I don't think that the cosmological constant in and of itself has any implication in the argument for whether or not God exists, and I have no idea why people on both sides try to make every scientific issue connect back to that.
Well, religious folks (Protestant Christians being one notable group in this regard) have a vested interest in tying such phenomena to arguments on the existence of God, as long as they can bend the observations to support their viewpoint. That's because their religion specifically instructs them to teach their religion to others and, in the process, attempt to tear down the (non-)beliefs of those who don't believe in God. Understandable, if annoying, because at least from their perspective, they believe that they're saving people's souls from eternal hellfire and whatnot.
What's more unfortunate is that some strongly scientifically-minded folks feel the need to make this tie as well (reaching the opposite conclusion, of course), despite the fact that there's no reason to. If religion is "not even wrong", then it's an exercise in futility to point to science and say that it disproves the existence of God. It's just as annoying when such people attempt to teach their disbelief (i.e., not the science, but their non-belief of God) to others while tearing down others' beliefs, but it has the added problem of making them look like assholes because there's no perceptible motivating force behind their actions. In other words, they're not doing it to save other people's souls; they're just doing it to prove themselves correct and/or more intelligent.
Reading comprehension FTW. I said that the good ideas were either already done or were waiting on technology in other areas to be developed first, which means you can't invent them yet. Someone will invent them eventually, but it won't be you.
What it really comes down to is that most of the good ideas in cell phones (a) have been done already or (b) are waiting for technologies in other areas to advance first. All those other not-so-good ideas have extremely limited appeal to the masses. Yet people and smaller companies continue their attempts to "innovate" in this marketplace, primarily because there appears at first glance to be such a huge amount of cash sloshing around in the cell phone arena. As it turns out, though, that money is pretty much locked up by the major players, so your Popeil-esque Great Idea But On A Cell Phone This Time is going nowhere.
Nope, it's totally legit. Even the inventors' declaration lists both "Adapting parasites to combat disease" and "c/o Microsoft Corporation" on the same page.
Stricter regulations on illegal immigration should go hand-in-hand with a liberalized immigration policy, making it easier and quicker for potential immigrants to come to the country legally as law-abiding taxpayers. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the US who haven't caused any problems for anyone. If we had a sane legal immigration policy to go along with more tightly controlled borders, we'd be in the same place with regards to the number of recent immigrants, except they'd all be "in the system".
Being able to point to groups that are worse doesn't make your own any better.
That's fine, but it fails to address the question posed earlier: even if the US is "almost as bad" as various other countries in these departments, why does the US end up getting picked as the scapegoat for all the world's problems?
Why would the class settle for less than the minimum statutory penalty?
Because class action lawsuits are primarily for the benefit of the lawyers, not the class members. This way, the lawyers get a big payout without actually having to do any work. And the musicians get screwed yet again.
In the case of derivative works under the GPL: That's assuming you've already given them the source code. If you distribute the executable with a link for downloading the source, but you don't package the source with it, you could end up in a situation where strict compliance requires you to host something you otherwise wanted to stop hosting - at the very least, a link to some other repository, or a means of contact for yourself or your company.
If you're not talking about derivative works under the GPL, though, but you're talking about purely original works licensed under the GPL instead, you're not even under an obligation to provide the source.
Yeah, but if you use terms like "crosshairs" in the presence of disturbed people, they do crazy things.
Given the pervasiveness of news media on TV and the Internet, you potentially have an audience of six billion people. By your wisdom, it would be safest for nobody ever to say anything, because some crackpot among those six billion will take it as a message to kill people.
You misunderstand "first-to-file", then. The term is only applicable to using other patent applications to reject claims based on the filing dates of those applications, under 35 USC 102(e), and for interference purposes under 35 USC 102(g). Regular published prior art would still work the same way it does now.
Actually, the USPTO is entirely funded by the fees it collects from those seeking and holding patents, so your tax dollars don't get involved.
In fact, potential and current patentees have more justification to complain, because Congress routinely takes a portion of those fees and diverts them to other miscellaneous purposes unrelated to examining patent and trademark applications.
This is still just an application. It hasn't even been examined yet. If you're going to spew hate over this, point it at Microsoft, and give the USPTO a chance to do its work.
Wouldn't it be better to threaten the guardian with not revealing any more info ever to the Guardian if they published something not sanctioned in the relationship?
It sounds like the Guardian doesn't necessarily have to go through Assange to get this information. They might just tell him to take his leaks and shove 'em, and cultivate a stronger relationship with their other source.
