Isn't weight calculated by the amount of force exerted on a particular mass?
Yes. They are calculating mass, not weight.
how do they weigh something by looking at it anyway
If the planet was dead in space (not moving) we would not be able to estimate its mass very well: it might be made of lead or marshmellows and we would not be able to tell very well one way or the other from this far away without having more, um, powerful instruments. However, when a planet is moving around a star, we can make a fairly good mass estimate based on, among other things, how much the star is 'wobbled' by the planet in orbit around it. Based on the stars observable properties, spectrum, light output, etc., we can make very good estimates on the star's mass and if a given star of a given mass is wobbled so much by a planet in orbit, we can calculate the mass of the planet. This only works well for larger planets and well behaved stars.
This will have negative ramifications for the disability community, as it will become harder for hobbyists to develop novel assistive devices
They will have to get a VeriSign Code Signing Digital ID. At $500, this is not cheap. The question is, are the benefits going to outweigh the costs. If this means that no malware can have rootkits or anything else that requires kernel level code without having to get a verified digital certificate that can be revoked if they do bad things, is that worth forcing others legit developers to get a code signing ID?
For those that have a problem with this, is it the cost or the principle of the matter? If it cost $50 instead of $500, would that change your mind?
Just because you're writing a driver does not mean you are a hardware manufacturer- just doing a console controller conversion (like making an old NES controller hook up to a computer) requires a driver.
I don't think you would need a kernel level driver for that. The idea of requring kernel level drivers to be signed does not seem like that bad an idea; this would likely stop most rootkits and would improve the general security of the os.
This is all just more FUD from the oil companies to keep oil prices high. Everyone has been predicting peak oil for a century and yet it never comes, nor is it likely to.
We have 2 trillion barrels of oil in the US in the form of oil shale. This oil is recoverable at $30 a barrel. There are many other forms of oil to recover and many new deep water fields left to explore.
In the mean time, we should continue to work on hybrid and other technologies to reduce our consumption. Doom and gloom on this is not justified or necessary.
Yet another reason to switch to linux. You'll get support for a lot longer.
XP SP1 came out what, four plus years ago? What release of Linux was current then? 2.4? Can you still get timely support and bug fixes for 2.4 based releases?
if voting machines can't be trusted to keep accurate records, we shouldn't be using them. IMHO, considering that the financial sector has been using computers for nearly 40 years with a relatively high degree of accuracy makes me believe that the problem of accurate voting machines, while intractable, is not impossible.
That gets right to the heart of the matter. Given the natures of elections and computers, is an all electronic computerized voting system ever going to be trustworthy? I don't think so. I think that a paper trail will be necessary.
I don't mind the idea of electronic voting, just be sure to give me a printout of my vote in plain english with a tracking number so that I can validate it later on. We cannot just take them at their word on this. This is one of the few cases where I think a paper trail is a must!
It all seems pretty cool when they end up on a spit, but when they start rampaging through town, it seems a bit less cool (unless you are watching on TV from thousands of miles away).
To be a little more accurate, one might say that software itself is not patentable, however, the methods, systems and media of software are patentable. You may not like them. You may think they are fraudulent. Whatever. Software is patentable and this is not likely to change in our lifetime.
Furthermore, the patentable elements of software have nothing to do with your "things universally accepted as not being patentable".
Well, the idea is supposed to be "you have a patent, I have a patent, let's get together and develop a product". Whether that works for software is anyone's guess. I rather think not.
This happens frequently...sort of. It is more like two companies have sets of patents and each think the other is infringing on their patents. The result is sometimes a cross-licensing agreement between the two parties where they are each granted a license to the other's patents.
What if the patented aspects of the software can be implemented in hardware? Do you think the hardware should be patentable in that case?
It should be and is patentable. In fact, if properly claimed, one patent and one set of claims can cover the same invention in both hardware and software.
That ship has already sailed. In the US, software is patentable, and many people do it every day. There is about zero chance that software will ever become not patentable in the US. You can't close your eyes and wish it away.
Shouldn't it be illegal for an American to violate minimum wage laws in foreign countries while the U.S. citizen is working from an office in the U.S.?
No. Foreign countries have their own duty to deal with that.
Shouldn't it be illegal for U.S. to advertise cigarettes in foreign countries?
No. Foreign countries have their own duty to deal with that.
Or Worker safety rules?
No. Foreign countries have their own duty to deal with that.
