"but AT&T understands that an iPhone on T-Mobile is approximately $90 a month in lost revenue."
That sounds suspiciously like the RIAA argument on damages - $10 lost revenue for every CD not bought. It's just as bogus.
The uniqueness of the iPhone is gone due to other makers catching up, at least partially. So lets say I want an I phone, but I'm not an Apple groupie, and I'm not currently on ATT. So I look on the internet, and find there's 3 options:
1) Switch to ATT 2) Jailbreak an iPhone 3) Use my carrier's offering - not quite as good a unit, but I get to stay with my current provider.
Your scenario assumes #3 doesn't exist, but it's entirely possible that, for the majority of jailbroken iPhones out there, ATT isn't "losing" revenue because the owners aren't going to go with ATT period, even if it means not getting exactly what they want.
We reactivated this gene in the lab, and it seemed to work. There's a type of antibiotic that seems to reactivate the gene as well. So applying the antibiotic topically (read "like spermicidal foam/gel) should reactivate the gene in a woman's naughtybits and so fight the virus.
Focused on the woman - good idea. But how does science focus on the man? How about "STOP FUCKING PEOPLE WHO AREN'T YOUR WIFE/GIRLFRIED/SIGNIFIGANT OTHER!"
"I thought the whole "big thing" about Twitter is that it can send SMS messages to subscriber's phones? That's "push" pretty much by definition, isn't it?"
I think you hit the nail on the head as to the cause and timing of the lawsuit. As long as twitter was "pull", it didn't infringe. When it started including "push" functions, that was infringing. Maybe.
Yeah, fails on the obvious part. It appears to be just a database hooked to a bunch of different communication devices that can be rigged for group broadcasting. Interesting perhaps, useful perhaps. Patentable? Maybe, just maybe, the specific implementation but as a general concept can we say "broadcast fax"? I knew we could!"
You are contradicting yourself. You state the claim as "a database hooked to a bunch of different communication devices that can be rigged for group broadcasting". But then you claim that an example of 1 means of group broadcasting "Broadcast fax" is sufficient to serve as prior art for the whole claim.
It would have been more accurate to say "as a general concept can we say "broadcast fax that, if it gets a busy signal, calls one persons cell phone, another person's pager, another persons email; and then if they don't work calls the first person's email, the next person's home phone, the third persons wife's cell phone..." - oh, wait - that didn't exist before. Hmmmm..."
Having read the first claim as posted below, I believe this may be legitimate. Yes, there are tons of prior art for broadcasting a message. But the meat of the claim is that the message is broadcast via multiple mediums, with priority set by the user as to which type of messages get through AND which medium has priority.
So their patent claim isn't that they send broadcast messages on some random medium, but that they integrate the use of preexisting mediums in a specific manner, and that the manner is configurable by the user. There may be prior art for this, but it's not as simple as "Well, my Mom used a call-down list for daycare, duh".
Prove? No. But the data are that DSL lines would frequently cease working, and the problem was that the wires were disconnected in the CO. I had this happen to my company more than once. How do wires, properly terminated, suddenly become disconnected? It wasn't the copper trolls.
It was also "common knowledge" among the DSL workers, although that isn't exactly data.
"and for if and when the local government or state called you to arms in defense of self, town, god, and country"
Given that the founding fathers had recently fought a war where they were defending themselves FROM their own government, I think they may have had a broader view than you attribute to them. Maybe Jefferson's wording was ditched, not to save space, but ebcause a majority of the other founders didn't like it?
You are forgetting a very crucial point - although the 1996 act "forced" ILECs to open their lines to 3rd party providers, the Ilecs - Verizon especially - fought it tooth and nail. From charging outrageous fees for access ("Your fees are too high". "Really? Compare my fees to the other providers in the area." "There are no other providers." "Exactly.") to "accidentally" disconnecting random 3rd party wires every time a union electrician entered a CO (Oh, no - something broke? Sounds like I'll need some OT to fix it), the ILEC's made sure that, though access was available, it would never really work.
"That joke has long past its expiration date; Bill Gates isn't at Microsoft anymore (on a regular basis), the Borg is from a tv show that ended over 15 years ago.
It's like using the Edsel to represent Ford, its just old and stale. time for slashdot to get with the times."
This sounds like the same group of thinkers that thought that wars could be won through air power alone, without "boots on the ground". We've seen how well that worked in Vietnam, Gulf I and II, Afghanistan.
We are humans. It's not real until there is a person standing RFT.
Censorship is when a government stops a person or organization from disseminating information or expressing an opinion. When a private entity does it, it may be slimy and immoral but it isn't censorship.
And no it's not censorship just because they are using the courts.
