).
Your argument would have more merit if 99% of people OR(speed, drive dangerously, fall asleep at the wheel, road rage, drive without insurance, drive without license) on the highways...
Lets face it, the ratio of legit content to non-legit content on these sorts of sites is astronomically weighted one way.
If they were on a vhost shared with a popular site, they wouldn't be able to use just the IP in the first place... they would have to be the default site for the IP address, which I dont see happening.
Reading the ruling, its when they are identified, and BT doesnt have to do the discovery - and yes I agree that BT should not be paying for any of this.
Having some experience of this, I find myself in defence of BT - the vast majority of spam calls in the UK actually originate from foreign countries, and rotate caller IDs with every call (the call centers buy huge blocks of phone numbers and rotate them around destinations - and then simply dump them back to the telecoms companies when they become too stale), and as BT only knows the last exchange before it hits a BT exchange, they can't know its from the same source.
I had this issue with Virgin Media as well - its easy to block spam calls from within the UK, but near impossible to block international spam calls.
Simply making a "Newzbin3" website could be trivially argued as falling under the Judges comment "Furthermore, I do not consider that the studios should be obliged to return to court for an order in respect of every single IP address or URL that the operators of Newzbin2 may use,", so it would be quickly blocked. Newzbin3 would have to show significant evidence that they have no relation to Newzbin2 in order to not be blocked.
It's still amazing, since the case illustrates that one or both of the judges do not base their decisions on facts
I wouldn't say that at all - thats quite a leap infact to state that. Judges make their decisions on the basis of the laws infront of them - if the law in one jurisdiction has a higher bar for prior art than in another (eg "this or any form of this can be considered prior art" vs "only an exact version of this can be considered prior art") then the decision will be duly affected.
Also, this isn't about "facts", this is about subjective decisions concerning what is and what is not similar in form and function to the described behaviour in the patent application (subjective because those decisions are weighted by the jurisdictions, as you go on to say). There is no such thing as a "fact" in this case.
or at least that the facts are weighted in contradictory ways by differing jurisdictions -- something which a layman wouldn't readily expect.
Really? That laws are laid out differently in different countries is difficult for a layman to expect? How come that doesn't seem to be an issue for any other law?
Quite a few online places won't ship to a different address on the first order with them as a security precaution - at least, this is the case in the UK.
It's not really that amazing if you take into account that the judges are in completely different jurisdictions with differing laws and criteria for determinations of this sort.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but university education in the UK is not free to most, only those who can demonstrate a need for a bursery. Before 1997, university charges were limited to accommodation, but Labour changed that and allowed universities to charge for tuition - capped at about £2K per year. The current government has raised that cap to £9K, with some vague rules about how a percentage of that money must be redirected into more bursaries for poorer students.
My wife finished university with debt of £40K, but just 5 years on it's almost all paid back. She's a medical doctor.
No, the main Shuttle engines were never shut down and restarted, once they were shut down that was it. Take a look at a shuttle launch video sometime - the main engines were started by sparks generated by systems on the ground, not onboard systems. The OMS engines were restarted, but they use a different type of fuel to that used for the launch.
Also, the Shuttles were never refueled in orbit. Infact, it's pretty hard to suggest they were ever refueled, because the fuel tanks were discarded and burned up. Only the sold fuel boosters were reused, and that isn't ever going to happen in space due to the logistics of that type of fuel.
So, none of your comment at all answers my comment.
And that's my point - how many of those are integrated into the currently active generation of rockets? Just because it's a "solved" problem doesn't mean it's still available on current systems.
Can't we just have a couple less B2 Stealth Bombers (B-52's bomb brown people just fine) and a couple less F-22's (F-15 Eagles still have never been defeated in combat) and GET THE FUCK TO MARS?
The B-2 is no longer produced, so nothing but sunk cost and amortised operating costs there, and the F-22s production is finishing very soon.
I doubt that any current rocket could make use of an on orbit depot, because 90% of all current rockets are discarded before orbit is achieved, not to mention that none of them are designed to be refueled after use (most rockets are ignited externally for example). It might just be that a new rocket is needed as well...
Slashdot Mirror
Go read up on the problems British Airways has with the Unite union :)
Hmm, what reality is your post from? ANA is an airline, they have requirements but they do no engineering. Not sure how you think ANA "stepped in" to save the day...
Not sure why, but when I switched to Android in Feb of this year I found that Android versions of apps I already used on my iPhone 3G were uglier and buggier than their IOS cousins - Flixster is a prime example. I rapidly found myself not bothering with apps on the HTC.
This month, I got an iPhone 4S and have already welcomed apps back.
I just didn't find the Android Market Place a great sell.
Really? A quick Google is beyond you?
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2011/10/ms-13-gang-suspects-face-murder-shooting
You do it all the time - manslaughter, third degree murder, second degree murder, first degree murder etc.
Pretty easy to find his schedule, including the case numbers and names...
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CEO/cfd.aspx?7137
No, the jury get to decide if the infringements were wilfull or not - that sentence doesn't read any other way.
