I know this one guy I work with has two kids about 13 or 14 and he doesn't have crack cocaine at home for just this very reason. He feels that the safest situation but completey ignores the fact that his kids have friends in the nieghbourhood and some if not all of them have crack cocaine.
I also operate a (very) small hosting business as part of a web design business (though it's a second job and really more of a hobby). My primary market is local charitable groups. My clients get a better service by using me to setup and manage their hosting. I insulate them from having to know anything about hosting, DNS, server configs, setting up email accounts and the like.
I resell web hosting for a company based about 20km away. They colocate about 200km away and I've researched the parent company.
If I died then my clients would probably be fine until my estate decided to stop paying the credit card bills - they could just ftp in to their accounts, backup and move to a new server. Thing is they wouldn't know how to do it. I'd hope that the reseller would allow clients to have their stuff if I stopped paying. But I doubt these types of clients would have anyone to turn to that could help transfer their websites... they'd probably just buy new ones and start again.
The government use our taxes to sponsor research. The researches use the money to buy journals. The government then bases sponsorship on publication and citation in those same journals.
Why doesn't the government run a free and open access system of scientific [internet based] publication allowing research sponsorship money to be used for research and not for lining the coffers of rich publishing magnates? They could use the British Library as the patron. This could lead to all UK academics (and others if they want to allow global access) having immediate access to the works of all other UK academics.
I don't doubt that the publishing staff of journals can add value, incidentally. This added value could equally be created (I feel) by a scientific publishing arm of the Crown however.
Slackpkg is great and all but it's only for packages that are a part of the distro (correct me if i'm wrong)... yeah there's slapt-get (and is swaret still going?) but the breadth of apps that the ?ubuntu's have is not there because of the smaller userbase.
Also so far I've not managed to upgrade Slack with just "slackpkg install-new; slackpkg upgrade-all;" whilst I've heard plenty of reports of a dist-upgrade working.
>>> "I think it is no coincidence that many of the evolution deniers are also global warming deniers."
As one who is yet to be convinced about full darwinian evolution (eg compound eyes, rotor-stator development in bacterial flagella, gaps in fossil records, self-referential dating techniques, etc.) and yet nearly convinced about global warming (having studied physics, maths and ecological modelling at Uni and thus having a modicum of understanding about chaotic systems - I am convinced about global climate change however) I'd like to ask... what's the source for your statistics on "evolution deniers [who] are also global warming deniers"? I'd be quite interested in this.
I've never come across this correlation personally which is why it interests me.
Of course I'm sure you'll let us know if you're just making a blind assertion?!
Incidentally: am I an anti-intellectual? I'm nearly a skeptic in the epistemological sense. But in as much as intellectuals exist I think I probably am one. I guess I ultimately rely on my sense data for day-to-day living rather than pure reason... suppose that's what you're getting at?
>>> "The BBC has said multiple times that they intend to support other OSes in time."
Unfortunately the BBC now thinks it's a commercial enterprise - paying presenters by the million when any half decent presenter of the thousands could do their job for maybe at most 80-100k; copying other channels rather than providing an alternate choice; quantity over quality, etc. - part of this commercialisation has been a lack of real honesty IMHO. Check out the recent revelations about their ripping off people who phone in to their shows... not what you expect of an enterprise supposedly run solely for the benefit of the license paying public.
I don't trust the BBC when they say other OS will follow shortly - partly because they're not choosing a platform agnostic solution and partly because I don't think the DRM solution they want (for unsound reasons*) is even possible.
--- * they say the DRM protects the interests of other broadcasters - that however is not the BBC's remit. We pay for the programs, I don't care if Sky, Virgin, whoever makes less money for their shareholders because I was forced to pay for something else.
I part-own a ceramic cafe. A sales person visited to encourage us to switch to accepting Amex (IIRC). After all the blah-blah I said "sounds fine", he says give us your bank details (on the form for Amex).
So, I wanted to get some verification of his ID. He shows me a photo card, OK. Can I ring your boss? He didn't have a number I could call (eg on the Amex literature) only some number on his business card (I spoke to the guy on the other end, but all this shows is he knows someone with a phone!). Even if I could have had that number on the literature how would that verify him, me thinks, easily faked.