I think you miss the point. The PC brigade doesn't want games to have "diverse" characters; their wet dream would be to force players to choose minority characters to represent themselves.
"Select Character"
[white skater dude]
"You have chosen "white skater dude" too many times. Please select a different character to enhance your gameplay."
[white surfer dude]
"You have chosen a character of the same ethnic background too many times. Please select a character of a different ethnic background to enhance your gameplay."
[black surfer dude]
"You have chosen a character of the same gender too many times. Please select a character of a different gender to enhance your gameplay."
[black surfer chick]
"You have chosen a character of the same sexual preference....."
Until every able bodied, white, heterosexual male wishes he was Frida Kahlo, some people will never be satisfied.
You are correct, and the wording is STILL wrong. Per Websters:
1 a (1): having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (2): allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light) b: fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous
So, the primary and tertiary definitions are defined, specifically, by the ability to SEE the transmitted radiation. In order for the second definition to be used, a modifier describing the radiation should have been used to avoid confusion.
Lets be realistic here - the blurb didn't omit "to far UV radiation" in order to save space; it's because "Transparent Aluminum" catches the eye (and clicks) a lot better.
"In this week's Nature Physics an international team, led by Oxford University scientists, report that a short pulse from the FLASH laser 'knocked out' a core electron from every aluminium atom in a sample without disrupting the metal's crystalline structure. This turned the aluminium nearly invisible to extreme ultraviolet radiation.
The last time I checked, the colloquail definition of "transparent" means "passes visible light".Glad to know those scientists can see in the UV range - sounds like evolution is moving apace.
''What we have created is a completely new state of matter nobody has seen before,'"
How is this statement justified? So far, all I hear is "I pissed on a rock and it turned to mud - it's a new state of matter!"
"Imagine being a photographer on the Paris-Dakar race where you're shooting hundreds (thousands?) of photos on a high-res DSLR for three weeks (a week before hand, the race, the aftermath) out in the field. There are a ton of week long sailing races that any one photographer might blow through 1000 photos a day. Highest quality 1080p is said to consume 1GB/minute. How many hours of video could national geographic tape with just three of these in the field with a MacBook Pro? Lots of options for pros. Consumers will buy these but rarely use them to their potential."
And then he drops something the size of a cigarette pack into the drink or into the sand and it's all gone. They need to make sure they buy 2.
Slashdot Mirror
"but AT&T understands that an iPhone on T-Mobile is approximately $90 a month in lost revenue."
That sounds suspiciously like the RIAA argument on damages - $10 lost revenue for every CD not bought. It's just as bogus.
The uniqueness of the iPhone is gone due to other makers catching up, at least partially. So lets say I want an I phone, but I'm not an Apple groupie, and I'm not currently on ATT. So I look on the internet, and find there's 3 options:
1) Switch to ATT
2) Jailbreak an iPhone
3) Use my carrier's offering - not quite as good a unit, but I get to stay with my current provider.
Your scenario assumes #3 doesn't exist, but it's entirely possible that, for the majority of jailbroken iPhones out there, ATT isn't "losing" revenue because the owners aren't going to go with ATT period, even if it means not getting exactly what they want.
We reactivated this gene in the lab, and it seemed to work. There's a type of antibiotic that seems to reactivate the gene as well. So applying the antibiotic topically (read "like spermicidal foam/gel) should reactivate the gene in a woman's naughtybits and so fight the virus.
Focused on the woman - good idea. But how does science focus on the man? How about "STOP FUCKING PEOPLE WHO AREN'T YOUR WIFE/GIRLFRIED/SIGNIFIGANT OTHER!"
"Vegetarian environmentalists will be at the bottom of the food chain. Carnivorous conservatives will be one step above it."
I believe you mean Eloi and Morlocks...oh, wait...
I think you hit the nail on the head as to the cause and timing of the lawsuit. As long as twitter was "pull", it didn't infringe. When it started including "push" functions, that was infringing. Maybe.
"
You are contradicting yourself. You state the claim as "a database hooked to a bunch of different communication devices that can be rigged for group broadcasting". But then you claim that an example of 1 means of group broadcasting "Broadcast fax" is sufficient to serve as prior art for the whole claim.
It would have been more accurate to say "as a general concept can we say "broadcast fax that, if it gets a busy signal, calls one persons cell phone, another person's pager, another persons email; and then if they don't work calls the first person's email, the next person's home phone, the third persons wife's cell phone..." - oh, wait - that didn't exist before. Hmmmm..."
Having read the first claim as posted below, I believe this may be legitimate. Yes, there are tons of prior art for broadcasting a message. But the meat of the claim is that the message is broadcast via multiple mediums, with priority set by the user as to which type of messages get through AND which medium has priority.
