There are very few ads directed to those 50 and over. While the vast majority of ads are directed to the young. It only makes sense that those over 50 would skip over those irrelevant ads while young people might take the time to watch them.
The percentage of coders in the over-all laptop market is probably less than 1%. The vast majority of laptop buyers want widescreen. The better question is why laptop manufacturers would create a line of laptops for such an incredibly small niche.
If you think there is a large market for coder/laptops start up a business yourself and make a killing. I won't be holding my breath on that.
"say on public housing for the recently evicted, food stamps etc"
No, the people who run this country wouldn't need any of that stuff. They're much more concerned with protecting their crumbling business models than anything else. In the immortal words of Marie Antoinette: Let them eat government cheese!
We're talking about an alleged "addiction" to oil. In the US only 7 percent of our electric power is created from petroleum. Therefore, 93% of our electricity is not created by oil. So, what exactly is your point about France? Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.
I agree. I read an interview with John Carmack about his releasing the source code of older id's games. The artists fought it tooth and nail but obviously lost.
Well, my neat and precise logic did one thing well. It made you drop your previous argument:
"I don't believe that having a private road, unmarked and with no access control, which is also connected to a public road is any kind of trespass in the legal sense."
Please note that you did not say that it was not the law, you said that you did "not believe" it to be the law. What you believe is a subjective argument. And it appears you've dropped it. That's fine. Out of those ashes you've picked up a new objective argument, let's see how that works. So please cite to that "law around here" and I too will be convinced. Until then I think you're spouting BS. And I'm still awaiting your address so I too can come over uninvited and not trespass. Thanks!
A private road is necessarily not public. Therefore entering that road without permission is necessarily trespass. Your nonsensical subjective beliefs on the matter are completely irrelevant. The question is whether Google has a right to trespass on private property without permission. The answer to that is clearly no.
And if you really feel the need to stand behind your nonsensical subjective beliefs, please feel free to publish your address so I can come on your private property any time I want. Thanks!
Now that Apple has replaced Wal-mart as the 1000 pound gorilla in music retail, maybe the company will be able to drag the music industry into the new millennium.
"Finally, it looks like the industry (or at least Apple) is 'getting it'"
Apple has the most successful internet music distribution system available. From the millions of iPods sold to the billions of songs sold on iTunes. And needless to say, everyone else who has tried the "all you can eat" music pricing model has failed.
So please inform me exactly what Apple is finally getting! Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.
I read it, but where does it say that anonymous speech is a protected right? No where. The Court thinks it's a good and beneficial idea. And I agree with the court that it's a good ides. I've also already said that the Constitution should be amended to reflect it. But here's the simple truth, right now if I make anonymous speech, someone has the right to go into a court, get a subpoena and learn my identity. Which is another way of saying, if someone has the legal right to learn my identity, I don't have the legal right to be anonymous.
The laws of the US are based on the Constitution, case law, and statutes. Please provide any such law where it states that "Anonymous speech is a basic human right" and I'll concede your point. Until you do, keep your ignorant opinions about how our legal system works quiet. Thanks!
But there simply is no Constitutional right in the US to anonymous free speech.
I'm sure the argument is that if people are forced to expose their identity they'll be less likely to make unpopular speech. But that has been true since speaking was first invented. I'm not entirely sure how the internet changes that in any meaningful way.
What the internet did was to make anonymous speech easy, which in turn made it popular. But Constitutional rights are not a popularity contest. If there was no right to anonymous free speech in the 1700s, in the 1800s, and in the 1900s, I'm not entirely sure why it should suddenly appear in the 2000s.
And I'm sure someone will point out that the press can keep their sources private and confidential. That's true, but that right lies with the press, not with the speaker.
If this is really what people want, they should start the process to change the Constitution to reflect their changing values instead of trying to attach meaning to the Constitution where none can be found.
Scott Kirwin, founder of the Information Technology Professionals Association of America, put it best:
"The problem is not a lack of highly educated workers. The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower in the U.S. Costs are driving outsourcing, not the quality of American schools."
United States District Court, D. Colorado. MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Sofamor Danek Holdings, Inc., St. Louis University, and Trustees of Dartmouth College, Plaintiffs, v. BRAINLAB MEDIZINISCHE COMPUTERSYSTEMS GMBH, Brainlab AG, Brainlab USA, Inc., and Brainlab, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 98-cv-01072-RPM. Feb. 12, 2008.
Anthony Lawrence Giacomini, Sean Connelly, Daniel M. Reilly, Hoffman, Reilly, Pozner & Williamson, L.L.P., Conor Fitzgerald Farley, Lee Frederick Johnston, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO, J. James Li, Vera M. Elson, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Krista Leigh Vink Venegas, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt A. Luther, Leslie I. Bookoff, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, David W. Harlan, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.