It turns out he was genuine (or an Amex insider!) - I eventually managed to chase him through the Amex phone system. But without some means to check his ID the transaction never happened.
The thing is this. Clearly no-one else ever bothered to ask for (proper) identification - there was no system in place. And this for a major financial institution that relies on proper ID.
"The information you have provided matches our records for an uncashed check that was issued to you for state tax refunds, lottery payments, or unclaimed funds. This verification only means that your name and social security number were on the stolen device. Please check your records to determine whether or not you received or cashed the check."
Sounds interesting, no?
Also sounds rather like the "free speedboat" episode of the Simpsons.
>>> "Some MS sales rep had a potential sale of 500 seats, and had to sweeten the deal to get a sale."
Except it's like you went to buy a car and OpenCar offered you the same model but with the filler cap on the opposite side and with a slightly different colour scheme (and maybe it's top speed and torque are a few percent less)... for free. But you still chose the £12k ($24k) car from the ItCostsYouAlotToBuyPartForThisCar dealer because he said they'd throw in a set of tyres.
Having searched and examined patent applications for 6 years (or so, but not currently): I'd say the majority (my impression = above 95%) of patents are produced by workers and filed for companies.
Patents are used to protect technology fields from exploitation by other companies. They are thus bargaining chips and a major indicator for shareholders and other investors. Larger companies (and this may have changed now but was true 3-4 years ago) filed patents on everything remotely patentable (eg queuing for the toilet!)... sure if your idea from your r&d log book makes them several million then you'll get recompensed but just getting a patent is nothing special. Anyone with £200 can do that.
I thought gimp was a photo-editting prog not a drawing program. For tools I use inkscape.
What I'd love to see is a unified canvass that any drawing prog could use. You could then choose any tool from any package you liked... you could do a gimp-color rotation then proceed to use the vector editting tools of inkscape, add on some text boxes using scribus - all without closing the image window. Even if the apps wrote to different layers of one canvass that would be awesome IMHO.
We searched online databases of UK, EPO, WO, US, JP (Japanese, translated abstracts and later JPO provided [machine] translations), DE (German), FR (French) patents as a matter of course. It was down to the examiner to determine the scope of search to perform. We could also search hundreds of databases of technical disclosures (eg IBM's TDB - technical disclosure bulletins). All UK examiners had to be able to translate enough french and german language to be able to decide if a full translation was needed and we had other language translators to hand - JP docs were obviously important in computer fields.
Other databases included Elsevier journal databases and also paper files (go back 100 years or so) of all UK patents (which were phased out during my time there). In some areas we had libraries of other books and journals. Also if you could put a case for getting a particular publication you could get it - New Scientist and Nature were particularly popular!
One of the vital tools for prior art searches was the different "classification keys" - UKC, ECLA, USC... etc.. Basically all patent docs are given a key which defines the field(s) that it falls in, eg G06F 11/00C2 (http://v3.espacenet.com/eclasrch?ECLA=/espacenet/ ecla/g06f/g06f11.htm?q=11-00c2) is fault tolerance by degradation of service within a computer system. There will be 10's of thousands of patent docs in this category and some non-patent disclosures like TDB's or magazine articles may be categorised (EPO used to do this but UK not really). By crossing categories and using abstract and full-text keyword searching one wittles down the docs to look at.
I also did quite a bit of internet searching (too much) using several search engines as well as site searches and a few company databases that we had access too. The problem with internet citations was proving the publication date, vital to show something is prior art.
In G06F (which is roughly G4A in the UKC, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-cl ass/p-class-ukc/p-class-ukc-g.htm) one tended to have about 1.5 days to do a search (sometimes it would be half a day, sometimes 5). In other less strenuous fields a lot less. This means possible a few hundred abstracts to read and digest to whittle down to maybe a dozen docs to read in full and then perhaps cite 3 or 4, depending what you find. Sometimes with searches that don't fit keywords well you'd read more abstracts. Sometimes you can find an exact hit in a few minutes and spend the rest of the time finding docs to cite that will preempt what the patent attorney will try to amend the claims to.