Or avoid income tax by moving money outside the U.S.?
Yes, it already is illegal. What is your point? None of these examples bear much of any relationship to intellectual property.
If an 8th grader is good and writing papers, why is it Turnitin's place to prevent him from writing papers for profit for underclassmen. Sure this may be unethical and a violation of school rules, but it is not plagiarism.
You are correct. It is not Turnitin's place and they make not effort to prevent your 8th grader from doing so. School's and teachers are free to use or not use the service and, if they use it, they are free to take whatever action they deem appropriate when cheating is discovered, including doing nothing.
As for the legal copyright issues, I suspect that if it goes to court, and I doubt it will, that the courts will allow this type of thing. The ruling would be something to the effect of the state interest in preventing cheating and student's losing some rights when submitting the paper. If it goes the other way, the problem will be quickly resolved by forcing all students to sign a document allowing this type of thing.
Question for everyone who sees this as a serious copyright violation; if turnitin is a violation, are any of the following not violations:
One teacher checking every paper against every paper previously submitted to them.
All the teachers at one school checking every paper against every paper previously submitted to them.
All the teachers at one school district, system or state checking every paper against every paper previously submitted to them.
If this ever goes to court, and I have some doubt that it will, I'd say they have a good chance of winning on fair use grounds. For public schools, the courts will likely find that the state has some rights over the paper once submitted and they have an interest in preventing cheating therefore this kind of use is okay. This may be a bit more difficult for private schools, but private schools can make everyone sign an agreement allowing this.
I feel for you, high schools are most not focused on this problem. Most of the classes you want are probably in college. Get good grades and high SAT score so you can get into the college of your choice, hopefully with a scholarship. This is really important.
Until then, several of the really good colleges have open courseware that you should start working with in your spare time:
The USPTO and US Courts beg to differ. Under the current US code and case law, software can be patented. This is a fact that many seem to want to ignore.
Even if software itself were found to be not patentable, the law allows for processes to be patented:
Section 101 of title 35, United States Code
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Many of what people call software patents are really process patents. They are patenting the process of renting videos over the internet, or the process of buying something with one click.
help me understand what happens if tomorrow the software patent system is totally revoked and all the algorithms/source codes and such are made open for others to use - how does someone who codes for a living feeds himself?
A great many software companies make a tidy profit without any patents; even when a few of the ankle biter trolls come along and extract a few bucks along the way. So it can work, or at least it has worked up to now.
Going forward, I think that the genie is out of the bottle. Most software companies will have to start building a patent portfolio to protect their work. I don't see this as a bad thing. It will drive further and deeper innovation. Better and more innovative software. I don't see this as either or: both open source and closed for profit software have done great things and will continue to do great things for the foreseeable future. The patent system is one of the key elements in what makes America great. It enables inventors to make profit on their ideas for a short time, and then anyone can use their ideas.
I understand that many people are upset by some of the high profile screw-ups by the USPTO, but the answer is not to abolish the patent system, or even just software patents. The answer is to get the USPTO to spend more time on each application to ensure that each one is truly novel, useful and not obvious. This will lead to better patents and be better for everyone on either side of the fence.
I think the biggest problem here is that the USPTO does not take its role of patent gatekeeper seriously.
It sounds like you've never prosecuted a patent application. They take it very seriously and in almost every case they find prior art and require that the scope of the original application be limited before it can be granted. Sometimes they screw up, but that is the nature of government work.
My understanding is that the average application gets less than three days of attention in total from the USPTO. That is not a lot of time to read and understand the application, find and cite prior art and work out any final details.
If we want to reduce these errors, things like the OSDL will help, but we also need to hire more examiners and let them spend more time trying to find prior art for each application so that "bad" patents get issued less often.
Probably the best defense against having to deal with software patents is to keep the software closed. Don't make the code public and don't tell how it works. If people don't know you've violated their patent, they are not likely to sue you, and their software patent won't be worth very much.
This is not a very good defense. Most software patents I have seen, and most of the famous (or infamous) software patents make it easy to determine if a given competing software application infringes on it. The Eloas, Netflix, Amazon one click and MercExchange software patents do not require one to look at the source code of a competing app to determine if they infringe. Infringement can be easily determined by just getting a simple look at what the app does.
Software patents are here to stay and cannot be avoided. This proposal for more documentation on prior art is a good thing and will make software patents better be reducing the number of patents that are granted when prior art does exist.
