Since people are too lazy to click on the link and read the claims for themselves, I'll post the two independent claims here:
1. A method of accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, comprising the steps of: capturing automatically one or more graphical representations of one ormore portions of information content of one or more computer files while an application is manipulating the one or more computer files; creating automatically an icon including selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations ofthe information content of the one or more computer files wherein the icon graphically depicts at least a portion of the information content from the one or more computer files and wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating theicon's corresponding one or more computer files and includes selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content; linking the icon to the application and to the one or more computer files based on theability of the application to manipulate the information content of the one or more computer files corresponding to the icon; storing the icon in a memory; displaying the icon in a window on a display screen; invoking the application for manipulatingthe information content of the one or more computer files upon selection of the icon by accessing the more or more computer files by reference to an underlying file system corresponding to the icon and opening the one or more computer files within theapplication.
16. A method for providing a user interface for accessing a file based on a corresponding icon comprising: storing a plurality of icons in a memory along with a corresponding plurality of references to an underlying file system for storageinformation for a plurality of files, each icon having an appearance substantially depicting information content from its corresponding file, wherein the plurality of icons were created by capturing automatically one or more graphical representations ofone or more portions of information content of an icon's corresponding file while an application was manipulating an icon's corresponding file and include selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content; linking an application to each icon based utility on the ability of the application to manipulate the information content of the file corresponding to the icon; providing a window on a display screen for displaying the plurality of icons; invoking theapplication for manipulating the information content of the file corresponding to the selected icon upon selection of an icon from the plurality of icons in the window; accessing the file designated by the reference to the underlying file systemcorresponding to the selected icon; and opening the accessed file into the corresponding application.
In order for prior art to cover this, either one reference, showing that this was known before the patentee's invention, has to anticipate every one of the limitations in the claim; or, it must have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple references which, when put together, cover every limitation in the claim.
I pay $160 for a monthly pass on the local commuter rail line (VRE in northern Virginia). They're increasing fares by 7% next month, and they're still heavily subsidized by both the state and federal governments.
The population distribution in most of the US is simply not geared toward passenger rail except possibly at the local level (i.e., subway/light rail). This isn't Europe, and you can't necessarily repeat the same things that work in Europe and expect them to work here also.
Just make sure not to mention the daily rocket and mortar attacks that Hamas perpetrates on the Israelis on a daily basis, or else people might not take you seriously.
Other problems with/. evaluation of patents and applications include looking at the abstract, disclosure, or drawings and ignoring the claims; reading the first part of a claim but ignoring the rest, thereby missing the novel limitation; and declaring something obvious without providing evidence to support their argument.
The RIAA's new strategy isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than trying to sue their customers into lifelong financial ruin.
When it comes right down to it, you're not supposed to share their music, and the content industry is well within their rights to tell you to stop if they see you doing it. And if ISPs agree to block you for repeat offenses, then you're pretty much out of luck if you don't heed those warnings.
There are two things still shady about this plan, though, and both have to do with reducing the RIAA's liability. One has to do with MediaSentry not being licensed as a private investigator. It's possible that the new plan will prevent them from having to get a license in each state where they operate or investigate. Most likely, MediaSentry will never get taken to task for their alleged illegal actions in most states, even though their activities won't change.
And two, the RIAA lawsuits have had a lot of missed targets, each carrying the possibility of backfiring in a big way. The RIAA reduces this liability once they're sending nastygrams to ISPs instead. Under the new plan, they can pretty much send letters complaining about Intartubes users at random, and they never have to worry about countersuits or heinously large legal expenses. Of course, this also means that there's little avenue for protest - if your ISP cuts you off, how are you going to convince them of your innocence (aside from paying a jacked-up reconnection fee, of course)?
I'd like to see if anything can be cut from the DoD budget. How much of it is really necessary? And, is Obama for the current wars going on? Does he plan on keeping the current occupations going strong for years to come? Because we've heard about change, but I am not sure if I remember anything about him being an anti-war candidate.
Much of that is pretty much out of his hands now (or, rather, will never get into his hands in the first place). The US will stay in Iraq in some form until the end of 2011, since that's the timetable the Iraqis have set. As for Afghanistan, Obama has already promised to increase efforts there (likely through increased troop deployments).
(Unless there are some harmful taxes going on right now. Are the poor really that taxed heavily right now?)
No, the poor are generally not taxed at all in terms of income tax. Some of them get a rebate in the form of the Earned Income Credit, which is ostensibly intended to reimburse payroll taxes.
That's exactly what the previous poster was talking about when he said that space was "so fucking big it doesn't fit into the human mind". You might be able to set up a minefield around a planet (you could use half a million mines to set up a 200,000 km barrier around a planet, giving each mine a 1000 km x 1000 km area to defend).
