The article states "[s]ome consumers are worried about radio frequency radiation from the new meters." That's it. No "action groups," not even a sole scientist. Bad bad bad summary.
Two possibilities: First, Microsoft does not hire the smartest or most knowledgeable, possibly a symptom of a Ballmer decline; or Two, Microsoft is intentionally making incredibly stupid misstatements to detract attention from this bizarre policy change.
In an age where brick and mortar bookstores are no longer the most economic method to deliver printed matter, and where the needs and desires of consumers can be far more fully met online, needlessly exposing yourself to ridicule and consumer anger is not a good business strategy.
The US government is currently funneling funds to NIF. Ananyo, the uber-parent poster, suggests the DoE backs multiple projects, instead of "sacrificing some to support others." It is unclear how the US government is supposed to pick the right technology worked on by the right people at the right time, or how unlimited funds will be available to fund various projects to prevent sacrifices when the CBO projects the entire US economy will "shut down" in 2027 based on current trends.
If the government was not interfering with the market, pharma companies would have no incentive and indeed be unable to produce more of the expensive versions and less of the less expensive versions in relation to demand; competition would force a larger supply of the less expensive versions relative to the expensive versions. If supply is constrained in relation to demand, prices will always go up. We've seen this most recently with hard drives and the Thailand floods; that was an act of god. The Adderall shortage is an act of government, and can be easily remedied.
Um, ok. The uber-parent's article is hostile to GMO and Monsanto, and offers no useful concrete information; it's not a news story and/. shouldn't have posted it. What I'd like to know are the parties to the case and the case number, which would enable someone to view the court documents on PACER; actual court documents from PACER would be even more useful.
While Foxconn is an apparent beneficiary, the actual responsible party is the Chinese government. It is not stated whether Foxconn had any involvement in legislating the policy. The Henan provincial government is reported as having mandated internships as a requirement of completing a course of study, while undefined local government agencies appear to have a kickback scheme for filling worker quotas, also linked to graduation. Under free-market capitalism, the government has no say in education, and cannot coerce students into labor while concurrently enriching itself. Such empirical consequences of government intervention in the economy should give pause to those calling for a similar environment in the US.
You're right, I didn't notice that. Unfortunately, climate science has a good deal of lobbying tied up with it, across the spectrum. This is the first time I've seen an alleged attempt at silencing opposition from the non-AGW side, but unsurprising. If the documents are legitimate, then both sides are attempting to silence the other. This has no bearing on the science question. Science can be good or bad science, e.g. Mendelian genetics vs. Lysenkoism. This is my own speculation, but assuming the internal documents are legitimate, the reference to "teaching science" may have been internally understood as referring to bad science or pseudo-science. Being meant for internal use, this seems plausible. I'm not stating what the documents meant, only stating an alternative interpretation that requires actual research and analysis. Neither of the two articles attempt to verify the legitimacy of the documents and their interpretation of the material is entirely self-serving, failing to consider alternative possibilities. Serious-minded people should not draw any conclusions until an independent and non-ideological analysis of the documents has been conducted; multiple such analyses may reach different conclusions, but at least there would be a factual basis supported by evidence for doing so. Posting the story on/. before this had been done was premature, and only served as flamebait for people of differing views to shadowbox over shadowy and unverified charges. The issues are whether the documents are legitimate and untampered with or some form of hoax, and if legitimate the meaning of the word "science" in the sentence. Everything else, especially the scientific basis of AGW, is off-topic unproductive trolling.
Curious, but of little interest absent non-ideological analysis. So far the only alleged issue is a single sentence, and any charges related to it would need corroborating actions or statements to back it up. Discover Magazine uses the sentence to deflect attention away from Climategate, while Mr. Littlemore uses an ineffective guilt by association logical fallacy to smear Heartland. If the documents are legitimate, then I'll just wait until a serious, non-sensationalist source of analysis without an ax to grind (or can keep it sheathed for the duration) gets around to it. That would be the scientific way to process it.
Consulting with the employer's legal department is likely to be unproductive. Their client is the corporation, and they are not under any obligation and are likely prohibited by their State bar's code of professional conduct from telling you what is and is not enforceable in an employment contract. Do not contact the employer's legal department absent your own legal representation and do not attempt to negotiate with the employer's legal department absent your own legal representation. You should also consult with a lawyer on what, if any, retaliation the employer may legally perform in response to any attempts to modify or nullify the employer-employee IP contract.
If you are working off the clock, and not using the employer's resources or facilities, I'm nearly certain this is void. If you're using the employer's resources or facilities, the employer likely has at least partial ownership. You may want to visit a law library and ask the law librarians how to search for materials relevant to your concern, or consult with an employment lawyer.
