But the fact that the guy knocked it onto the floor hints that he was a bit of a nutter. Which would point to him not being the absolute representative of the UN.
Wadsworth: Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry, specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur. Professor Plum: Yes, but now I work for the United Nations. Wadsworth: So, your work has not changed.
Even if it's evidence in your favor, it has to still be valid.
Is there any reason the evidence should be excluded in this case? Whether or not the Facebook evidence substantiates a finding of reasonable doubt should be left up to a jury to decide.
One thing that some folks have forgotten here is that the guy was presumed innocent until the prosecution could prove him guilty. If there's evidence from Facebook indicating that he updated his status, then the prosecution would need to show that the guy was using a proxy/tunnel/whatever, or that he had someone else post for him, etc. Otherwise, it provides a reasonable doubt as to whether he was even at the scene of the crime.
Actually, that looks a whole lot like what was claimed. Unfortunately, the changelog for PolicyKit indicates that the initial version was done in March 2006, which is too late to be prior art.
If it comes down to the degree of "exactly," please provide some examples from patent case law that show that the degree of difference here is sufficient for the two programs not to be close enough to the same that sudo, had it been invented after this patent, wouldn't violate said patent.
That's not the way it works. The examiner has to make a prima facie case of unpatentability in order to reject a claim. If the examiner can't substantiate such a case, the application gets allowed, and the applicant gets a patent.
Only when the examiner makes a prima facie case does the burden shift to the applicant to either successfully traverse the rejection (e.g., by properly indicating a flaw in the rejection, by citing case law applicable to the rejection, by providing evidence of unexpected results/commercial success/various other secondary considerations in the case of an obviousness rejection, etc.) or amend the claims.
Glenn Beck calls President Barack Obama a 'racist'.
Being a racist, while repugnant to me (and, I surmise, you) personally, is still a matter of personal opinion to which every American has a right. Obama's clearly no more a racist than the rest of us are, but even if he were, it wouldn't rise to the level of something truly heinous.
A more apt analogy would be if Glenn Beck said, "Did Barack Obama kill white people as a member of the Black Panthers?"
Did Glenn Beck ever say anything on that level?
And, nobody is accusing Glenn Beck of having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Suppose somebody around your workplace starts going around asking whether there's any truth to rumors that your boss is into child porn. Now, before this person said anything, there were no rumors, no supposition at all that this might be true. But eventually, the newly-created rumor spreads, people start shunning the boss and shooting him dirty looks all the time, and after a mental breakdown, the boss is forced to resign by his superiors.
Nobody actually ever accused him of being into child porn. Nevertheless, the initial rumormonger managed to assassinate the boss's character and get him fired. By your logic, that's perfectly 100% okay, because nobody actually made the accusation.
Why does Glenn Beck deserve less protection from this sort of character-assassinating rumormongering than the rest of us? Because he's a public figure? Or just because you disagree with everything he says?
Same here. I use Unplug (Firefox plugin) to download the video, and then I use VLC to watch it.
Unplug doesn't work with some of the less popular video sites, but it does work with YouTube. If somebody thinks they're being clever by letting someone other than YouTube host their video, then I probably didn't want to watch it anyway.
Well, he had around 30 seconds to reach his peak speed and decelerate, so he had ample time to go considerably faster than 52 before he started slowing down.
Actually, you did your math wrong. 2040 feet / 30 seconds = 46.4 miles per hour.
The thing is, that's the average speed over the 2040 feet. As was mentioned above, given the initial condition of v(0) = 0, this means that at some point in the intervening distance, the kid must have been going significantly more than 45 mph.
The final condition of v(30 seconds) = 45 mph would increase the peak speed even more.
Actually, I thought the dominant/. dogma was that artists actually should be fairly compensated for what they do, but also that million-dollar judgments in favor of record companies against Joe Schmoe Filesharer doesn't have anything to do with that.
Butt-head: Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?
Essentially, that's what they're saying here. They include closed software on the "openness" spectrum because it's necessary as a basis for comparison. Zero openness is still a value of openness.
Maybe there's an attempt to redefine open source software to the benefit of companies who sell proprietary software, but this particular bit isn't the proper evidence for it.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's nothing, son. Great-Grandpa had to actually get up off the sofa and move to the TV to turn a dial."
"Dad? What the hell is a dial?"
But the fact that the guy knocked it onto the floor hints that he was a bit of a nutter. Which would point to him not being the absolute representative of the UN.
Wadsworth: Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry, specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Professor Plum: Yes, but now I work for the United Nations.
Wadsworth: So, your work has not changed.
Are we sure they're not just corralling a bunch of stiffs at the bus station and pocketing our money?
Even if it's evidence in your favor, it has to still be valid.
Is there any reason the evidence should be excluded in this case? Whether or not the Facebook evidence substantiates a finding of reasonable doubt should be left up to a jury to decide.
Unfortunately, the operation of a space garbage scow is fraught with danger.
