According to the math/cost/etc in this article, keeping a PC on full time for cost about $20 a month. Given that my power bill is only about a $50 a month including heat, frig, tv, etc, this would mean that about 40% of my power usage is keeping a computer on. Perhaps I should go home during lunch today and turn it off.
So, one might argue that they legal system is what is broken, not the idea of software patents. Well, I guess both are broken, but the legal system is more broken. We need both, but we need them fixed.
I would think that Microsoft would benefit greatly if software patents were overturned. They have a tremendous ability to bring software to market. It is the little guy who has to worry. Suppose you or I develop a really great algorithm. Right now, at least theoretically, we can protect our ideas and sell them to larger companies. However, suppose the ability to patent algorithms was removed. Now, I could take ideas from MS and MS could take ideas from me. Who is more likely to be able to out market who?
Actually, given their big investments, I'm sure Google has the most to worry about of all.
Ah, but these companies have important uses for this information. A few years ago, I noticed that when I checked out at Meijer, I would often receive coupons for products related to previous purchase that were unrelated to what I was buying at the time. How did that happen? Well, the only commonality (other than me, myself) was my credit card. Apparently, using your credit card to track your purchases is not against their merchant agreement. It should, however, be against the law.
You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution.
Unfortunately, playing RL sports frag grenades and carbines tends to get one arrested, and getting raped in prison is just a bit too graphic for me.
Well, I must admit that this is certainly non-obvious. In fact, even after flipping my phone upside and playing around, I still find it non-obvious why the hell anyone would do this. I can safely predict that this is one patent I won't feel tempted to violate.
That's just silly---no member of Congress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of any one company. Ownership of any member of Congress is a much more complex beast involving many different investors.
It legally can not affect recommendations or references
Why can't it affect references? If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference. And, I wouldn't want to hire an employee who I knew had a history of failing to give proper notice. And, btw, as an employee, I would not work for a company that I knew had a history of failing to give proper notice and/or severance pay in all but the most egregious or extraordinary of situations.
Hence, the supposed justification for region codes on DVD. Though the more skeptical amongst us might believe that region coding is to allow for 'more efficient' pricing around the world.
Having worked for both the Federal gov't and a number of contractors (including one I owned), I can say the following:
Anything written by a gov't employee is not subject to copyrighting (17 U.S.C. 101). If something is written by a non-gov't employee using gov't funds, I'm not sure entirely what the rules are, but it is not necessarily not copyrighted. I know this because if a gov't employee writes a journal article, the article is not copyrighted, but if someone (professor/contractor/etc) working on gov't funds writes the article, the copyright belongs to the journals publisher (I've published in both situations, the paperwork is different). Whether or not gov't produced documents are in the public domain, however, is subject to classification and such, but I don't claim to be an expert on the FIA.
The gov't holds the right to patent and protect technology developed by gov't employees except in the situation of a Cooperative Research And Development Agreement (CRADA) where private funding of the work can cause a private company (who paid for the work) to own the work. The gov't holds the ip rights to technology developed by contractors using direct gov't funds except in the case of a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grant or contract. In the case of a SBIR (or the closely related STTR), the contractor(s) retain the exclusive right to market the developed technology.
152 countries have ratified it, and an additional 26 countries have signed but not yet ratified it. At some point, we might say this convention has been fairly broadly recognized, I would think.
Ok, fair enough. If someone constructs an artificial island that is not within 12 nm of a sovereign state and not on the continental shelf, my statement would not apply---put how much would such a beast cost?
The problem is that in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea changed international law so that no new artificial platform could claim nation status. While no country explicitly recognizes Sealand, since its claims to independence predates 1982, it is exempt from this convention.
Seriously. Don't these companies do any testing? Don't they at least pay a teenager minimum wage to play the game for a few hours and tell them, "Dude, the game like locks up ever five minutes." Any software team I was ever involved with had at least one person whose full time job was to do QA.
In all fairness to the people involved, these are not cases of people letting go of the device. Apparently, the incidents arose because the activity caused the users to perspire. The remotes left people's hands because they slipped out due to sweat and the strap breaking.
A lawsuit is stupid and ridiculous, and Nintendo is doing the right thing. However, one wonders if Nintendo bothered to test these under realistic operating conditions? Nintendo is not entirely fault free here. People are using the Wii in a reasonable manner, and this is happening. It is not entirely operator error.