It sounds like you're arguing that it's not patentable subject matter, rather than obviousness. Those are two totally different beasts. At the time this application was examined in 2002, State Street was still the controlling case law for patentable subject matter in process claims. Bilski v. Kappos is the current case law, though, and it's what counts in any current litigation.
I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether these claims would pass muster with the Federal Circuit or Supreme Court or not. There aren't that many court cases covering the topic as applied to software (and Bilski was a poor test case for software patents anyway), largely because anyone challenging software patents on patentable subject matter grounds is essentially taking a "scorched earth" approach to litigation. Even companies that publicly bitch and moan about software patents tend to file for them (e.g., Microsoft), so they are reticent to take things to that level if they don't really need to, because a particularly unfavorable ruling could make hundreds of thousands of patents worthless.
If you look at the cover of the patent, it tells you that it claims benefit of an earlier effective filing date as a continuation of another application. A continuation means that the same specification is filed - so they're disclosing all the same stuff to the public - but they're rewording the claims, ostensibly to cover some other aspect of the disclosed invention.
One possible defense is to show that the new claims lack written description support in the parent application, which would make those claims not eligible to get the benefit of the earlier filing date. Then you show that there is intervening prior art rendering the claim anticipated or obvious. This is more commonplace in the case of continuations-in-part, where some stuff gets added to the new filing, and the claims often capture some element of the new material.
So, can you show that the claims were obvious, in accordance with the law?
The prior art date to beat is 22 April 1996, and you have to show - not just make unsubstantiated assertions - that the claims were obvious over the prior art as of that date. That means citing references that cover the limitations in the claims, and substantiating an argument for why those references can be combined and why any differences between the references and the claims would have been obvious. (The whole story is a bit more complicated than that, but I'd be typing for a long time if I went through the whole thing.)
And finally, obviousness isn't considered from the viewpoint of an expert in the field, but rather of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that the cosmological constant in and of itself has any implication in the argument for whether or not God exists, and I have no idea why people on both sides try to make every scientific issue connect back to that.
Well, religious folks (Protestant Christians being one notable group in this regard) have a vested interest in tying such phenomena to arguments on the existence of God, as long as they can bend the observations to support their viewpoint. That's because their religion specifically instructs them to teach their religion to others and, in the process, attempt to tear down the (non-)beliefs of those who don't believe in God. Understandable, if annoying, because at least from their perspective, they believe that they're saving people's souls from eternal hellfire and whatnot.
What's more unfortunate is that some strongly scientifically-minded folks feel the need to make this tie as well (reaching the opposite conclusion, of course), despite the fact that there's no reason to. If religion is "not even wrong", then it's an exercise in futility to point to science and say that it disproves the existence of God. It's just as annoying when such people attempt to teach their disbelief (i.e., not the science, but their non-belief of God) to others while tearing down others' beliefs, but it has the added problem of making them look like assholes because there's no perceptible motivating force behind their actions. In other words, they're not doing it to save other people's souls; they're just doing it to prove themselves correct and/or more intelligent.
No kidding. Say what you want, but at least our fat chicks have great smiles.
Who cares? Wake me up when I can talk into my mouse, dammit!
Reading comprehension FTW. I said that the good ideas were either already done or were waiting on technology in other areas to be developed first, which means you can't invent them yet. Someone will invent them eventually, but it won't be you.
What it really comes down to is that most of the good ideas in cell phones (a) have been done already or (b) are waiting for technologies in other areas to advance first. All those other not-so-good ideas have extremely limited appeal to the masses. Yet people and smaller companies continue their attempts to "innovate" in this marketplace, primarily because there appears at first glance to be such a huge amount of cash sloshing around in the cell phone arena. As it turns out, though, that money is pretty much locked up by the major players, so your Popeil-esque Great Idea But On A Cell Phone This Time is going nowhere.
Nope, it's totally legit. Even the inventors' declaration lists both "Adapting parasites to combat disease" and "c/o Microsoft Corporation" on the same page.
Pretty bizarre, though.
Stricter regulations on illegal immigration should go hand-in-hand with a liberalized immigration policy, making it easier and quicker for potential immigrants to come to the country legally as law-abiding taxpayers. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the US who haven't caused any problems for anyone. If we had a sane legal immigration policy to go along with more tightly controlled borders, we'd be in the same place with regards to the number of recent immigrants, except they'd all be "in the system".
Would anyone even notice? Would he comment on it? Here's the mailing address:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
A mailing address that changes all the rules.
Tell them to stop spending so much time watching Fox News.
