A Microsoft Windows programmer died and soon after found himself in front of a committee that decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell.
The committee told the programmer he had some say in the matter and asked him if he wanted to see Heaven and Hell before stating his preference.
"Sure," he said, so an angel took him to a place with a sunny beach, volleyball, and rock and roll, where everyone was having a great time.
"Wow!" he exclaimed. "Heaven is great!"
"Wrong," said the angel. "That was Hell. Want to see Heaven?"
"Sure!" So the angel took him to another place. Here a bunch of people were sitting in a park playing bingo and feeding dead pigeons.
"This is Heaven?" asked the Windows programmer.
"Yup," said the angel.
"Then I'll take Hell." Instantly he found himself plunged up to his neck in red-hot lava, with the hosts of the damned in torment around him. "Where's the beach? The music? The volleyball?" he screamed frantically to the angel.
Seems to me that a better move for Google if they really wanted to help solar thermal along is to find another country in which to build it. While the US does have a good deal of sandy, sunny land which would be great for it, the US also has enough environmentalists who would tie such a project up indefinitely in order to protect the pristine desert environment. Mirrors with better wear properties are child's play compared to solving that problem.
Trespassing is theft, because you've deprived the owner of his exclusive right to control his property. Vandalism is murder, because you've taken part of the owner's life to repair the damage.
The more stuff I read about patent litigation the less I understand why the corporations don't come to the conclusion that it doesn't do them any good. Patent law reformed reasonably, everyone would benefit (and, presumably, profit).
Because for all the damage it does them, the benefits of keeping the cost of entry high for any competition are much, much greater.
Or at least we need those brilliant coders to take the ball that last 10 yards and not stop when the product hits the "functional" stage. Functional and usable are not the same thing.
The last 20% is boring, painful, time consuming, and worst of all, subjective (any given decision you make will be wrong for some of the users). Very few are willing to do it for free. Actually, few do it for proprietary programs either, as "saleable" and "usable" aren't the same either.
Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)
Well, there's the old rotating disc displays, with a disc which sweeps out a volume; the image is projected onto the disc. The disc is still 2D, but the light from the image to your eye is actually coming from a space, not a plane. Apparently similar things are actually used; the generic name is swept-volume volumetric display.
One could imagine a similar thing with less moving parts; perhaps a transparent substance (solid or a fluid confined in a container) which fluoresces when hit by some number of laser beams. Or a transparent substance which becomes momentarily opaque under similar circumstances, allowing it to be projected upon.
Sorry, I've already got a patent on "A method of answering a question you have yourself posed in order to bring about a sense of smug self satisfaction."
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
I'm, frankly, shocked that at least one of the vendors pushing GPS modules for "fleet" use hasn't started offering that yet.
Of course they have. There's no need to use aerial photos for measuring feature heights; location of anything below 13'6" on the National Network is available from the state DOT. I know of several products which do routing according to truck restrictions -- PC*Miler, Map&Guide (Europe, mostly), and Rand McNally's Intelliroute. All have GPS tie in software.
Yeah, it's not going to work that way. Here's what would happen:
1. Supreme Court decides to ignore statutory construction and say that some statutes have no effect in order to find others unconstitutional.
There's not really a question of unconstitutionality here. If there were, the rules of statutory construction wouldn't come into play; it is not against the rules of statutory construction to declare that a statute has no effect because it violates the Constitution. The question is whether or not business method patents (absent a "machine or transformation") are patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. Congress is not going to strip the Supreme Court of 8 justices or anything crazy like that over this decision; if the Supreme Court decides against business method patents, Congress can simply amend 35 USC 101 to explicitly include them.
So, given that, the Supreme Court has to read statutes consistently where possible. 35 USC 273 says that there's a defense to infringement for patented processes that are business methods. Therefore, Congress indicated that business methods fall within the patentable processes of 35 USC 101.
Here's where the problem lies. It is another rule of statutory construction that policy changes are made explicitly, not implicitly. By that rule, since 35 USC 273 does not _explicitly_ add to the types of material which are patentable, it does not change them. So if business method patents were not valid under 35 USC 101 before the passage of 35 USC 273, they are not valid after the passage of 35 USC 273. Of course, this puts two rules of statutory construction in conflict. There are any number of ways to resolve the conflict.
1) Business methods are now and always have been patentable (re-affirming State Street and overturning the appeals court decision in Bilski) 2) Business methods were not patentable until 35 USC 273 was passed, but they are now (same effect, different reasoning) 3) Business methods are patentable provided they meet the "machine or transformation test" in Bilski (affirming the appeals court decision in Bilski, while not categorically ruling out business method patents; 35 USC 273 is thus not rendered meaningless) 4) Business methods are patentable but must meet some other test the Court comes up with (similar to 3) 5) Business methods are not now and never have been patentable; State Street was an error. 35 USC 273 was passed by Congress to mitigate the effects of that error; by overturning State Street, the court eliminates the error and thus the need for the statute. (affirming and going further than the appeals court decision) 6) The Bilski patent is invalid on some other ground and the issue of business method patents remains undecided.
