That's called inequitable conduct, and the punishment is invalidation of the issued patent. The burden of proof is only "clear and convincing evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt" or your pie-in-the-sky "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
Worst of all were the crazy people. #1 on the crazy list are the "lossless compression" types. Even taking them through the math that, of course, no compression scheme can reduce all arbitrary data sets (n bits can only represent 2^n different data sets) had no effect. They also tended to get the most annoyed when I turned them down. #2 was the astonishing number of entrepreneurs who would present business plans showing revenues over the next 4 years of $1M, $10M, $100M and $1B, with >95% profit in that 4th year. Telling them that they simply had no idea about how to run a business also went badly. You could invent matter transmission and not get that kind of profitability.
These are the same people who file patent applications pro se and then freak out when their application gets rejected. They usually call the examiner repeatedly, call the examiner's boss, and generally make a nuisance of themselves, because they're too cheap to invest in the not inexpensive process for appeal the same way they were too cheap to invest in an attorney. When that doesn't work, they take to trolling patent-related forums and the USPTO Facebook page.
Every statistical process has outliers, and one way to deal with those outliers is to have a sample size large enough (oh, say, 111,000 articles) to practically eliminate the effects of those outliers.
One was a simple experiment with growing plants in certain soil conditions. I can't remember exactly what the additive was. But nothing fancy. But here we got to the booth and the kid was beaming and excited to show off the plants, and demonstrated a decent grasp of scientific method (trying to control conditions, etc.).
I saw that TNG episode. As I recall, the kid planted radishes in this special dirt and they came up all weird.
He does reasonable cause for suspecting something is going on and just needs to have information available to aid him in making decisions about some unusual behavior.
Then you're being coy with us about details that would really help you get good answers about this situation. And most likely, these answers will not be technological, but rather revolve around (a) seeking marriage/psychological/etc. counseling, (b) contacting law enforcement, or (c) just talking to his wife/children about what's going on.
The biggest favor you can do for this guy is to not indulge his creepy need to spy on his household. It's passive aggressiveness at its worst, when he really just needs to confront whatever issue this is head-on.
You're supposed to read the claims. It's the most important part of the patent, and the least-read by the Slashdotter.
In this case, paraphrasing, the patent is all about providing purchasing recommendations to someone who is watching a video based on items that are purchased by other people while they are watching that same video. It could be used for home shopping networks on TV, of course.
The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.
We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels. Full implementation then eliminates carbon emissions altogether, a goal which can't be achieved by market-based carbon neutrality alone.
I'm not sure if they've fixed it yet, but the defaults for line charts in MS Excel were insanely set to have equal spacing between data points on one axis no matter what values they have.
That's what happens when you take the programmer who worked on Windows progress bars and tell him to use his talents on Excel graphs.
there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
There is. It's the media (from MSNBC and Fox News, to the Daily Show and Rush Limbaugh, and everything in between), fueled by a public appetite for the humiliation of others. Anyone with enough sense to lead us properly also has the good sense not to lower themselves into that morass of despair. In another twenty years, only the Snookis and Situations of the nation will be willing to run for public office.
To throw you a bone, medications don't seem to be very effective against mild depression.
Considering that SSRIs/SNRIs have a 60-70% incidence of causing sexual side effects (reduced libido, reduced sensation, reduced ability to reach orgasm) but are the most frequently prescribed class of antidepressant, it's not surprising. The side effects are enough to make anyone stay mildly depressed.
For that matter, "Neutrinogate" wasn't even a scandal. Yeah, it probably got more publicity than an unverified result merited, but the researchers did warn us that something could still be fishy, and that more work would be needed to see if something was wrong. They found a technical fault, fixed it, and are working on re-performing the tests. No big deal.
The analysis actually seemed to check for correlations between US gas refining and gas prices. I'm not sure how this extends back to drilling.
Also, other producers in the oil/gas market are not wholly independent actors. OPEC, for instance, examines the oil market when determining how much to increase or decrease supply. It's possible that any significant correlation between US drilling and gas prices could be counteracted, at least in part, by OPEC actions.
Now, most likely, the hypothesis is true that US oil production is too insignificant to have a statistically measurable impact on gas prices. But either the study or the reporting (or perhaps both) on this story seems a bit sloppy to me.