There's no lack of places to look for prior art.
Oftentimes you'd search and search because something seemed so obvious but wouldn't find a strong citation. The problem with obviousness objections is always that the patent agent (aka attorney) can comeback and say if it was so obvious why was no one been doing it (or documented it), show me some evidence. This is especially strong in a well worked field - why did so many people overlook this obvious step. Combinations of docs suffer from ex-post facto analysis - one has to try and work from the prior position and see if the notional skilled man in the art would put those docs together?
--- In response to the parent there's a requirement for US applicants to cite known US patents (and I think other prior art) that is particularly pertinent to their applications (I don't know the specific requirement). If they fail to cite something and it's proven they knew about it and it's relevant they can lose their patent (or at least be sued for big bucks). All major WO patent granting offices have to search at least a certain amount of literature - specific ranges of specific fields of patents; the US is such an office.
>>> "Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with. Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations."
Except if god exists outside of time and thus is immutable in 4-dimensions (and possibly changing in other dimensions). Thus god could still be "perfect" (by your definition of perfection being immutable). Your argument is like a flat-earther saying you can't sail west and get to the east - God doesn't need to change to accomodate the arrow of time because he already has perceived/permitted/manufactured the change and changed accordingly ahead of time. Your (and so I guess Spinoza's) argument is temporally bound and assumes that the god in question is also; ridiculous.
Anyway, that aside: If the weather today is perfect (for me, say I'm going skiing and want unblown snow) that doesn't mean that the same weather tomorrow is perfect (for me, when I'm going sailing and want wind and sun). The original state of the weather was perfect, the changed state of the weather is perfect (for me!), the state of "perfect weather" need not have altered if considered as a single form in a four dimensional space.
Oh and where in the Bible does it say God is separate? God, by the Holy Spirit is certainly _not_ defined as separate but instead is permeating (as an ether). Nor is God entirely singular, being triune. You open up the possibility by saying something must contain God (though outside of space-time what is containment?) to the notion of God containing both Himself and the universe.
PS: When you say God is singular, do you mean he has no "god-friends" or is this a reiteration of his immutablilty?
>>> "Either we require the BBC to broadcast in a format everyone can view, in which case we are stuck in B&W 5:4 format, or we accept the BBC pushes multimedia to the edge, which means not everything will be viewable by everyone all the time."
I know you're being facetious, but anyway, here's right back at y':
If the broadcast was in colour 4:3 then people using old B&W sets could still see a picture (almost graceful degradation).
On the main point it's not like the BBC has to include DRM to push "multimedia to the edge". Much of the content is home grown - I helped pay (begrudgingly in the most part) so why not let me view it?
Wrt what a "run of the mill" machine is - your argument has its merits but you ignore the fact that most of that 80%+ of MS machines will not have the latest OS nor latest Windows Media Player and hence is unlikely to play the latest DRM'ed WMP-only files.
And what happens when MS decide a year later to upgrade the "BBC" codec via windows update - locking all stored BBC content - and provide the retrograde codec as a backwards compatability fix for £100?
Oh yeah of course, MS would never screw over it's customers.
Well, come now. Tell me you didn't expect - "install linux" as a response to this?!
Optional - check, you don't have to buy a MS OS. Removable - check, logically and physically removable.
So I'm also going to go with a car analogy just to finish off nicely (incidentally in Soviet Russia your posts finish you off with some hot grits... or something): If you buy a car with 4 seats and only use 2 do you complain that the company welded the seat stanchions in?
If _I_ "make the device without the permission of the original patent holder" then it's fine.
Why? It's non-commercial "R&D" use. I (personally) can use the disclosure to create a device for "R&D" as long as it's not used commercially (which might include giving it away as that could cause commercial harm to the patent rights owner or licensee).
This stands in most jurisdictions but the US non-commercial use allowed is very limited and R&D by businesses (which includes Universities in US patent law) is not allowed unless licensed by the patent holder.
There's also the issue of territorial rights. I'm sure you can find somewhere in the world in which even WO patents aren't recognised (ie outside EPO, OAPI, ARIPO, US, etc.).