You seem to think they can't pick ruling #5. They can. I don't think it's very likely -- I think they'll pick #3 or #1. But I don't think #2 is very likely either; it's rather tortured reasoning. It amounts to "Congress intended to make business methods patentable because they passed a defense to business method patents after a court had already found them patentable" -- it's not really deference to the legislature (which is what that rule of construction is meant to support), but indirect deference to the State Street decision. The fact that Congress has relied on a decision of a court in later legislation does not mean that decision cannot be subsequently overturned, particularly not by the Supreme Court.
House? He's fun as a TV character, and if he really existed and I already knew I had some incredibly hard to diagnose fatal-if-untreated disease, he'd be a great doctor (it's not like his patients actually have to deal with him personally that often).
As a boss, though, he'd be horrible. He drove two employees to quit and fired a third. One of the replacements he drove to suicide, and he looks well on his way to sending another that way.
And he's not always right. His being wrong nearly kills the patient at least once, often more often, each episode.
... but the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to abolish business and software patents.
The Supreme Court essentially has whatever authority it claims, unless and until Congress decides to say otherwise.
You may not like them, but it's Congress who would have to (and has full authority to) amend 35 USC 101. Any argument to abolish them before the Supreme Court based on unconstitutionality will fail since Congress included business methods in the infringement statutes.
35 USC 101 does not refer to business method patents. The sole reference is a specific defense to infringement for business method patents. It is a standard rule of statutory construction that a statute not be interpreted as having no effect; however, that is a judicial rule, and the Supreme Court is free to ignore it. It is also a standard rule of statutory construction that a major policy change not be made implicitly, and thus that 35 USC 273 was not intended to amend 35 USC 101 by creating a whole new class of patentable material, and therefore the patentability of business methods under 35 USC 101 is not affected by 35 USC 273.
It's up to the court which rule to choose, or to go a different path altogether. You can't just point to 273 and say "The Court will go that way", because the Supreme Court does what it damn well pleases.
Has anyone considered the effects on the AI of actually realising it's intelligent?
You mean besides most science fiction writers (and readers)? Besides a bunch of hand-wringing "ethicists"? Besides pretty much everyone involved or interested in AI research? Besides them... no, nobody.
Slashdot Mirror
There's any number of variations of this one:
A Microsoft Windows programmer died and soon after found himself in front of a committee that decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell.
The committee told the programmer he had some say in the matter and asked him if he wanted to see Heaven and Hell before stating his preference.
"Sure," he said, so an angel took him to a place with a sunny beach, volleyball, and rock and roll, where everyone was having a great time.
"Wow!" he exclaimed. "Heaven is great!"
"Wrong," said the angel. "That was Hell. Want to see Heaven?"
"Sure!" So the angel took him to another place. Here a bunch of people were sitting in a park playing bingo and feeding dead pigeons.
"This is Heaven?" asked the Windows programmer.
"Yup," said the angel.
"Then I'll take Hell." Instantly he found himself plunged up to his neck in red-hot lava, with the hosts of the damned in torment around him. "Where's the beach? The music? The volleyball?" he screamed frantically to the angel.
"That was the demo," she replied as she vanished.
Seems to me that a better move for Google if they really wanted to help solar thermal along is to find another country in which to build it. While the US does have a good deal of sandy, sunny land which would be great for it, the US also has enough environmentalists who would tie such a project up indefinitely in order to protect the pristine desert environment. Mirrors with better wear properties are child's play compared to solving that problem.
Trespassing is theft, because you've deprived the owner of his exclusive right to control his property.
Vandalism is murder, because you've taken part of the owner's life to repair the damage.
Because for all the damage it does them, the benefits of keeping the cost of entry high for any competition are much, much greater.
The last 20% is boring, painful, time consuming, and worst of all, subjective (any given decision you make will be wrong for some of the users). Very few are willing to do it for free. Actually, few do it for proprietary programs either, as "saleable" and "usable" aren't the same either.
The only things on Sun's roadmap now are signs to the effect of "Road Closed 1000 feet".
Well, there's the old rotating disc displays, with a disc which sweeps out a volume; the image is projected onto the disc. The disc is still 2D, but the light from the image to your eye is actually coming from a space, not a plane. Apparently similar things are actually used; the generic name is swept-volume volumetric display.
One could imagine a similar thing with less moving parts; perhaps a transparent substance (solid or a fluid confined in a container) which fluoresces when hit by some number of laser beams. Or a transparent substance which becomes momentarily opaque under similar circumstances, allowing it to be projected upon.
