The irony of the new film being awash in CGI is that the original film actually had very little CGI. The tank exteriors, Bit, grid bugs, lightcycles, and maybe a couple other elements were, iirc, the only computer-generated elements in the original Tron, amounting to about 20 minutes of footage. Most of the rest of the "effects" were done with matte paintings and backlighting.
No, they're still classified. Really. I would prefer to keep my job, and the reporting out there in the public arena is sufficient to satisfy my curiosity, so there's really no need for me to go digging up trouble for myself.
Speaking as a federal employee, we've already been told that we are not to access the classified documents leaked on Wikileaks unless we already have clearance and authority to view such documents (which I don't, of course). On the other hand, we were also told that we're not restricted from viewing independent reporting about the leaked documents; that is, if the NYT talks about what's in a classified diplomatic cable, we can read the article no problem, but if they serve up a copy of the document, we're supposed to avoid it.
This applies extra in cases where we're using government computers, because it creates a problem having classified documents on a system not authorized to have classified documents on it. I don't know whether they'd press charges if someone did this anyway, but at the very least it could cost someone their job, so I'm happy to steer clear.
Actually, in this case, the earliest publication was the issuance of the patent on the parent application in January 2005, and the claims in that patent are different from the ones in the most recent one. Automatic publication of applications at 18 months after the effective filing date didn't start until late 2001.
Doesn't the lack of a cease-and-desist give an opening to the defense to have the suit dismissed?
No.... Actually, the biggest reasons to send a cease-and-desist are (a) to avoid having to file a lawsuit by causing the offender to stop infringing, and (b) to provide notice to the offender that they are infringing, so that if they continue to infringe, the notice can be provided as evidence in court that the infringement was (eventually) willful.
Do they really think transferring the domain into their control is even remotely likely? It's one thing when you're talking about a torrent tracker where an injunction alone is unlikely to prevent future infringement. But if the court tells Matt Drudge to take down that photo, I'm pretty sure he'll take it down (once his appeals are exhausted).
The fee is to prevent a third party from submitting thousands of documents to the USPTO regarding an application, which would create an expense not covered by fees and which would likely cause delays in prosecution of the application. I'm sure you don't want actual tax dollars covering the operational costs of the USPTO, do you?
Now, an applicant does have a duty to disclose documents pertinent to the patentability of their invention. You could conceivably send them the documents and hope that they submit them to the USPTO, but that's not a guarantee that the documents would be considered.
I say, "Hey, MasterCard, give this guy $50." He gets an email, his automatic email-getting-password-sender-outer tells me how to get to his jiggly bits.
Are these neutral, independent, reputable sources? Or are they sources that have taken sides in favor of Wikileaks and the DDoSers and are trying to justify the act of perpetrating a DDoS attack?
Note that Julian Assange has already indicated that neither Wikileaks nor he approve of the DDoS attacks, first and foremost because they are a muzzle to free speech.
You can submit your prior art within 2 months of the application's publication date to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.99. There is a fee of $180 associated with doing so (covering up to 10 references submitted), and you have to make sure you jump through all the hoops that the regulation requires (e.g., you're not allowed to explain the relevance of your prior art, and you have to serve the applicant with a copy of your submission).
Claim 1: A computer-implemented process for allowing different types of clicker devices to be used in a personal response system, comprising:
receiving inputs from more than one type of clicker device;
formatting the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device with at least one clicker adapter for the type of clicker device to adapt the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device to a common single polling controller;
processing the adapted inputs from the clicker adapters with the polling controller to interface the adapted inputs with a personal response system software application to allow user polling data to be obtained,
wherein the receiving, formatting and processing are performed by at least one processor.
That's where legislation comes in - you can't get 100% compliance without it.
Exactly. Some industries may be able to avoid legislation by the nature of how the product is bought and sold. Movies and video games, for instance, with their voluntary ratings system, already pervade the market because people expect to see those ratings before they buy the product.
But with advertising, people aren't the consumers - they're the product. It doesn't matter if people expect to see limits on behavior tracking, because they're not the ones whose needs have to be met. In fact, the actual consumers of advertising - the companies trying to sell something - have interests opposed to those of the people who don't want their behavior to be tracked. It ends up being in advertising firms' best interests to break ranks with the "industry standard" and offer a product of higher value to their customers.
You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not.