Not generally among my friends but certainly in the society (Wales, UK) in which I live fornication and adultery are more than commonplace - in fact people have their unborn children cut in to pieces because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, they're more than happy to demand it as a right and promote it as a privelege. Against infanticide catching a disease that they can get treated readily (and indeed that we make special pains to provide extra services for, just so, you know, people don't have to stop sleeping around) is no biggy.
Yes, I disapprove, how did you tell.
Still, I think if there's a high likelyhood - based on lifestyle - that someone would have a STD/STI then it's not automatically libellous, especially if you happen to know that it's true. And as I said it's easily tested.
"pro se" means to represent yourself in court... I don't understand what pro-se libel is, can you illucidate?
In any case "they are so obviously defamatory that the plaintiffs don't have to prove to the court that they caused damage" doesn't seem particularly compelling in these modern times.
People sleep around and are happy to admit it. So getting herpes is no longer such a stigmatised position to be in. Moreover, having herpes is a simple matter of fact that should be readily discerned by medical testing. Libel AFAIK requires that you defame someone by false accusation (doesn't it?!)...
Call me obsessive for even answering this post... !
Yes, but not hard enough to break the skin only to split the nail and cause a blood blister under it.
Usually my response is "argh" (quite loud!) followed by prolonged silence as I attempt to block out the pain and move past it (inwardly) until I can compose myself enough to say "that hurt" and attempt to engender the sympathy of any onlookers.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this one guy I work with has two kids about 13 or 14 and he doesn't have crack cocaine at home for just this very reason. He feels that the safest situation but completey ignores the fact that his kids have friends in the nieghbourhood and some if not all of them have crack cocaine.
?
I also operate a (very) small hosting business as part of a web design business (though it's a second job and really more of a hobby). My primary market is local charitable groups. My clients get a better service by using me to setup and manage their hosting. I insulate them from having to know anything about hosting, DNS, server configs, setting up email accounts and the like.
... they'd probably just buy new ones and start again.
I resell web hosting for a company based about 20km away. They colocate about 200km away and I've researched the parent company.
If I died then my clients would probably be fine until my estate decided to stop paying the credit card bills - they could just ftp in to their accounts, backup and move to a new server. Thing is they wouldn't know how to do it. I'd hope that the reseller would allow clients to have their stuff if I stopped paying. But I doubt these types of clients would have anyone to turn to that could help transfer their websites
Bear with me on this one and point out my errors!
The government use our taxes to sponsor research. The researches use the money to buy journals. The government then bases sponsorship on publication and citation in those same journals.
Why doesn't the government run a free and open access system of scientific [internet based] publication allowing research sponsorship money to be used for research and not for lining the coffers of rich publishing magnates? They could use the British Library as the patron. This could lead to all UK academics (and others if they want to allow global access) having immediate access to the works of all other UK academics.
I don't doubt that the publishing staff of journals can add value, incidentally. This added value could equally be created (I feel) by a scientific publishing arm of the Crown however.
Just wondering what I'm missing here.
Slackpkg is great and all but it's only for packages that are a part of the distro (correct me if i'm wrong) ... yeah there's slapt-get (and is swaret still going?) but the breadth of apps that the ?ubuntu's have is not there because of the smaller userbase.
Also so far I've not managed to upgrade Slack with just "slackpkg install-new; slackpkg upgrade-all;" whilst I've heard plenty of reports of a dist-upgrade working.
>>> "I think it is no coincidence that many of the evolution deniers are also global warming deniers."
... what's the source for your statistics on "evolution deniers [who] are also global warming deniers"? I'd be quite interested in this.
... suppose that's what you're getting at?
As one who is yet to be convinced about full darwinian evolution (eg compound eyes, rotor-stator development in bacterial flagella, gaps in fossil records, self-referential dating techniques, etc.) and yet nearly convinced about global warming (having studied physics, maths and ecological modelling at Uni and thus having a modicum of understanding about chaotic systems - I am convinced about global climate change however) I'd like to ask
I've never come across this correlation personally which is why it interests me.
Of course I'm sure you'll let us know if you're just making a blind assertion?!