But even going to solar system levels, things get totally ridiculous. A minefield of the same density as above in a sphere roughly encompassing Neptune's orbit would require more than 250 trillion mines.
The rainbow rafters won't be satisfied until humankind has abandoned the follies of electricity, the wheel, and fire, since all of those obviously harm the environment in some way.
At least most of them don't burn down houses. I guess that's something positive, if you're willing to set the bar that low.
Lisa: Look, there's only one way to settle this: Rock-paper-scissors. Lisa (thinking): Poor predictable Bart. Always picks rock. Bart (thinking): Good ol' rock. Nothing beats that!
Enderle should have just gone with the red paint job. I painted my laptop red - now it goes just as fast as his, but the difference is that I only look like a complete tool rather than a pretentious asshole.
They actually have detectors that can pick up the glint off of the camera lens caused by a bright IR emitter placed in the theater. Hard to tell whether/how many theaters have those installed, but it takes care of that problem.
On a side note, in my former state of Ohio, this particular offense is a felony. It also doesn't have to be a theater, and it only has to be somewhere on the premises where a copyrighted work is being shown. Also, the facility owner is given the right to detain the offender until the police arrive (despite the fact that the facility owner virtually never has a stake in the copyrighted work). Are you a reporter doing a local news expose on the poor health conditions at the theater concession stand? Congratulations, buddy, you've just committed a felony.
I'd just like to point out that the OP is subtly conflating two issues here: warrantless wiretapping and network neutrality. The headline claims that Obama's supposed genius is in nominating advocates of network neutrality, but then goes on to say how they're reputed as outspoken opponents of Bush's telecom policy.
The thing is, network neutrality hasn't become a ripe enough issue for the current administration to need to take a stance on it. Bush's telecom policy has really just revolved around warrantless wiretapping and immunity to lawsuits brought concerning said wiretapping.
On a side note, the OP's attitude toward Obama's supposed genius is just another example of why Congress hasn't done something concerning network neutrality yet. Far-left groups like MoveOn.org picked up network neutrality for some bizarre reason, making the concept untouchable by conservatives, even those who understand that the regional Internet duopolies need at least a few rules to keep them from abusing the consumer. OP obviously subscribes to the MoveOn.org school of thought, as evidenced by linking election rhetoric buzzwords like "past eight years" to the FCC, even though the commissioners serve five-year terms, and the Commission can have no more than three of its five members from the same political party.
On another side note, Obama's early interest in the FCC suggests that the Fairness Doctrine might rear its head again with his support.
Slashdot Mirror
Since people are too lazy to click on the link and read the claims for themselves, I'll post the two independent claims here:
In order for prior art to cover this, either one reference, showing that this was known before the patentee's invention, has to anticipate every one of the limitations in the claim; or, it must have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple references which, when put together, cover every limitation in the claim.
I pay $160 for a monthly pass on the local commuter rail line (VRE in northern Virginia). They're increasing fares by 7% next month, and they're still heavily subsidized by both the state and federal governments.
The population distribution in most of the US is simply not geared toward passenger rail except possibly at the local level (i.e., subway/light rail). This isn't Europe, and you can't necessarily repeat the same things that work in Europe and expect them to work here also.
Just make sure not to mention the daily rocket and mortar attacks that Hamas perpetrates on the Israelis on a daily basis, or else people might not take you seriously.
And please - are you really implying that Santa Claus is a god?
Depends on whether or not he's seen Ghostbusters.
To a young brain, anything that somebody else picks up instantly becomes immeasurably valuable.
The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people (in a democratic society).
It my surprise you to learn that we live in a republic, not a democracy.
Other problems with /. evaluation of patents and applications include looking at the abstract, disclosure, or drawings and ignoring the claims; reading the first part of a claim but ignoring the rest, thereby missing the novel limitation; and declaring something obvious without providing evidence to support their argument.
USB's already been added to everything possible. Shouldn't this thing have Bluetooth?
The RIAA's new strategy isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than trying to sue their customers into lifelong financial ruin.
When it comes right down to it, you're not supposed to share their music, and the content industry is well within their rights to tell you to stop if they see you doing it. And if ISPs agree to block you for repeat offenses, then you're pretty much out of luck if you don't heed those warnings.
There are two things still shady about this plan, though, and both have to do with reducing the RIAA's liability. One has to do with MediaSentry not being licensed as a private investigator. It's possible that the new plan will prevent them from having to get a license in each state where they operate or investigate. Most likely, MediaSentry will never get taken to task for their alleged illegal actions in most states, even though their activities won't change.