Three years ago, one could have made the same statement about MSNBC.
Then how did they hide the trebuchet in the prison yard? Squared away, my ass .
I think you answered your own question. Ouch!
No way! Tali FTW.
Being able to point to groups that are worse doesn't make your own any better.
That's fine, but it fails to address the question posed earlier: even if the US is "almost as bad" as various other countries in these departments, why does the US end up getting picked as the scapegoat for all the world's problems?
Only the Dutch could take a word like "object" and make it sound so..... naughty.
Why would the class settle for less than the minimum statutory penalty?
Because class action lawsuits are primarily for the benefit of the lawyers, not the class members. This way, the lawyers get a big payout without actually having to do any work. And the musicians get screwed yet again.
In the case of derivative works under the GPL: That's assuming you've already given them the source code. If you distribute the executable with a link for downloading the source, but you don't package the source with it, you could end up in a situation where strict compliance requires you to host something you otherwise wanted to stop hosting - at the very least, a link to some other repository, or a means of contact for yourself or your company.
If you're not talking about derivative works under the GPL, though, but you're talking about purely original works licensed under the GPL instead, you're not even under an obligation to provide the source.
Yeah, but if you use terms like "crosshairs" in the presence of disturbed people, they do crazy things.
Given the pervasiveness of news media on TV and the Internet, you potentially have an audience of six billion people. By your wisdom, it would be safest for nobody ever to say anything, because some crackpot among those six billion will take it as a message to kill people.
Fox News gets the same comment trolling that every other newspaper/cable news channel website gets. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
You call reading stuff like this, "work" ??
Proudly.
You misunderstand "first-to-file", then. The term is only applicable to using other patent applications to reject claims based on the filing dates of those applications, under 35 USC 102(e), and for interference purposes under 35 USC 102(g). Regular published prior art would still work the same way it does now.
Actually, the USPTO is entirely funded by the fees it collects from those seeking and holding patents, so your tax dollars don't get involved.
In fact, potential and current patentees have more justification to complain, because Congress routinely takes a portion of those fees and diverts them to other miscellaneous purposes unrelated to examining patent and trademark applications.
Enough is enough already: abolish the USPTO
This is still just an application. It hasn't even been examined yet. If you're going to spew hate over this, point it at Microsoft, and give the USPTO a chance to do its work.
Wouldn't it be better to threaten the guardian with not revealing any more info ever to the Guardian if they published something not sanctioned in the relationship?
It sounds like the Guardian doesn't necessarily have to go through Assange to get this information. They might just tell him to take his leaks and shove 'em, and cultivate a stronger relationship with their other source.
It sounds like you're arguing that it's not patentable subject matter, rather than obviousness. Those are two totally different beasts. At the time this application was examined in 2002, State Street was still the controlling case law for patentable subject matter in process claims. Bilski v. Kappos is the current case law, though, and it's what counts in any current litigation.
I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether these claims would pass muster with the Federal Circuit or Supreme Court or not. There aren't that many court cases covering the topic as applied to software (and Bilski was a poor test case for software patents anyway), largely because anyone challenging software patents on patentable subject matter grounds is essentially taking a "scorched earth" approach to litigation. Even companies that publicly bitch and moan about software patents tend to file for them (e.g., Microsoft), so they are reticent to take things to that level if they don't really need to, because a particularly unfavorable ruling could make hundreds of thousands of patents worthless.
If you look at the cover of the patent, it tells you that it claims benefit of an earlier effective filing date as a continuation of another application. A continuation means that the same specification is filed - so they're disclosing all the same stuff to the public - but they're rewording the claims, ostensibly to cover some other aspect of the disclosed invention.
One possible defense is to show that the new claims lack written description support in the parent application, which would make those claims not eligible to get the benefit of the earlier filing date. Then you show that there is intervening prior art rendering the claim anticipated or obvious. This is more commonplace in the case of continuations-in-part, where some stuff gets added to the new filing, and the claims often capture some element of the new material.
So, can you show that the claims were obvious, in accordance with the law?
The prior art date to beat is 22 April 1996, and you have to show - not just make unsubstantiated assertions - that the claims were obvious over the prior art as of that date. That means citing references that cover the limitations in the claims, and substantiating an argument for why those references can be combined and why any differences between the references and the claims would have been obvious. (The whole story is a bit more complicated than that, but I'd be typing for a long time if I went through the whole thing.)
And finally, obviousness isn't considered from the viewpoint of an expert in the field, but rather of one having ordinary skill in the art.