It already got a Director-ordered re-exam, during which the applicant, who readily stated that the application was intended to be a farce in the first place, ultimately abandoned it after all the claims were rejected.
Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative members of the court both then and now, both sided with the majority in Kyllo v. US, which held that thermal imaging of a home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. Scalia even wrote the opinion.
An alternative technique that could be done with a regular DSLR (with appropriate firmware, of course) could use the full range of focus at a wide aperture to generate a depth map for the image (not necessarily an easy thing to do accurately, but possible with a few tricks). You then take the image with a small aperture to maximize depth of field. Then you could focus the image however you like in post production.
My carrier (nameless so it doesn't look like I'm shilling) lets you set up either a whitelist or a blacklist for text messages, both outgoing and incoming, through their website.
Actually, the vast majority of today's music listeners would say, "Oh, yeah, that's the guy that they made that joke about in Austin Powers that I didn't get until I looked it up."
The key isn't just the technique or just the formula. It's using the formula in this particular context. Would you have thought to use that formula in that particular way? Or, more importantly, would one having ordinary skill in the art?
A system for generating an electronic notification containing a portion of a day out of office notice, comprising:
an application server node operably associated with a database server having an application data supporting personal information management (PIM) system, the application server node configured to execute a personal information management application, the application server node further configured to store the personal information management application;
an application programming interface (API) programmatically associated with the personal information management application for allowing requests for services to be transmitted to the personal information management application;
at least one of a rich client delegate and a remote enterprise Java bean (EJB) housing the API, the rich client delegate and the remote EJB are programmatically associated with the application server node and the personal information management application, the rich client delegate being configured to receive and transmit data to the API via a network;
at least one client computer operably associated with the application server node via the network, each client computer having a user interface (UI) that is programmatically associated with the personal information management application and the API such that a user may input date with timestamp to-the-minute data corresponding to an out of office time period into the UI and transmit the date with timestamp to-the-minute data from the client computer to the API; and
wherein one rich client delegate is programmatically supported by a business logic member, the business logic member being configured to receive the date with timestamp to-the-minute data entered by the user via the UI by way of the supporting business logic member, the rich client delegate further configured to transmit the date with timestamp to-the-minute data to the API of the remote EJB;
wherein the application server node further includes a mail transfer agent (MTA), the mail transfer agent being programmatically associated with the personal information management application and the API;
wherein the mail transfer agent includes three phases, (i) a receiving phase for the an Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) server (ii) a handling phase for handling name resolution, group expansion and content analysis, and (iii) a delivering phase for performing local and external mail delivery, wherein the delivery phase includes a delivery extension member for allowing plug-ins to add new functionalities, the delivery extension member being programmatically associated with the personal information management application and the API;
wherein the MTA includes an out of office filter member, the out of office filter member being programmatically configured to be a plug-in to the delivery extension member, wherein the MTA includes an out of office service; and
wherein the rich client delegate and the remote EJB are configured to receive the transmitted data from the client computer and forward the data to the API.
Slashdot Mirror
That's called inequitable conduct, and the punishment is invalidation of the issued patent. The burden of proof is only "clear and convincing evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt" or your pie-in-the-sky "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
Worst of all were the crazy people. #1 on the crazy list are the "lossless compression" types. Even taking them through the math that, of course, no compression scheme can reduce all arbitrary data sets (n bits can only represent 2^n different data sets) had no effect. They also tended to get the most annoyed when I turned them down. #2 was the astonishing number of entrepreneurs who would present business plans showing revenues over the next 4 years of $1M, $10M, $100M and $1B, with >95% profit in that 4th year. Telling them that they simply had no idea about how to run a business also went badly. You could invent matter transmission and not get that kind of profitability.
These are the same people who file patent applications pro se and then freak out when their application gets rejected. They usually call the examiner repeatedly, call the examiner's boss, and generally make a nuisance of themselves, because they're too cheap to invest in the not inexpensive process for appeal the same way they were too cheap to invest in an attorney. When that doesn't work, they take to trolling patent-related forums and the USPTO Facebook page.
Every statistical process has outliers, and one way to deal with those outliers is to have a sample size large enough (oh, say, 111,000 articles) to practically eliminate the effects of those outliers.
One was a simple experiment with growing plants in certain soil conditions. I can't remember exactly what the additive was. But nothing fancy. But here we got to the booth and the kid was beaming and excited to show off the plants, and demonstrated a decent grasp of scientific method (trying to control conditions, etc.).