And two, the RIAA lawsuits have had a lot of missed targets, each carrying the possibility of backfiring in a big way. The RIAA reduces this liability once they're sending nastygrams to ISPs instead. Under the new plan, they can pretty much send letters complaining about Intartubes users at random, and they never have to worry about countersuits or heinously large legal expenses. Of course, this also means that there's little avenue for protest - if your ISP cuts you off, how are you going to convince them of your innocence (aside from paying a jacked-up reconnection fee, of course)?
When asked for comment, Gunther's patient responded simply, "AAAIIEIIEUUUOOOEEEEIIIAAAAEEEE!!!"
Much better frame rate than Halo over e-mail, where half the e-mails are spent teabagging each other.
I'd like to see if anything can be cut from the DoD budget. How much of it is really necessary? And, is Obama for the current wars going on? Does he plan on keeping the current occupations going strong for years to come? Because we've heard about change, but I am not sure if I remember anything about him being an anti-war candidate.
Much of that is pretty much out of his hands now (or, rather, will never get into his hands in the first place). The US will stay in Iraq in some form until the end of 2011, since that's the timetable the Iraqis have set. As for Afghanistan, Obama has already promised to increase efforts there (likely through increased troop deployments).
(Unless there are some harmful taxes going on right now. Are the poor really that taxed heavily right now?)
No, the poor are generally not taxed at all in terms of income tax. Some of them get a rebate in the form of the Earned Income Credit, which is ostensibly intended to reimburse payroll taxes.
(well, at lest the "space" part. Seriously, that brought very very little. not even the teflon pan.)
You've heard of satellites, right?
That's exactly what the previous poster was talking about when he said that space was "so fucking big it doesn't fit into the human mind". You might be able to set up a minefield around a planet (you could use half a million mines to set up a 200,000 km barrier around a planet, giving each mine a 1000 km x 1000 km area to defend).
But even going to solar system levels, things get totally ridiculous. A minefield of the same density as above in a sphere roughly encompassing Neptune's orbit would require more than 250 trillion mines.
The rainbow rafters won't be satisfied until humankind has abandoned the follies of electricity, the wheel, and fire, since all of those obviously harm the environment in some way.
At least most of them don't burn down houses. I guess that's something positive, if you're willing to set the bar that low.
Now, Spore is a bad example, since you will probably not want to play it in, say, 2 years.
I didn't want to play it anymore after 2 weeks.
Yes, I also get my opinions from a children's cartoon written by libertarian nut jobs.
Um.... You've never actually seen South Park, have you?
History shows again and again how lawyers point out the folly of men....
Godzilla!
Tattoo it to their genitalia. That way, nobody would know except for the people they deliberately tried to infect.
Lisa: Look, there's only one way to settle this: Rock-paper-scissors.
Lisa (thinking): Poor predictable Bart. Always picks rock.
Bart (thinking): Good ol' rock. Nothing beats that!
Targeted advertising based on our credit history and income?
I'm pretty sure this counts as "evil".
Enderle should have just gone with the red paint job. I painted my laptop red - now it goes just as fast as his, but the difference is that I only look like a complete tool rather than a pretentious asshole.
Damn you! No, I didn't click on the link, but now thanks to you, I've got beans up my nose.
They actually have detectors that can pick up the glint off of the camera lens caused by a bright IR emitter placed in the theater. Hard to tell whether/how many theaters have those installed, but it takes care of that problem.
On a side note, in my former state of Ohio, this particular offense is a felony. It also doesn't have to be a theater, and it only has to be somewhere on the premises where a copyrighted work is being shown. Also, the facility owner is given the right to detain the offender until the police arrive (despite the fact that the facility owner virtually never has a stake in the copyrighted work). Are you a reporter doing a local news expose on the poor health conditions at the theater concession stand? Congratulations, buddy, you've just committed a felony.
I'd just like to point out that the OP is subtly conflating two issues here: warrantless wiretapping and network neutrality. The headline claims that Obama's supposed genius is in nominating advocates of network neutrality, but then goes on to say how they're reputed as outspoken opponents of Bush's telecom policy.
The thing is, network neutrality hasn't become a ripe enough issue for the current administration to need to take a stance on it. Bush's telecom policy has really just revolved around warrantless wiretapping and immunity to lawsuits brought concerning said wiretapping.
On a side note, the OP's attitude toward Obama's supposed genius is just another example of why Congress hasn't done something concerning network neutrality yet. Far-left groups like MoveOn.org picked up network neutrality for some bizarre reason, making the concept untouchable by conservatives, even those who understand that the regional Internet duopolies need at least a few rules to keep them from abusing the consumer. OP obviously subscribes to the MoveOn.org school of thought, as evidenced by linking election rhetoric buzzwords like "past eight years" to the FCC, even though the commissioners serve five-year terms, and the Commission can have no more than three of its five members from the same political party.
On another side note, Obama's early interest in the FCC suggests that the Fairness Doctrine might rear its head again with his support.