From the standpoint of an external observer, maybe, maybe not. But we're humans ourselves, and we certainly take that into account in other arenas. We kill animals for food, but we don't kill humans for food. We criminalize the murder of humans, generally with a far greater severity of punishment than that given to those who commit cruelty against animals. You may argue that perhaps animals should be treated the same as humans in those regards, and certainly there are lots of people who believe that killing of animals for food is immoral, but very few people would argue that protections for human life should be lowered to match those given to animals.
Because it involves intentionally producing individuals whose entire meager existence is fraught with pain. The pain itself may not be intentional, but it's certainly a result of the reckless disregard given by someone who would pursue this sort of research.
Well if we don't know what'll happen, then let's make some and see what happens?
There's already evidence to suggest that Bad Things will be produced by the learning stages of this process, at least part of the time. But sure, let's do it anyway. What do you say when something horrible is the result, just say "oops, my bad" and move on? Fat lot of good it does the person that lives in agony for its mercifully short life.
You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time.
There's good reason to suspect, however, that monstrous human fetuses will happen if this research is applied to humans. There's evidence of this happening in cloning research in other animals. While some people have moral objections to the creation of unused embryos in IVF, that's a completely separate thing from what I'm talking about here.
This isn't actually that huge a deal. No matter what the conditions are in the location they want to put the platform, any sort of large spill would be Real Bad.
The important part here is not to let a spill happen in the first place, and the spill prediction software has nothing really to do with that.
It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.
Refining the process in humans would probably result in the production of numerous fetuses with congenital defects resulting in death soon after birth, similar to what's been seen in cloning of various animals. Intentionally doing such a thing would (or, at least, should) never be permitted by a civilized society, not even in the name of "equality".
In actuality, wikileaks actually offered the US government the opportunity to redact.
This should be obvious: If the government provides assistance with redactions, they're essentially sanctioning the publication of classified documents. The US government doesn't want these documents published at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony of the new film being awash in CGI is that the original film actually had very little CGI. The tank exteriors, Bit, grid bugs, lightcycles, and maybe a couple other elements were, iirc, the only computer-generated elements in the original Tron, amounting to about 20 minutes of footage. Most of the rest of the "effects" were done with matte paintings and backlighting.
No, they're still classified. Really. I would prefer to keep my job, and the reporting out there in the public arena is sufficient to satisfy my curiosity, so there's really no need for me to go digging up trouble for myself.
Er... sorry, my mistake - pre-grant publications started 29 November 2000, not in late 2001.
Speaking as a federal employee, we've already been told that we are not to access the classified documents leaked on Wikileaks unless we already have clearance and authority to view such documents (which I don't, of course). On the other hand, we were also told that we're not restricted from viewing independent reporting about the leaked documents; that is, if the NYT talks about what's in a classified diplomatic cable, we can read the article no problem, but if they serve up a copy of the document, we're supposed to avoid it.
This applies extra in cases where we're using government computers, because it creates a problem having classified documents on a system not authorized to have classified documents on it. I don't know whether they'd press charges if someone did this anyway, but at the very least it could cost someone their job, so I'm happy to steer clear.
Actually, in this case, the earliest publication was the issuance of the patent on the parent application in January 2005, and the claims in that patent are different from the ones in the most recent one. Automatic publication of applications at 18 months after the effective filing date didn't start until late 2001.
Doesn't the lack of a cease-and-desist give an opening to the defense to have the suit dismissed?
No.... Actually, the biggest reasons to send a cease-and-desist are (a) to avoid having to file a lawsuit by causing the offender to stop infringing, and (b) to provide notice to the offender that they are infringing, so that if they continue to infringe, the notice can be provided as evidence in court that the infringement was (eventually) willful.
Do they really think transferring the domain into their control is even remotely likely? It's one thing when you're talking about a torrent tracker where an injunction alone is unlikely to prevent future infringement. But if the court tells Matt Drudge to take down that photo, I'm pretty sure he'll take it down (once his appeals are exhausted).
Or maybe Lexx.
The fee is to prevent a third party from submitting thousands of documents to the USPTO regarding an application, which would create an expense not covered by fees and which would likely cause delays in prosecution of the application. I'm sure you don't want actual tax dollars covering the operational costs of the USPTO, do you?
Now, an applicant does have a duty to disclose documents pertinent to the patentability of their invention. You could conceivably send them the documents and hope that they submit them to the USPTO, but that's not a guarantee that the documents would be considered.