Argument one is wrong. The author is referencing 35 U.S.C. 101 subject-matter eligibility; while Bilski left open the possibility of alternatives to the machine or transformation text, none was suggested, and subsequent cases in the lower federal courts have continued to use the machine or transformation test exclusively. This appears to be an argument that under the machine or transformation test, loading or running a program on a general purpose computer transforms the computer into a different state or thing. This is not and has never been the case, and Bilski implicitly rejects this paradigm. The transformation prong also has no applicability to placing carrots or any other produce onto a truck. If the author wants to understand process patents, I suggest starting with Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Google Scholar is a good resource for anything but the most recent cases, but keep in mind it's not Key Cited; one may have to go through all citations themselves if uncertain of its current status as good case-law, which is available in a tab.
Unsure, would have to review the caselaw. Inaccurate copies do not fit the conventional meaning of a derivative work, e.g. publishing a sequel to the last Harry Potter novel.
The State is supplying the pornography by supplying the internet service and computer equipment. It is no different that if the State paid for the publication of a pornographic picture book and mailed it to your address. There is only a 1st Amendment violation if the State prevents the speech from being uttered, e.g. taking down the pornographic website or issuing a prior restraint to the publisher of the book. There is no violation if the State merely refrains from supplying the speech itself.
The question was how it was calculated. The thread was hijacked by trolls who turned it into an AGW debate, which is off-topic. According to the United Kingdom Meteorology Office, the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Why or how is off-topic. The only question is how in light of the Earth not warming in 15 years, regardless of cause or reason, figures into the mass calculations.
If the exam is copyrighted, and as the story states each question is reproduced "verbatim" and then reproduced, that is unquestionably a violation of Federal copyright law./. needs to avoid publishing nonsense from people who clearly never went to law school.
The 1st Amendment recognizes the State, absent several unrelated restrictions, cannot prevent one from producing, owning, or viewing literary etc. works. It does not say the State must supply those works, only that it cannot prevent speech. The State must not interfere with the viewing or other observation of pornography, but it is under no obligation to supply pornography. The 1st Amendment allows for a free-market in speech; it does not require or speak to a subsidized one.
There isn't any word of a reservation feature. I'm sure instead of having 1/3rd of drivers randomly searching for parking spots, having 1/3rd of drivers compete for the same apparently few in number spots will work out somewhat less pacifically than wishfully presented.
Slashdot Mirror
The article states "[s]ome consumers are worried about radio frequency radiation from the new meters." That's it. No "action groups," not even a sole scientist. Bad bad bad summary.
Two possibilities: First, Microsoft does not hire the smartest or most knowledgeable, possibly a symptom of a Ballmer decline; or Two, Microsoft is intentionally making incredibly stupid misstatements to detract attention from this bizarre policy change.
In an age where brick and mortar bookstores are no longer the most economic method to deliver printed matter, and where the needs and desires of consumers can be far more fully met online, needlessly exposing yourself to ridicule and consumer anger is not a good business strategy.
In the United States of America, government watchdog watches you!
/.is really trolling today. I've seen multiple stories on the 1940 census records release, and zero mentioned this discredited economic theory.
The US government is currently funneling funds to NIF. Ananyo, the uber-parent poster, suggests the DoE backs multiple projects, instead of "sacrificing some to support others." It is unclear how the US government is supposed to pick the right technology worked on by the right people at the right time, or how unlimited funds will be available to fund various projects to prevent sacrifices when the CBO projects the entire US economy will "shut down" in 2027 based on current trends.
There's evidence either way, and it points to forgery. The most incisive and in-depth analysis I've seen comes from Megan McArdle of The Atlantic, herself a supporter of AGW. 16 Feb 2012, Leaked Docs From Heartland Institute Cause a Stir—but Is One a Fake?. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/. 17 Feb 2012, Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/. 21 Feb 2012, Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/.
If the government was not interfering with the market, pharma companies would have no incentive and indeed be unable to produce more of the expensive versions and less of the less expensive versions in relation to demand; competition would force a larger supply of the less expensive versions relative to the expensive versions. If supply is constrained in relation to demand, prices will always go up. We've seen this most recently with hard drives and the Thailand floods; that was an act of god. The Adderall shortage is an act of government, and can be easily remedied.
Utterly wrong. Life can be patented. Plant Patent Act of 1930; Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
Um, ok. The uber-parent's article is hostile to GMO and Monsanto, and offers no useful concrete information; it's not a news story and /. shouldn't have posted it. What I'd like to know are the parties to the case and the case number, which would enable someone to view the court documents on PACER; actual court documents from PACER would be even more useful.
While Foxconn is an apparent beneficiary, the actual responsible party is the Chinese government. It is not stated whether Foxconn had any involvement in legislating the policy. The Henan provincial government is reported as having mandated internships as a requirement of completing a course of study, while undefined local government agencies appear to have a kickback scheme for filling worker quotas, also linked to graduation. Under free-market capitalism, the government has no say in education, and cannot coerce students into labor while concurrently enriching itself. Such empirical consequences of government intervention in the economy should give pause to those calling for a similar environment in the US.