Uhm, your comment makes no sense at all - really, it doesn't.
The original point equated banning the site (highways) based on the content (peoples actions) - my point is that that analogy is only correct if 99% of all people did those actions on the highway, because as we all know these file sharing sites are heavily weighted toward illegitimate content...
Oh, and I have never broken the speed limit. Not to over take (not an excuse, if you can't safely overtake within the speed limit then you shouldnt be overtaking), not to prevent someone tailgating (I slow down in that circumstance), and I have never had wind affect my speed (if the wind is that strong, I'm going well under the speed limit because wind can seriously affect your direction).
Your argument would have more merit if 99% of people OR(speed, drive dangerously, fall asleep at the wheel, road rage, drive without insurance, drive without license) on the highways...
Lets face it, the ratio of legit content to non-legit content on these sorts of sites is astronomically weighted one way.
Yup, go for it - bring a lawsuit in the same way that the media groups did in this case...
If they were on a vhost shared with a popular site, they wouldn't be able to use just the IP in the first place... they would have to be the default site for the IP address, which I dont see happening.
Reading the ruling, its when they are identified, and BT doesnt have to do the discovery - and yes I agree that BT should not be paying for any of this.
Having some experience of this, I find myself in defence of BT - the vast majority of spam calls in the UK actually originate from foreign countries, and rotate caller IDs with every call (the call centers buy huge blocks of phone numbers and rotate them around destinations - and then simply dump them back to the telecoms companies when they become too stale), and as BT only knows the last exchange before it hits a BT exchange, they can't know its from the same source.
I had this issue with Virgin Media as well - its easy to block spam calls from within the UK, but near impossible to block international spam calls.
Simply making a "Newzbin3" website could be trivially argued as falling under the Judges comment "Furthermore, I do not consider that the studios should be obliged to return to court for an order in respect of every single IP address or URL that the operators of Newzbin2 may use,", so it would be quickly blocked. Newzbin3 would have to show significant evidence that they have no relation to Newzbin2 in order to not be blocked.
It's still amazing, since the case illustrates that one or both of the judges do not base their decisions on facts
I wouldn't say that at all - thats quite a leap infact to state that. Judges make their decisions on the basis of the laws infront of them - if the law in one jurisdiction has a higher bar for prior art than in another (eg "this or any form of this can be considered prior art" vs "only an exact version of this can be considered prior art") then the decision will be duly affected.
Also, this isn't about "facts", this is about subjective decisions concerning what is and what is not similar in form and function to the described behaviour in the patent application (subjective because those decisions are weighted by the jurisdictions, as you go on to say). There is no such thing as a "fact" in this case.
or at least that the facts are weighted in contradictory ways by differing jurisdictions -- something which a layman wouldn't readily expect.
Really? That laws are laid out differently in different countries is difficult for a layman to expect? How come that doesn't seem to be an issue for any other law?
Quite a few online places won't ship to a different address on the first order with them as a security precaution - at least, this is the case in the UK.
It's not really that amazing if you take into account that the judges are in completely different jurisdictions with differing laws and criteria for determinations of this sort.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but university education in the UK is not free to most, only those who can demonstrate a need for a bursery. Before 1997, university charges were limited to accommodation, but Labour changed that and allowed universities to charge for tuition - capped at about £2K per year. The current government has raised that cap to £9K, with some vague rules about how a percentage of that money must be redirected into more bursaries for poorer students.
My wife finished university with debt of £40K, but just 5 years on it's almost all paid back. She's a medical doctor.
No, the main Shuttle engines were never shut down and restarted, once they were shut down that was it. Take a look at a shuttle launch video sometime - the main engines were started by sparks generated by systems on the ground, not onboard systems. The OMS engines were restarted, but they use a different type of fuel to that used for the launch.
Also, the Shuttles were never refueled in orbit. Infact, it's pretty hard to suggest they were ever refueled, because the fuel tanks were discarded and burned up. Only the sold fuel boosters were reused, and that isn't ever going to happen in space due to the logistics of that type of fuel.
So, none of your comment at all answers my comment.
And that's my point - how many of those are integrated into the currently active generation of rockets? Just because it's a "solved" problem doesn't mean it's still available on current systems.
Can't we just have a couple less B2 Stealth Bombers (B-52's bomb brown people just fine) and a couple less F-22's (F-15 Eagles still have never been defeated in combat) and GET THE FUCK TO MARS?
The B-2 is no longer produced, so nothing but sunk cost and amortised operating costs there, and the F-22s production is finishing very soon.
Things that are designed to be refueled, can be refueled. Amazing what can happen with a little planning, isn't it?
I doubt that any current rocket could make use of an on orbit depot, because 90% of all current rockets are discarded before orbit is achieved, not to mention that none of them are designed to be refueled after use (most rockets are ignited externally for example). It might just be that a new rocket is needed as well...
Fiction isn't prior art.
You can develop for Metro in .Net after the last announcement, and it will be supported on ARM.