So their patent claim isn't that they send broadcast messages on some random medium, but that they integrate the use of preexisting mediums in a specific manner, and that the manner is configurable by the user. There may be prior art for this, but it's not as simple as "Well, my Mom used a call-down list for daycare, duh".
So you are saying it's not the length but the girth that matters?
Prove? No. But the data are that DSL lines would frequently cease working, and the problem was that the wires were disconnected in the CO. I had this happen to my company more than once. How do wires, properly terminated, suddenly become disconnected? It wasn't the copper trolls.
It was also "common knowledge" among the DSL workers, although that isn't exactly data.
"and for if and when the local government or state called you to arms in defense of self, town, god, and country"
Given that the founding fathers had recently fought a war where they were defending themselves FROM their own government, I think they may have had a broader view than you attribute to them. Maybe Jefferson's wording was ditched, not to save space, but ebcause a majority of the other founders didn't like it?
You are forgetting a very crucial point - although the 1996 act "forced" ILECs to open their lines to 3rd party providers, the Ilecs - Verizon especially - fought it tooth and nail. From charging outrageous fees for access ("Your fees are too high". "Really? Compare my fees to the other providers in the area." "There are no other providers." "Exactly.") to "accidentally" disconnecting random 3rd party wires every time a union electrician entered a CO (Oh, no - something broke? Sounds like I'll need some OT to fix it), the ILEC's made sure that, though access was available, it would never really work.
"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."
They'll turn into birds?
Suggest drawing in "movement" lines a la comics. (pardom my ASCII)
________ |---| .....
_______ |---|
______ |===|
_____
____ | |
___ |---|
I agree - lets change it to a flying chair.
"Do I get to chose where it comes down?"
Sure - 1/4# payload, 1/4# guidance system.
Of course, if you are THAT much into preemptive self defense, you could just buy 2 and have them attached - one for payload and 1 for guidance.
Now, all you need is a spinning mirror...
No, it would be murder. Last time I checked, that crime was at least an order of magnitude worse than "censorship."
This sounds like the same group of thinkers that thought that wars could be won through air power alone, without "boots on the ground". We've seen how well that worked in Vietnam, Gulf I and II, Afghanistan.
We are humans. It's not real until there is a person standing RFT.
Censorship is when a government stops a person or organization from disseminating information or expressing an opinion. When a private entity does it, it may be slimy and immoral but it isn't censorship.
And no it's not censorship just because they are using the courts.
I think you miss the point. The PC brigade doesn't want games to have "diverse" characters; their wet dream would be to force players to choose minority characters to represent themselves.
"Select Character"
[white skater dude]
"You have chosen "white skater dude" too many times. Please select a different character to enhance your gameplay."
[white surfer dude]
"You have chosen a character of the same ethnic background too many times. Please select a character of a different ethnic background to enhance your gameplay."
[black surfer dude]
"You have chosen a character of the same gender too many times. Please select a character of a different gender to enhance your gameplay."
[black surfer chick]
"You have chosen a character of the same sexual preference....."
Until every able bodied, white, heterosexual male wishes he was Frida Kahlo, some people will never be satisfied.
You are correct, and the wording is STILL wrong. Per Websters:
1 a (1): having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid (2): allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X-rays or ultraviolet light) b: fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous
So, the primary and tertiary definitions are defined, specifically, by the ability to SEE the transmitted radiation. In order for the second definition to be used, a modifier describing the radiation should have been used to avoid confusion.
Lets be realistic here - the blurb didn't omit "to far UV radiation" in order to save space; it's because "Transparent Aluminum" catches the eye (and clicks) a lot better.
"Blurg". Oh, the meta-irony.
But since the blurg was referenced here on Slashdot, the colloquial meaning is the one that matters to this forum, no?
Actually, the fail is that I misspelled "colloquial" - and you repeated it.
"All insults directed at a member of a protected class shall be interpreted as resulting from bias against that protected class"
From the PC Handbook, as referenced in both the Trial Lawyers Business Development Guide and 15 Minutes: How YOU Can Get the Fame You Deserve!
The last time I checked, the colloquail definition of "transparent" means "passes visible light".Glad to know those scientists can see in the UV range - sounds like evolution is moving apace.
How is this statement justified? So far, all I hear is "I pissed on a rock and it turned to mud - it's a new state of matter!"
"Personally, I'm wary of keeping anything on a drive []for long term data storage."
I'm sure you meant the above.
And then he drops something the size of a cigarette pack into the drink or into the sand and it's all gone. They need to make sure they buy 2.