Yes, we fucking do.
American society is risk averse to pathological levels in general.
You'll never prove it.
If you can get these bacteria to selectively convert U-235 over U-238 (or vice-versa), then you've got an interesting bug.
Prior Art!
Neither does /dev/null, and it doesn't have the network vulnerability.
Did you tell her "YES"? Because that's clearly the right answer under the circumstances.
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
There's also a format called NMEA, ugly but easy to parse and supported by most GPSs. Probably lacks the capabilities of this new format, though.
Of course they have. There's no need to use aerial photos for measuring feature heights; location of anything below 13'6" on the National Network is available from the state DOT. I know of several products which do routing according to truck restrictions -- PC*Miler, Map&Guide (Europe, mostly), and Rand McNally's Intelliroute. All have GPS tie in software.
There's not really a question of unconstitutionality here. If there were, the rules of statutory construction wouldn't come into play; it is not against the rules of statutory construction to declare that a statute has no effect because it violates the Constitution. The question is whether or not business method patents (absent a "machine or transformation") are patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. Congress is not going to strip the Supreme Court of 8 justices or anything crazy like that over this decision; if the Supreme Court decides against business method patents, Congress can simply amend 35 USC 101 to explicitly include them.
Here's where the problem lies. It is another rule of statutory construction that policy changes are made explicitly, not implicitly. By that rule, since 35 USC 273 does not _explicitly_ add to the types of material which are patentable, it does not change them. So if business method patents were not valid under 35 USC 101 before the passage of 35 USC 273, they are not valid after the passage of 35 USC 273. Of course, this puts two rules of statutory construction in conflict. There are any number of ways to resolve the conflict.
1) Business methods are now and always have been patentable (re-affirming State Street and overturning the appeals court decision in Bilski)
2) Business methods were not patentable until 35 USC 273 was passed, but they are now (same effect, different reasoning)
3) Business methods are patentable provided they meet the "machine or transformation test" in Bilski (affirming the appeals court decision in Bilski, while not categorically ruling out business method patents; 35 USC 273 is thus not rendered meaningless)
4) Business methods are patentable but must meet some other test the Court comes up with (similar to 3)
5) Business methods are not now and never have been patentable; State Street was an error. 35 USC 273 was passed by Congress to mitigate the effects of that error; by overturning State Street, the court eliminates the error and thus the need for the statute. (affirming and going further than the appeals court decision)
6) The Bilski patent is invalid on some other ground and the issue of business method patents remains undecided.
You seem to think they can't pick ruling #5. They can. I don't think it's very likely -- I think they'll pick #3 or #1. But I don't think #2 is very likely either; it's rather tortured reasoning. It amounts to "Congress intended to make business methods patentable because they passed a defense to business method patents after a court had already found them patentable" -- it's not really deference to the legislature (which is what that rule of construction is meant to support), but indirect deference to the State Street decision. The fact that Congress has relied on a decision of a court in later legislation does not mean that decision cannot be subsequently overturned, particularly not by the Supreme Court.
House? He's fun as a TV character, and if he really existed and I already knew I had some incredibly hard to diagnose fatal-if-untreated disease, he'd be a great doctor (it's not like his patients actually have to deal with him personally that often).
As a boss, though, he'd be horrible. He drove two employees to quit and fired a third. One of the replacements he drove to suicide, and he looks well on his way to sending another that way.
And he's not always right. His being wrong nearly kills the patient at least once, often more often, each episode.
Quitting a job without having another one lined up = career death. You'll never be able to explain it to prospective employers.
Getting fired for cause is also career death, but if you can spin it as a layoff, it's not as bad.
The Supreme Court essentially has whatever authority it claims, unless and until Congress decides to say otherwise.
35 USC 101 does not refer to business method patents. The sole reference is a specific defense to infringement for business method patents. It is a standard rule of statutory construction that a statute not be interpreted as having no effect; however, that is a judicial rule, and the Supreme Court is free to ignore it. It is also a standard rule of statutory construction that a major policy change not be made implicitly, and thus that 35 USC 273 was not intended to amend 35 USC 101 by creating a whole new class of patentable material, and therefore the patentability of business methods under 35 USC 101 is not affected by 35 USC 273.
It's up to the court which rule to choose, or to go a different path altogether. You can't just point to 273 and say "The Court will go that way", because the Supreme Court does what it damn well pleases.
Been hearing that one since at least the late 80s. Why should I believe it now?
Production is icky and bad for the environment.
300 million people trying to walk to the US via Alaska? Yes, without difficulty.
You mean besides most science fiction writers (and readers)? Besides a bunch of hand-wringing "ethicists"? Besides pretty much everyone involved or interested in AI research? Besides them... no, nobody.