Use a virtual machine to contain Windows 10. Install an operating system and virtual machine software you trust. Disable any wireless interface for that operating system. Put the files in a Windows 10 virtual machine. Do not give the virtual machine access to any wireless interfaces.
I'm trying to remember what the other outage was recently where the web service failed because they forgot to implement exponential backoff. Anyone remember?
I tried to explain this once during a job interview, why you might use a suboptimal in terms of O() if the problem size was small enough. The interviewer never did seem to get it.
What material do you want included as prior art that is not already included? Prior art today already includes everything ever published before the application was filed, everything that was publicly used in the US before the application was filed, and generally all patent applications filed before the application.
Sorry, ZFS combined with a NAS could infringe a patent that ZFS by itself doesn't. It all depends on whether the NAS was included in the claims. One of the patents cited in this discussion appears to do just that. However, without fully analyzing the patent, it's hard to know the exact extent of the claims.
That's not what the patent attorneys say. Most patent attorneys complain that the USPTO won't issue even completely new inventions. The statistics confirm that the USPTO is far from just a rubber stamp. >90% of all patent applications get rejected after their initial submission. It's typical that a patent only gets issued after a few rounds of prosecution.
It probably wouldn't speed up the process. First, just because some company implemented 1-click, does not force Amazon to sue. Unlike trademarks, where the mark has to be enforced to prevent delusion, patent infringement can be ignored. RedHat has even gone so far as to publicly state they won't enforce their patents in certain situations.
Second, even if it was brought to court, the judge could decide to stay the case pending the decision from the USPTO. This sometimes happens because the judge doesn't want to waste their time or effort when the USPTO is already looking at the case.
Just because you can't use that much bandwidth doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I've managed to hit 50 Mbs downloading when I had a real broadband connection.
Anybody care to explain what it means to have both an application-independent reduce module and an application-specific reduce operation? It would seem that these would generally be mutually exclusive.
This merely postpones the decision for up to one year. If you do go this route, you should probably publish it too, to prevent someone else from patenting the same thing in the meantime.
The SCOTUS could have taken the case to affirm the decision. Nobody was really happy with the Bilski decision. It just left too many gray areas when it comes to the machine prong of the test.
It is nice that the industry wants to build more plants. However, where are they going to get there steel containment vessels from? The last I heard only Japan Steel could manufacture them, and they already had a decade long backlog.
Wait until fundamentalist religious groups realize how much culture they could remove simply by buying the copyrights to those works. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, or Muslim group realizes that by investing billions of dollars they could completely control all large media, the culture war will truly begin.
The problem with your suggestion is that it forces the inventor to disclose his idea to other potential competitors in the field without any guarantee of obtaining a patent. While many patent applications are published today, a significant fraction are not.
Most "patent clerks" are engineers with at least BS degrees in the field. They also have typically been spending the past few years looking at patent applications that are very similar to the one under examination. They are probably more familiar with the art than a randomly chosen "expert" who has a MS degree in the field.
While it may cost $10 grand to prepare and file a patent application, the USPTO only receives $1090 for an application. The rest goes to the patent attorney who writes it. Increasing the fee would probably allow for better examinations though.
I agree with the parent. The grandparent's suggestion completely matches the system in place today. The one difference I have with the parent is that the more senior examiner is really more equivalent to the BPAI (Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) than the supervising examiner.
It's not linear size that shrinks, but rather area. This gives us about 8 more generations before we hit 4nm wires. The more common period is 24 months between generations. That gives us roughly 15 years before we hit that limit.
Actually, Wikipedia is possibly the worst place to publish it. You are better off just posting it on your own site and letting Google index it. The USPTO frowns on using Wikipedia as prior art.
The US Patent Office is always looking for Computer Science people to examine patent applications. No coding or fixing other people's computers involved. Plus, there is no more direct way to keep out bad software patents.
These students need to live somewhere where they can really vote on large sums of money.
In March, I voted on a $750 million dollar bond issue. There were 80 people who voted out of the 300 eligible. The margin of victory was 30 votes. You just have to love California school bond issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Use a virtual machine to contain Windows 10. Install an operating system and virtual machine software you trust. Disable any wireless interface for that operating system. Put the files in a Windows 10 virtual machine. Do not give the virtual machine access to any wireless interfaces.