I saw that TNG episode. As I recall, the kid planted radishes in this special dirt and they came up all weird.
He does reasonable cause for suspecting something is going on and just needs to have information available to aid him in making decisions about some unusual behavior.
Then you're being coy with us about details that would really help you get good answers about this situation. And most likely, these answers will not be technological, but rather revolve around (a) seeking marriage/psychological/etc. counseling, (b) contacting law enforcement, or (c) just talking to his wife/children about what's going on.
The biggest favor you can do for this guy is to not indulge his creepy need to spy on his household. It's passive aggressiveness at its worst, when he really just needs to confront whatever issue this is head-on.
You're supposed to read the claims. It's the most important part of the patent, and the least-read by the Slashdotter.
In this case, paraphrasing, the patent is all about providing purchasing recommendations to someone who is watching a video based on items that are purchased by other people while they are watching that same video. It could be used for home shopping networks on TV, of course.
The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.
We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels. Full implementation then eliminates carbon emissions altogether, a goal which can't be achieved by market-based carbon neutrality alone.
I'm not sure if they've fixed it yet, but the defaults for line charts in MS Excel were insanely set to have equal spacing between data points on one axis no matter what values they have.
That's what happens when you take the programmer who worked on Windows progress bars and tell him to use his talents on Excel graphs.
there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
There is. It's the media (from MSNBC and Fox News, to the Daily Show and Rush Limbaugh, and everything in between), fueled by a public appetite for the humiliation of others. Anyone with enough sense to lead us properly also has the good sense not to lower themselves into that morass of despair. In another twenty years, only the Snookis and Situations of the nation will be willing to run for public office.
To throw you a bone, medications don't seem to be very effective against mild depression.
Considering that SSRIs/SNRIs have a 60-70% incidence of causing sexual side effects (reduced libido, reduced sensation, reduced ability to reach orgasm) but are the most frequently prescribed class of antidepressant, it's not surprising. The side effects are enough to make anyone stay mildly depressed.
For that matter, "Neutrinogate" wasn't even a scandal. Yeah, it probably got more publicity than an unverified result merited, but the researchers did warn us that something could still be fishy, and that more work would be needed to see if something was wrong. They found a technical fault, fixed it, and are working on re-performing the tests. No big deal.
The analysis actually seemed to check for correlations between US gas refining and gas prices. I'm not sure how this extends back to drilling.
Also, other producers in the oil/gas market are not wholly independent actors. OPEC, for instance, examines the oil market when determining how much to increase or decrease supply. It's possible that any significant correlation between US drilling and gas prices could be counteracted, at least in part, by OPEC actions.
Now, most likely, the hypothesis is true that US oil production is too insignificant to have a statistically measurable impact on gas prices. But either the study or the reporting (or perhaps both) on this story seems a bit sloppy to me.
It already got a Director-ordered re-exam, during which the applicant, who readily stated that the application was intended to be a farce in the first place, ultimately abandoned it after all the claims were rejected.
You could apply for it, but you won't get it.
Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative members of the court both then and now, both sided with the majority in Kyllo v. US, which held that thermal imaging of a home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. Scalia even wrote the opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
An alternative technique that could be done with a regular DSLR (with appropriate firmware, of course) could use the full range of focus at a wide aperture to generate a depth map for the image (not necessarily an easy thing to do accurately, but possible with a few tricks). You then take the image with a small aperture to maximize depth of field. Then you could focus the image however you like in post production.
Volt meets Resistance. I couldn't resist.
It's good that Slashdot is here to help us keep up on current events.
My carrier (nameless so it doesn't look like I'm shilling) lets you set up either a whitelist or a blacklist for text messages, both outgoing and incoming, through their website.
Actually, the vast majority of today's music listeners would say, "Oh, yeah, that's the guy that they made that joke about in Austin Powers that I didn't get until I looked it up."
Just like we left it, with the USA in charge!
Those office parties are the best! They always find the hottest virgins to toss off the ziggurat.
The key isn't just the technique or just the formula. It's using the formula in this particular context. Would you have thought to use that formula in that particular way? Or, more importantly, would one having ordinary skill in the art?
Did you even bother to read the claims of the patent discussed in the article you linked?
Because this:
is clearly obvious?