I am a ham who has held a Technician license for 9 years now. Technician gives all privs at the higher frequencies, and it does NOT require code. I never got a higher license because I never found time to learn code so this requirement was in fact holding me back. With that said, it makes me profoundly sad to see them drop this requirement as code is extremely useful for many applications, and I think it will significantly reduce the number of people who bother to learn code. I guess I'm just a sucker for nostalgia. It isn't like you needed code to get a license---you could work any and all ham uhf and vhf frequencies with a license that does not require code. With that said, I'll certainly be upgrading my license, sooner rather than later now.:)
Not very conclusive. As far as I know, we still talk about the Theory of Evolution.
Are you unaware that the vast majority of creationists -- at least those who are vocal on the subject -- would, in fact, satisfy that criteria of 'bone-headedness'?
This proof was left to the student (LTOS).
For those who might be easily confused, I am NOT a creationist. I just think we need to be very exact in our wording, definitions, and concepts. Otherwise, we are no better than those who are creationist.
Ok, perhaps it is better to say I'm not a strict creationist. What a beautiful idea to think that just maybe G-d created the concept of evolution and let it do its thing. After all, e^(i pi) + 1 = 0.
NB: This is an example of adaption, not speciation. Speciation has been observed before, and is thus not truly a theory. Only the most boneheaded of creationist would disagree with adaption since it is not incompatible with even strict creationism. What is controversial (according to some crazoids, at least), is the idea that one species gives rise to another (speciation) like humans having an ancestor that was an ape. The idea that black moths can become white in a generation or that humans can become able to drink milk is NOT what the creation/evolution 'debate' is about.
Spatial resolution is approximately 300m. 15 spectral bands. Primary use is going to be for things like climate change, land use, etc. Fun to play with if you know what you are doing with it. I've been working in my spare time on code in IDL/ENVI to do imagebasing of aerial imagery so looks like I have a new source of lots of data for testing/playing!
Slashdot Mirror
In my 17 MPG SUV. Is there a problem with that idea???
According to the math/cost/etc in this article, keeping a PC on full time for cost about $20 a month. Given that my power bill is only about a $50 a month including heat, frig, tv, etc, this would mean that about 40% of my power usage is keeping a computer on. Perhaps I should go home during lunch today and turn it off.
So, one might argue that they legal system is what is broken, not the idea of software patents. Well, I guess both are broken, but the legal system is more broken. We need both, but we need them fixed.
I would think that Microsoft would benefit greatly if software patents were overturned. They have a tremendous ability to bring software to market. It is the little guy who has to worry. Suppose you or I develop a really great algorithm. Right now, at least theoretically, we can protect our ideas and sell them to larger companies. However, suppose the ability to patent algorithms was removed. Now, I could take ideas from MS and MS could take ideas from me. Who is more likely to be able to out market who? Actually, given their big investments, I'm sure Google has the most to worry about of all.
Ah, but these companies have important uses for this information. A few years ago, I noticed that when I checked out at Meijer, I would often receive coupons for products related to previous purchase that were unrelated to what I was buying at the time. How did that happen? Well, the only commonality (other than me, myself) was my credit card. Apparently, using your credit card to track your purchases is not against their merchant agreement. It should, however, be against the law.
You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution. Unfortunately, playing RL sports frag grenades and carbines tends to get one arrested, and getting raped in prison is just a bit too graphic for me.
Our congressmen can't be bought. They can be rented though.
Much like very high cost call girls...
Well, I must admit that this is certainly non-obvious. In fact, even after flipping my phone upside and playing around, I still find it non-obvious why the hell anyone would do this. I can safely predict that this is one patent I won't feel tempted to violate.
their wholly-owned subsidiary members of Congress
That's just silly---no member of Congress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of any one company. Ownership of any member of Congress is a much more complex beast involving many different investors.
It legally can not affect recommendations or references
Why can't it affect references? If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference. And, I wouldn't want to hire an employee who I knew had a history of failing to give proper notice. And, btw, as an employee, I would not work for a company that I knew had a history of failing to give proper notice and/or severance pay in all but the most egregious or extraordinary of situations.
Hence, the supposed justification for region codes on DVD. Though the more skeptical amongst us might believe that region coding is to allow for 'more efficient' pricing around the world.
"Our" side. If he meant to exclude "us" he should have said "my" side.
Personally, I'm on nobody is side because nobody is on the trees' side.