I say, "Hey, MasterCard, give this guy $50." He gets an email, his automatic email-getting-password-sender-outer tells me how to get to his jiggly bits.
You mean like PayPal?
A number of sources
Are these neutral, independent, reputable sources? Or are they sources that have taken sides in favor of Wikileaks and the DDoSers and are trying to justify the act of perpetrating a DDoS attack?
Note that Julian Assange has already indicated that neither Wikileaks nor he approve of the DDoS attacks, first and foremost because they are a muzzle to free speech.
You can submit your prior art within 2 months of the application's publication date to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.99. There is a fee of $180 associated with doing so (covering up to 10 references submitted), and you have to make sure you jump through all the hoops that the regulation requires (e.g., you're not allowed to explain the relevance of your prior art, and you have to serve the applicant with a copy of your submission).
Claim 1: A computer-implemented process for allowing different types of clicker devices to be used in a personal response system, comprising:
receiving inputs from more than one type of clicker device;
formatting the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device with at least one clicker adapter for the type of clicker device to adapt the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device to a common single polling controller;
processing the adapted inputs from the clicker adapters with the polling controller to interface the adapted inputs with a personal response system software application to allow user polling data to be obtained,
wherein the receiving, formatting and processing are performed by at least one processor.
I propose that anyone caught spewing that tired old line be shot in the face on sight.
That's okay. I never leave my house, so nobody will ever get the chance.
That's where legislation comes in - you can't get 100% compliance without it.
Exactly. Some industries may be able to avoid legislation by the nature of how the product is bought and sold. Movies and video games, for instance, with their voluntary ratings system, already pervade the market because people expect to see those ratings before they buy the product.
But with advertising, people aren't the consumers - they're the product. It doesn't matter if people expect to see limits on behavior tracking, because they're not the ones whose needs have to be met. In fact, the actual consumers of advertising - the companies trying to sell something - have interests opposed to those of the people who don't want their behavior to be tracked. It ends up being in advertising firms' best interests to break ranks with the "industry standard" and offer a product of higher value to their customers.
No kidding. I almost fell asleep reading the OP. Wake me up when there's a decision on the merits.
Except, perhaps, for .ve domains?
No, I'm pretty sure 99% are unemployed college students, with the other 1% having dropped out of college to write DDoS scripts.
In other words, 1% evil, 99% hot gas.
So when will I be able to moderate people "+1 Google" on Slashdot?
You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not.
From the standpoint of an external observer, maybe, maybe not. But we're humans ourselves, and we certainly take that into account in other arenas. We kill animals for food, but we don't kill humans for food. We criminalize the murder of humans, generally with a far greater severity of punishment than that given to those who commit cruelty against animals. You may argue that perhaps animals should be treated the same as humans in those regards, and certainly there are lots of people who believe that killing of animals for food is immoral, but very few people would argue that protections for human life should be lowered to match those given to animals.
So explain, why isn't it right?
Because it involves intentionally producing individuals whose entire meager existence is fraught with pain. The pain itself may not be intentional, but it's certainly a result of the reckless disregard given by someone who would pursue this sort of research.
Well if we don't know what'll happen, then let's make some and see what happens?
There's already evidence to suggest that Bad Things will be produced by the learning stages of this process, at least part of the time. But sure, let's do it anyway. What do you say when something horrible is the result, just say "oops, my bad" and move on? Fat lot of good it does the person that lives in agony for its mercifully short life.
You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time.
There's good reason to suspect, however, that monstrous human fetuses will happen if this research is applied to humans. There's evidence of this happening in cloning research in other animals. While some people have moral objections to the creation of unused embryos in IVF, that's a completely separate thing from what I'm talking about here.
This isn't actually that huge a deal. No matter what the conditions are in the location they want to put the platform, any sort of large spill would be Real Bad.
The important part here is not to let a spill happen in the first place, and the spill prediction software has nothing really to do with that.
It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.
Refining the process in humans would probably result in the production of numerous fetuses with congenital defects resulting in death soon after birth, similar to what's been seen in cloning of various animals. Intentionally doing such a thing would (or, at least, should) never be permitted by a civilized society, not even in the name of "equality".
In actuality, wikileaks actually offered the US government the opportunity to redact.
This should be obvious: If the government provides assistance with redactions, they're essentially sanctioning the publication of classified documents. The US government doesn't want these documents published at all.