Incidentally: am I an anti-intellectual? I'm nearly a skeptic in the epistemological sense. But in as much as intellectuals exist I think I probably am one. I guess I ultimately rely on my sense data for day-to-day living rather than pure reason
>>> "The BBC has said multiple times that they intend to support other OSes in time."
... not what you expect of an enterprise supposedly run solely for the benefit of the license paying public.
Unfortunately the BBC now thinks it's a commercial enterprise - paying presenters by the million when any half decent presenter of the thousands could do their job for maybe at most 80-100k; copying other channels rather than providing an alternate choice; quantity over quality, etc. - part of this commercialisation has been a lack of real honesty IMHO. Check out the recent revelations about their ripping off people who phone in to their shows
I don't trust the BBC when they say other OS will follow shortly - partly because they're not choosing a platform agnostic solution and partly because I don't think the DRM solution they want (for unsound reasons*) is even possible.
---
* they say the DRM protects the interests of other broadcasters - that however is not the BBC's remit. We pay for the programs, I don't care if Sky, Virgin, whoever makes less money for their shareholders because I was forced to pay for something else.
I part-own a ceramic cafe. A sales person visited to encourage us to switch to accepting Amex (IIRC). After all the blah-blah I said "sounds fine", he says give us your bank details (on the form for Amex).
So, I wanted to get some verification of his ID. He shows me a photo card, OK. Can I ring your boss? He didn't have a number I could call (eg on the Amex literature) only some number on his business card (I spoke to the guy on the other end, but all this shows is he knows someone with a phone!). Even if I could have had that number on the literature how would that verify him, me thinks, easily faked.
It turns out he was genuine (or an Amex insider!) - I eventually managed to chase him through the Amex phone system. But without some means to check his ID the transaction never happened.
The thing is this. Clearly no-one else ever bothered to ask for (proper) identification - there was no system in place. And this for a major financial institution that relies on proper ID.
>>> It's one thing to claim you have no idea how you got cocaine in your pocket.
The whole complexion of your claim changes if someone else is wearing your trousers however!
omgponies roflmao
#;o)>
I tried and got this:
"The information you have provided matches our records for an uncashed check that was issued to you for state tax refunds, lottery payments, or unclaimed funds. This verification only means that your name and social security number were on the stolen device. Please check your records to determine whether or not you received or cashed the check."
Sounds interesting, no?
Also sounds rather like the "free speedboat" episode of the Simpsons.
>>> "Some MS sales rep had a potential sale of 500 seats, and had to sweeten the deal to get a sale."
... for free. But you still chose the £12k ($24k) car from the ItCostsYouAlotToBuyPartForThisCar dealer because he said they'd throw in a set of tyres.
Except it's like you went to buy a car and OpenCar offered you the same model but with the filler cap on the opposite side and with a slightly different colour scheme (and maybe it's top speed and torque are a few percent less)
Having searched and examined patent applications for 6 years (or so, but not currently): I'd say the majority (my impression = above 95%) of patents are produced by workers and filed for companies.
... sure if your idea from your r&d log book makes them several million then you'll get recompensed but just getting a patent is nothing special. Anyone with £200 can do that.
Patents are used to protect technology fields from exploitation by other companies. They are thus bargaining chips and a major indicator for shareholders and other investors. Larger companies (and this may have changed now but was true 3-4 years ago) filed patents on everything remotely patentable (eg queuing for the toilet!)
I thought gimp was a photo-editting prog not a drawing program. For tools I use inkscape.
... you could do a gimp-color rotation then proceed to use the vector editting tools of inkscape, add on some text boxes using scribus - all without closing the image window. Even if the apps wrote to different layers of one canvass that would be awesome IMHO.
What I'd love to see is a unified canvass that any drawing prog could use. You could then choose any tool from any package you liked
Anyone seen this idea in use anywhere?
I was a UK patent examiner from '98 to '04.
... etc.. Basically all patent docs are given a key which defines the field(s) that it falls in, eg G06F 11/00C2 (http://v3.espacenet.com/eclasrch?ECLA=/espacenet/ ecla/g06f/g06f11.htm?q=11-00c2) is fault tolerance by degradation of service within a computer system. There will be 10's of thousands of patent docs in this category and some non-patent disclosures like TDB's or magazine articles may be categorised (EPO used to do this but UK not really). By crossing categories and using abstract and full-text keyword searching one wittles down the docs to look at.