Slashdot Mirror
For those that have a problem with this, is it the cost or the principle of the matter? If it cost $50 instead of $500, would that change your mind?
We have 2 trillion barrels of oil in the US in the form of oil shale. This oil is recoverable at $30 a barrel. There are many other forms of oil to recover and many new deep water fields left to explore.
In the mean time, we should continue to work on hybrid and other technologies to reduce our consumption. Doom and gloom on this is not justified or necessary.
I don't mind the idea of electronic voting, just be sure to give me a printout of my vote in plain english with a tracking number so that I can validate it later on. We cannot just take them at their word on this. This is one of the few cases where I think a paper trail is a must!
It all seems pretty cool when they end up on a spit, but when they start rampaging through town, it seems a bit less cool (unless you are watching on TV from thousands of miles away).
Furthermore, the patentable elements of software have nothing to do with your "things universally accepted as not being patentable".
Spirit and Opportunity are some seriously tough robots. My hat is off to the engineering teams that built them. How much longer will they go?
You are correct. It is not Turnitin's place and they make not effort to prevent your 8th grader from doing so. School's and teachers are free to use or not use the service and, if they use it, they are free to take whatever action they deem appropriate when cheating is discovered, including doing nothing.
As for the legal copyright issues, I suspect that if it goes to court, and I doubt it will, that the courts will allow this type of thing. The ruling would be something to the effect of the state interest in preventing cheating and student's losing some rights when submitting the paper. If it goes the other way, the problem will be quickly resolved by forcing all students to sign a document allowing this type of thing.
Question for everyone who sees this as a serious copyright violation; if turnitin is a violation, are any of the following not violations:
One teacher checking every paper against every paper previously submitted to them.
All the teachers at one school checking every paper against every paper previously submitted to them.
All the teachers at one school district, system or state checking every paper against every paper previously submitted to them.
If this ever goes to court, and I have some doubt that it will, I'd say they have a good chance of winning on fair use grounds. For public schools, the courts will likely find that the state has some rights over the paper once submitted and they have an interest in preventing cheating therefore this kind of use is okay. This may be a bit more difficult for private schools, but private schools can make everyone sign an agreement allowing this.
From a teachers aid? A stupid roommate? Stolen laptop?
Except that no one would buy them because they are all stored on the anti-cheat site.
Until then, several of the really good colleges have open courseware that you should start working with in your spare time:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare
Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon
The USPTO and US Courts beg to differ. Under the current US code and case law, software can be patented. This is a fact that many seem to want to ignore.
Even if software itself were found to be not patentable, the law allows for processes to be patented:
Section 101 of title 35, United States Code
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Many of what people call software patents are really process patents. They are patenting the process of renting videos over the internet, or the process of buying something with one click.
Going forward, I think that the genie is out of the bottle. Most software companies will have to start building a patent portfolio to protect their work. I don't see this as a bad thing. It will drive further and deeper innovation. Better and more innovative software. I don't see this as either or: both open source and closed for profit software have done great things and will continue to do great things for the foreseeable future. The patent system is one of the key elements in what makes America great. It enables inventors to make profit on their ideas for a short time, and then anyone can use their ideas.
I understand that many people are upset by some of the high profile screw-ups by the USPTO, but the answer is not to abolish the patent system, or even just software patents. The answer is to get the USPTO to spend more time on each application to ensure that each one is truly novel, useful and not obvious. This will lead to better patents and be better for everyone on either side of the fence.
It sounds like you've never prosecuted a patent application. They take it very seriously and in almost every case they find prior art and require that the scope of the original application be limited before it can be granted. Sometimes they screw up, but that is the nature of government work.
My understanding is that the average application gets less than three days of attention in total from the USPTO. That is not a lot of time to read and understand the application, find and cite prior art and work out any final details.
If we want to reduce these errors, things like the OSDL will help, but we also need to hire more examiners and let them spend more time trying to find prior art for each application so that "bad" patents get issued less often.
This is not a very good defense. Most software patents I have seen, and most of the famous (or infamous) software patents make it easy to determine if a given competing software application infringes on it. The Eloas, Netflix, Amazon one click and MercExchange software patents do not require one to look at the source code of a competing app to determine if they infringe. Infringement can be easily determined by just getting a simple look at what the app does.
Software patents are here to stay and cannot be avoided. This proposal for more documentation on prior art is a good thing and will make software patents better be reducing the number of patents that are granted when prior art does exist.