One thing that some folks have forgotten here is that the guy was presumed innocent until the prosecution could prove him guilty. If there's evidence from Facebook indicating that he updated his status, then the prosecution would need to show that the guy was using a proxy/tunnel/whatever, or that he had someone else post for him, etc. Otherwise, it provides a reasonable doubt as to whether he was even at the scene of the crime.
Two reasons:
One, I can transcode it to eliminate the commercials.
Two, I never have to worry about my service provider (at the behest of the Content Cabal) revoking my ability to watch something I've saved.
Very true. In fact, the FTC has already won one civil complaint against them (Experian) and is gearing up for another.
What I really don't understand is why the FTC didn't use a .gov domain name when they set up their website.
But can I keep what I download?
Actually, the examiner rejected the application three times and forced the applicant to amend the hell out of the claims before allowing it.
Actually, that looks a whole lot like what was claimed. Unfortunately, the changelog for PolicyKit indicates that the initial version was done in March 2006, which is too late to be prior art.
If it comes down to the degree of "exactly," please provide some examples from patent case law that show that the degree of difference here is sufficient for the two programs not to be close enough to the same that sudo, had it been invented after this patent, wouldn't violate said patent.
That's not the way it works. The examiner has to make a prima facie case of unpatentability in order to reject a claim. If the examiner can't substantiate such a case, the application gets allowed, and the applicant gets a patent.
Only when the examiner makes a prima facie case does the burden shift to the applicant to either successfully traverse the rejection (e.g., by properly indicating a flaw in the rejection, by citing case law applicable to the rejection, by providing evidence of unexpected results/commercial success/various other secondary considerations in the case of an obviousness rejection, etc.) or amend the claims.
Glenn Beck calls President Barack Obama a 'racist'.
Being a racist, while repugnant to me (and, I surmise, you) personally, is still a matter of personal opinion to which every American has a right. Obama's clearly no more a racist than the rest of us are, but even if he were, it wouldn't rise to the level of something truly heinous.
A more apt analogy would be if Glenn Beck said, "Did Barack Obama kill white people as a member of the Black Panthers?"
Did Glenn Beck ever say anything on that level?
And, nobody is accusing Glenn Beck of having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Suppose somebody around your workplace starts going around asking whether there's any truth to rumors that your boss is into child porn. Now, before this person said anything, there were no rumors, no supposition at all that this might be true. But eventually, the newly-created rumor spreads, people start shunning the boss and shooting him dirty looks all the time, and after a mental breakdown, the boss is forced to resign by his superiors.
Nobody actually ever accused him of being into child porn. Nevertheless, the initial rumormonger managed to assassinate the boss's character and get him fired. By your logic, that's perfectly 100% okay, because nobody actually made the accusation.
Why does Glenn Beck deserve less protection from this sort of character-assassinating rumormongering than the rest of us? Because he's a public figure? Or just because you disagree with everything he says?
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, primarily because his commentary tends to get fairly extreme and lacks proper fact-checking.
But come on, this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts, not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.
Regardless of who the target was, doesn't this cross a line that shouldn't be crossed?
You want creepy Sesame Street, you got it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSR9P616VCA
records transmitted content (as well as media shifting) which typical is not allowed
It's times like this that I wish "Wrong" were one of the moderation options. Because you are. You've heard of TiVo, right?
Same here. I use Unplug (Firefox plugin) to download the video, and then I use VLC to watch it.
Unplug doesn't work with some of the less popular video sites, but it does work with YouTube. If somebody thinks they're being clever by letting someone other than YouTube host their video, then I probably didn't want to watch it anyway.
I'm confused, too, but maybe that's because I no speaka da English.
No kidding. Just think of all those lost sales.
Well, he had around 30 seconds to reach his peak speed and decelerate, so he had ample time to go considerably faster than 52 before he started slowing down.
Actually, you did your math wrong. 2040 feet / 30 seconds = 46.4 miles per hour.
The thing is, that's the average speed over the 2040 feet. As was mentioned above, given the initial condition of v(0) = 0, this means that at some point in the intervening distance, the kid must have been going significantly more than 45 mph.
The final condition of v(30 seconds) = 45 mph would increase the peak speed even more.
Actually, I thought the dominant /. dogma was that artists actually should be fairly compensated for what they do, but also that million-dollar judgments in favor of record companies against Joe Schmoe Filesharer doesn't have anything to do with that.
And if she objects, tell her the next choice is Shatner.
Spock! She... knows... it's a multipass!
The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.
Well, technically you can test for existence of a deity.... you just can't come back to tell the rest of us about it afterwards.
Butt-head: Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?
Essentially, that's what they're saying here. They include closed software on the "openness" spectrum because it's necessary as a basis for comparison. Zero openness is still a value of openness.
Maybe there's an attempt to redefine open source software to the benefit of companies who sell proprietary software, but this particular bit isn't the proper evidence for it.