You're right, I didn't notice that. Unfortunately, climate science has a good deal of lobbying tied up with it, across the spectrum. This is the first time I've seen an alleged attempt at silencing opposition from the non-AGW side, but unsurprising. If the documents are legitimate, then both sides are attempting to silence the other. This has no bearing on the science question. Science can be good or bad science, e.g. Mendelian genetics vs. Lysenkoism. This is my own speculation, but assuming the internal documents are legitimate, the reference to "teaching science" may have been internally understood as referring to bad science or pseudo-science. Being meant for internal use, this seems plausible. I'm not stating what the documents meant, only stating an alternative interpretation that requires actual research and analysis. Neither of the two articles attempt to verify the legitimacy of the documents and their interpretation of the material is entirely self-serving, failing to consider alternative possibilities. Serious-minded people should not draw any conclusions until an independent and non-ideological analysis of the documents has been conducted; multiple such analyses may reach different conclusions, but at least there would be a factual basis supported by evidence for doing so. Posting the story on /. before this had been done was premature, and only served as flamebait for people of differing views to shadowbox over shadowy and unverified charges. The issues are whether the documents are legitimate and untampered with or some form of hoax, and if legitimate the meaning of the word "science" in the sentence. Everything else, especially the scientific basis of AGW, is off-topic unproductive trolling.
"We've all known" is shorthand for "I'm always right and need no evidence or logic to support my position"; and that's anti-science.
Curious, but of little interest absent non-ideological analysis. So far the only alleged issue is a single sentence, and any charges related to it would need corroborating actions or statements to back it up. Discover Magazine uses the sentence to deflect attention away from Climategate, while Mr. Littlemore uses an ineffective guilt by association logical fallacy to smear Heartland. If the documents are legitimate, then I'll just wait until a serious, non-sensationalist source of analysis without an ax to grind (or can keep it sheathed for the duration) gets around to it. That would be the scientific way to process it.
Consulting with the employer's legal department is likely to be unproductive. Their client is the corporation, and they are not under any obligation and are likely prohibited by their State bar's code of professional conduct from telling you what is and is not enforceable in an employment contract. Do not contact the employer's legal department absent your own legal representation and do not attempt to negotiate with the employer's legal department absent your own legal representation. You should also consult with a lawyer on what, if any, retaliation the employer may legally perform in response to any attempts to modify or nullify the employer-employee IP contract.
If you are working off the clock, and not using the employer's resources or facilities, I'm nearly certain this is void. If you're using the employer's resources or facilities, the employer likely has at least partial ownership. You may want to visit a law library and ask the law librarians how to search for materials relevant to your concern, or consult with an employment lawyer.
Argument one is wrong. The author is referencing 35 U.S.C. 101 subject-matter eligibility; while Bilski left open the possibility of alternatives to the machine or transformation text, none was suggested, and subsequent cases in the lower federal courts have continued to use the machine or transformation test exclusively. This appears to be an argument that under the machine or transformation test, loading or running a program on a general purpose computer transforms the computer into a different state or thing. This is not and has never been the case, and Bilski implicitly rejects this paradigm. The transformation prong also has no applicability to placing carrots or any other produce onto a truck. If the author wants to understand process patents, I suggest starting with Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Google Scholar is a good resource for anything but the most recent cases, but keep in mind it's not Key Cited; one may have to go through all citations themselves if uncertain of its current status as good case-law, which is available in a tab.
Unsure, would have to review the caselaw. Inaccurate copies do not fit the conventional meaning of a derivative work, e.g. publishing a sequel to the last Harry Potter novel.
The State is supplying the pornography by supplying the internet service and computer equipment. It is no different that if the State paid for the publication of a pornographic picture book and mailed it to your address. There is only a 1st Amendment violation if the State prevents the speech from being uttered, e.g. taking down the pornographic website or issuing a prior restraint to the publisher of the book. There is no violation if the State merely refrains from supplying the speech itself.
A work does not need to be published to be protected by copyright in the US. 17 U.S.C. s. 104(a).
The question was how it was calculated. The thread was hijacked by trolls who turned it into an AGW debate, which is off-topic. According to the United Kingdom Meteorology Office, the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Why or how is off-topic. The only question is how in light of the Earth not warming in 15 years, regardless of cause or reason, figures into the mass calculations.
If the exam is copyrighted, and as the story states each question is reproduced "verbatim" and then reproduced, that is unquestionably a violation of Federal copyright law. /. needs to avoid publishing nonsense from people who clearly never went to law school.
The 1st Amendment recognizes the State, absent several unrelated restrictions, cannot prevent one from producing, owning, or viewing literary etc. works. It does not say the State must supply those works, only that it cannot prevent speech. The State must not interfere with the viewing or other observation of pornography, but it is under no obligation to supply pornography. The 1st Amendment allows for a free-market in speech; it does not require or speak to a subsidized one.
Global warming has ceased for 15 years now. How are they calculating this figure?
There isn't any word of a reservation feature. I'm sure instead of having 1/3rd of drivers randomly searching for parking spots, having 1/3rd of drivers compete for the same apparently few in number spots will work out somewhat less pacifically than wishfully presented.