We searched online databases of UK, EPO, WO, US, JP (Japanese, translated abstracts and later JPO provided [machine] translations), DE (German), FR (French) patents as a matter of course. It was down to the examiner to determine the scope of search to perform. We could also search hundreds of databases of technical disclosures (eg IBM's TDB - technical disclosure bulletins). All UK examiners had to be able to translate enough french and german language to be able to decide if a full translation was needed and we had other language translators to hand - JP docs were obviously important in computer fields.
Other databases included Elsevier journal databases and also paper files (go back 100 years or so) of all UK patents (which were phased out during my time there). In some areas we had libraries of other books and journals. Also if you could put a case for getting a particular publication you could get it - New Scientist and Nature were particularly popular!
One of the vital tools for prior art searches was the different "classification keys" - UKC, ECLA, USC
I also did quite a bit of internet searching (too much) using several search engines as well as site searches and a few company databases that we had access too. The problem with internet citations was proving the publication date, vital to show something is prior art.
In G06F (which is roughly G4A in the UKC, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-cl ass/p-class-ukc/p-class-ukc-g.htm) one tended to have about 1.5 days to do a search (sometimes it would be half a day, sometimes 5). In other less strenuous fields a lot less. This means possible a few hundred abstracts to read and digest to whittle down to maybe a dozen docs to read in full and then perhaps cite 3 or 4, depending what you find. Sometimes with searches that don't fit keywords well you'd read more abstracts. Sometimes you can find an exact hit in a few minutes and spend the rest of the time finding docs to cite that will preempt what the patent attorney will try to amend the claims to.
There's no lack of places to look for prior art.
Oftentimes you'd search and search because something seemed so obvious but wouldn't find a strong citation. The problem with obviousness objections is always that the patent agent (aka attorney) can comeback and say if it was so obvious why was no one been doing it (or documented it), show me some evidence. This is especially strong in a well worked field - why did so many people overlook this obvious step. Combinations of docs suffer from ex-post facto analysis - one has to try and work from the prior position and see if the notional skilled man in the art would put those docs together?
---
In response to the parent there's a requirement for US applicants to cite known US patents (and I think other prior art) that is particularly pertinent to their applications (I don't know the specific requirement). If they fail to cite something and it's proven they knew about it and it's relevant they can lose their patent (or at least be sued for big bucks). All major WO patent granting offices have to search at least a certain amount of literature - specific ranges of specific fields of patents; the US is such an office.
As an examiner I found US searches to usua
>>> "Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with. Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations."
Except if god exists outside of time and thus is immutable in 4-dimensions (and possibly changing in other dimensions). Thus god could still be "perfect" (by your definition of perfection being immutable). Your argument is like a flat-earther saying you can't sail west and get to the east - God doesn't need to change to accomodate the arrow of time because he already has perceived/permitted/manufactured the change and changed accordingly ahead of time. Your (and so I guess Spinoza's) argument is temporally bound and assumes that the god in question is also; ridiculous.
Anyway, that aside: If the weather today is perfect (for me, say I'm going skiing and want unblown snow) that doesn't mean that the same weather tomorrow is perfect (for me, when I'm going sailing and want wind and sun). The original state of the weather was perfect, the changed state of the weather is perfect (for me!), the state of "perfect weather" need not have altered if considered as a single form in a four dimensional space.
Oh and where in the Bible does it say God is separate? God, by the Holy Spirit is certainly _not_ defined as separate but instead is permeating (as an ether). Nor is God entirely singular, being triune. You open up the possibility by saying something must contain God (though outside of space-time what is containment?) to the notion of God containing both Himself and the universe.
PS: When you say God is singular, do you mean he has no "god-friends" or is this a reiteration of his immutablilty?
Other than me. Here's me thinking I was the only person Mr Volkerding was making the distro for.
Shucks.
*rolls-eyes*
5;o)>
>>> Then you can start to discuss what the properties of that axis are
So what do objects in that 4-space behave like outside of the defined region of your temporal axis?