I'm trying to remember what the other outage was recently where the web service failed because they forgot to implement exponential backoff. Anyone remember?
I tried to explain this once during a job interview, why you might use a suboptimal in terms of O() if the problem size was small enough. The interviewer never did seem to get it.
What material do you want included as prior art that is not already included? Prior art today already includes everything ever published before the application was filed, everything that was publicly used in the US before the application was filed, and generally all patent applications filed before the application.
Sorry, ZFS combined with a NAS could infringe a patent that ZFS by itself doesn't. It all depends on whether the NAS was included in the claims. One of the patents cited in this discussion appears to do just that. However, without fully analyzing the patent, it's hard to know the exact extent of the claims.
Anybody have the patent numbers in question?
That's not what the patent attorneys say. Most patent attorneys complain that the USPTO won't issue even completely new inventions. The statistics confirm that the USPTO is far from just a rubber stamp. >90% of all patent applications get rejected after their initial submission. It's typical that a patent only gets issued after a few rounds of prosecution.
It probably wouldn't speed up the process. First, just because some company implemented 1-click, does not force Amazon to sue. Unlike trademarks, where the mark has to be enforced to prevent delusion, patent infringement can be ignored. RedHat has even gone so far as to publicly state they won't enforce their patents in certain situations. Second, even if it was brought to court, the judge could decide to stay the case pending the decision from the USPTO. This sometimes happens because the judge doesn't want to waste their time or effort when the USPTO is already looking at the case.
Just because you can't use that much bandwidth doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I've managed to hit 50 Mbs downloading when I had a real broadband connection.
Anybody care to explain what it means to have both an application-independent reduce module and an application-specific reduce operation? It would seem that these would generally be mutually exclusive.
Get the US Congress to change the laws.
This merely postpones the decision for up to one year. If you do go this route, you should probably publish it too, to prevent someone else from patenting the same thing in the meantime.
The SCOTUS could have taken the case to affirm the decision. Nobody was really happy with the Bilski decision. It just left too many gray areas when it comes to the machine prong of the test.
It is nice that the industry wants to build more plants. However, where are they going to get there steel containment vessels from? The last I heard only Japan Steel could manufacture them, and they already had a decade long backlog.
Wait until fundamentalist religious groups realize how much culture they could remove simply by buying the copyrights to those works. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, or Muslim group realizes that by investing billions of dollars they could completely control all large media, the culture war will truly begin.
But then who would examine all of the applications from lawyers who are not fluent in English?
Perhaps more interestingly, the USPTO uses Microsoft Word itself.
The problem with your suggestion is that it forces the inventor to disclose his idea to other potential competitors in the field without any guarantee of obtaining a patent. While many patent applications are published today, a significant fraction are not.
Most "patent clerks" are engineers with at least BS degrees in the field. They also have typically been spending the past few years looking at patent applications that are very similar to the one under examination. They are probably more familiar with the art than a randomly chosen "expert" who has a MS degree in the field.
While it may cost $10 grand to prepare and file a patent application, the USPTO only receives $1090 for an application. The rest goes to the patent attorney who writes it. Increasing the fee would probably allow for better examinations though.
I agree with the parent. The grandparent's suggestion completely matches the system in place today. The one difference I have with the parent is that the more senior examiner is really more equivalent to the BPAI (Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) than the supervising examiner.
It's not linear size that shrinks, but rather area. This gives us about 8 more generations before we hit 4nm wires. The more common period is 24 months between generations. That gives us roughly 15 years before we hit that limit.
Actually, Wikipedia is possibly the worst place to publish it. You are better off just posting it on your own site and letting Google index it. The USPTO frowns on using Wikipedia as prior art.
The US Patent Office is always looking for Computer Science people to examine patent applications. No coding or fixing other people's computers involved. Plus, there is no more direct way to keep out bad software patents.
They already are. Look at the Google Techtalks on youtube. One recurring topic there is nuclear power.
These students need to live somewhere where they can really vote on large sums of money. In March, I voted on a $750 million dollar bond issue. There were 80 people who voted out of the 300 eligible. The margin of victory was 30 votes. You just have to love California school bond issues.
Unfortunately not. I saw it on some trails near Tahoe this summer.