Having worked for both the Federal gov't and a number of contractors (including one I owned), I can say the following:
Anything written by a gov't employee is not subject to copyrighting (17 U.S.C. 101). If something is written by a non-gov't employee using gov't funds, I'm not sure entirely what the rules are, but it is not necessarily not copyrighted. I know this because if a gov't employee writes a journal article, the article is not copyrighted, but if someone (professor/contractor/etc) working on gov't funds writes the article, the copyright belongs to the journals publisher (I've published in both situations, the paperwork is different). Whether or not gov't produced documents are in the public domain, however, is subject to classification and such, but I don't claim to be an expert on the FIA.
The gov't holds the right to patent and protect technology developed by gov't employees except in the situation of a Cooperative Research And Development Agreement (CRADA) where private funding of the work can cause a private company (who paid for the work) to own the work. The gov't holds the ip rights to technology developed by contractors using direct gov't funds except in the case of a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grant or contract. In the case of a SBIR (or the closely related STTR), the contractor(s) retain the exclusive right to market the developed technology.
Give it a few years, and perhaps global warming will make this standard operating conditions?
152 countries have ratified it, and an additional 26 countries have signed but not yet ratified it. At some point, we might say this convention has been fairly broadly recognized, I would think.
Ok, fair enough. If someone constructs an artificial island that is not within 12 nm of a sovereign state and not on the continental shelf, my statement would not apply---put how much would such a beast cost?
The problem is that in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea changed international law so that no new artificial platform could claim nation status. While no country explicitly recognizes Sealand, since its claims to independence predates 1982, it is exempt from this convention.
Seriously. Don't these companies do any testing? Don't they at least pay a teenager minimum wage to play the game for a few hours and tell them, "Dude, the game like locks up ever five minutes." Any software team I was ever involved with had at least one person whose full time job was to do QA.
And the planes still managed to find their way to their destinations/target. Didn't seem to interfere with the navigation systems.
In all fairness to the people involved, these are not cases of people letting go of the device. Apparently, the incidents arose because the activity caused the users to perspire. The remotes left people's hands because they slipped out due to sweat and the strap breaking.
A lawsuit is stupid and ridiculous, and Nintendo is doing the right thing. However, one wonders if Nintendo bothered to test these under realistic operating conditions? Nintendo is not entirely fault free here. People are using the Wii in a reasonable manner, and this is happening. It is not entirely operator error.
I am a ham who has held a Technician license for 9 years now. Technician gives all privs at the higher frequencies, and it does NOT require code. I never got a higher license because I never found time to learn code so this requirement was in fact holding me back. With that said, it makes me profoundly sad to see them drop this requirement as code is extremely useful for many applications, and I think it will significantly reduce the number of people who bother to learn code. I guess I'm just a sucker for nostalgia. It isn't like you needed code to get a license---you could work any and all ham uhf and vhf frequencies with a license that does not require code. With that said, I'll certainly be upgrading my license, sooner rather than later now. :)
Speciatian has been observed also
Not very conclusive. As far as I know, we still talk about the Theory of Evolution.
Are you unaware that the vast majority of creationists -- at least those who are vocal on the subject -- would, in fact, satisfy that criteria of 'bone-headedness'?
This proof was left to the student (LTOS).
For those who might be easily confused, I am NOT a creationist. I just think we need to be very exact in our wording, definitions, and concepts. Otherwise, we are no better than those who are creationist.
Ok, perhaps it is better to say I'm not a strict creationist. What a beautiful idea to think that just maybe G-d created the concept of evolution and let it do its thing. After all, e^(i pi) + 1 = 0.
Oops. Adaption has been observed before. Not speciation. This thing needs an edit. Sorry.
NB: This is an example of adaption, not speciation. Speciation has been observed before, and is thus not truly a theory. Only the most boneheaded of creationist would disagree with adaption since it is not incompatible with even strict creationism. What is controversial (according to some crazoids, at least), is the idea that one species gives rise to another (speciation) like humans having an ancestor that was an ape. The idea that black moths can become white in a generation or that humans can become able to drink milk is NOT what the creation/evolution 'debate' is about.
Spatial resolution is approximately 300m. 15 spectral bands. Primary use is going to be for things like climate change, land use, etc. Fun to play with if you know what you are doing with it. I've been working in my spare time on code in IDL/ENVI to do imagebasing of aerial imagery so looks like I have a new source of lots of data for testing/playing!