Does that really help?
>>> "Either we require the BBC to broadcast in a format everyone can view, in which case we are stuck in B&W 5:4 format, or we accept the BBC pushes multimedia to the edge, which means not everything will be viewable by everyone all the time."
I know you're being facetious, but anyway, here's right back at y':
If the broadcast was in colour 4:3 then people using old B&W sets could still see a picture (almost graceful degradation).
On the main point it's not like the BBC has to include DRM to push "multimedia to the edge". Much of the content is home grown - I helped pay (begrudgingly in the most part) so why not let me view it?
Wrt what a "run of the mill" machine is - your argument has its merits but you ignore the fact that most of that 80%+ of MS machines will not have the latest OS nor latest Windows Media Player and hence is unlikely to play the latest DRM'ed WMP-only files.
And what happens when MS decide a year later to upgrade the "BBC" codec via windows update - locking all stored BBC content - and provide the retrograde codec as a backwards compatability fix for £100?
Oh yeah of course, MS would never screw over it's customers.
Well, come now. Tell me you didn't expect - "install linux" as a response to this?!
... or something): If you buy a car with 4 seats and only use 2 do you complain that the company welded the seat stanchions in?
Optional - check, you don't have to buy a MS OS.
Removable - check, logically and physically removable.
So I'm also going to go with a car analogy just to finish off nicely (incidentally in Soviet Russia your posts finish you off with some hot grits
[Visible] light shines through your walls and roof?
I think you might need to insulate a little more.
If _I_ "make the device without the permission of the original patent holder" then it's fine.
/ 5609/1018?siteid=sci&ijkey=kOiAnw9uhtbsM&keytype=r ef
Why? It's non-commercial "R&D" use. I (personally) can use the disclosure to create a device for "R&D" as long as it's not used commercially (which might include giving it away as that could cause commercial harm to the patent rights owner or licensee).
This stands in most jurisdictions but the US non-commercial use allowed is very limited and R&D by businesses (which includes Universities in US patent law) is not allowed unless licensed by the patent holder.
There's also the issue of territorial rights. I'm sure you can find somewhere in the world in which even WO patents aren't recognised (ie outside EPO, OAPI, ARIPO, US, etc.).
IANAPA
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299
As with all instances of pedantry I'm sure there is an error (at least) in this post!
Not generally among my friends but certainly in the society (Wales, UK) in which I live fornication and adultery are more than commonplace - in fact people have their unborn children cut in to pieces because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, they're more than happy to demand it as a right and promote it as a privelege. Against infanticide catching a disease that they can get treated readily (and indeed that we make special pains to provide extra services for, just so, you know, people don't have to stop sleeping around) is no biggy.
Yes, I disapprove, how did you tell.
Still, I think if there's a high likelyhood - based on lifestyle - that someone would have a STD/STI then it's not automatically libellous, especially if you happen to know that it's true. And as I said it's easily tested.
"pro se" means to represent yourself in court ... I don't understand what pro-se libel is, can you illucidate?
...
In any case "they are so obviously defamatory that the plaintiffs don't have to prove to the court that they caused damage" doesn't seem particularly compelling in these modern times.
People sleep around and are happy to admit it. So getting herpes is no longer such a stigmatised position to be in. Moreover, having herpes is a simple matter of fact that should be readily discerned by medical testing. Libel AFAIK requires that you defame someone by false accusation (doesn't it?!)
No I didn't RT-Flippin'-A.
Call me obsessive for even answering this post ... !
Yes, but not hard enough to break the skin only to split the nail and cause a blood blister under it.
Usually my response is "argh" (quite loud!) followed by prolonged silence as I attempt to block out the pain and move past it (inwardly) until I can compose myself enough to say "that hurt" and attempt to engender the sympathy of any onlookers.
FWIW.
>>> What could be more appropriate than "FUCK!" when you hit your finger with a hammer
"ow my finger"
>>>, lock your car keys inside the car with the motor running
"oh no, I've locked the keys in the car [again!]"
>>> or drop your laptop while walking up a flight of stairs?
"I hope that still works"
Seriously, chill out.