James Edward Hartley, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO.
Jay R. Campbell, John J. Del Col, Joshua M. Ryland, Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, Kyle B. Fleming, Cleveland, OH, L. Andrew Cooper, Marc David Flink, Thomas H. Shunk, Baker & Hostetler, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO BRAINLAB DEFENDANTS
RICHARD P. MATSCH, Senior District Judge. *1 The defendants (collectively BrainLAB) seek to recover all of their attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this suit for patent infringement, contending that it was filed and prosecuted not to protect the technology protected by the patent claims but to drive a competitor out of a market for an emerging technology for application in the navigation of surgical instruments in procedures requiring exquisite precision, as in the removal of a brain tumor. Medtronic Navigation, Inc. (Medtronic) and its predecessor Surgical Navigation Technologies, Inc. (SNT) marketed variations of a device called "StealthStation" in competition with BrainLAB's "VectorVision" devices. The accused devices can be described as passive optical systems in contrast to an active acoustic system. That contrasting technology was at the core of this case.
BrainLAB contends that it is entitled to fees and costs because this is an exceptional case justifying relief under 35 U.S.C. 285; that plaintiffs' lead counsel should be held responsible under 28 U.S.C. 1927 and that the Court should grant the motion in the exercise of its inherent authority to protect the integrity of the processes of adjudication. Upon reflection, this Court finds and concludes that the rulings on the claims construction issues adjudicated the fairly debatable issues in this case and that the manner in which plaintiffs' counsel continued the prosecution of the claims through trial was in disregard of their obligations as officers of the court. The fairness of the adversary system of adjudication depends upon the assumption that trial lawyers will temper zealous advocacy of their client's cause with an objective assessment of its merit and be candid in presenting it to the court and to opposing counsel. When that assumption has been contradicted by a trial record of conduct reflecting a winning is all that is important approach to the trial process, the court has a duty to redress this resulting harm to the opposing party.
BrainLAB has made a plausible argument that this entire civil action was frivolous. The chronology of the suit must be viewed against the backdrop of developments in the field of image-guided surgical navigation technology.
In approximately 1991, SNT began development of an image-guided surgical navigation product. SNT worked with Dr. Richard Bucholz of St. Louis University. SNT also collaborated with Dr. Peter Heilbrun of the University of Utah. In 1994, SNT obtained rights to the application for patent that issued as U.S. Patent No. B1 5,383,454 to Bucholz (the 454 Patent or the Bucholz Patent). The claims of that patent relate to a system that depends on the activation of sound emitters on a surgical instrument and the pati
Slashdot Mirror
There are very few ads directed to those 50 and over. While the vast majority of ads are directed to the young. It only makes sense that those over 50 would skip over those irrelevant ads while young people might take the time to watch them.
Only an idiot would think people have a right to privacy while in public. But, as we're talking about the French, this isn't too surprising.
Part of their punishment was to be barred from violating the very rules they were convicted of violating?! Does that make any sense?!
The blurb says "reporting" not "announcing." Maybe they've fixed it since I showed up.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates software to Brazilian schools
The percentage of coders in the over-all laptop market is probably less than 1%. The vast majority of laptop buyers want widescreen. The better question is why laptop manufacturers would create a line of laptops for such an incredibly small niche.
If you think there is a large market for coder/laptops start up a business yourself and make a killing. I won't be holding my breath on that.
"say on public housing for the recently evicted, food stamps etc"
No, the people who run this country wouldn't need any of that stuff. They're much more concerned with protecting their crumbling business models than anything else. In the immortal words of Marie Antoinette: Let them eat government cheese!
We're talking about an alleged "addiction" to oil. In the US only 7 percent of our electric power is created from petroleum. Therefore, 93% of our electricity is not created by oil. So, what exactly is your point about France? Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.
"P.S. Have fun paying high price for your addiction to oil."
I can't help but wonder what industrialized country you live in that is somehow not addicted to oil.
I agree. I read an interview with John Carmack about his releasing the source code of older id's games. The artists fought it tooth and nail but obviously lost.
Why does this Apple-hardware-only provision of the EULA pertain to OSX but not to Safari?
Well, my neat and precise logic did one thing well. It made you drop your previous argument:
Please note that you did not say that it was not the law, you said that you did "not believe" it to be the law. What you believe is a subjective argument. And it appears you've dropped it. That's fine. Out of those ashes you've picked up a new objective argument, let's see how that works. So please cite to that "law around here" and I too will be convinced. Until then I think you're spouting BS. And I'm still awaiting your address so I too can come over uninvited and not trespass. Thanks!
A private road is necessarily not public. Therefore entering that road without permission is necessarily trespass. Your nonsensical subjective beliefs on the matter are completely irrelevant. The question is whether Google has a right to trespass on private property without permission. The answer to that is clearly no.
And if you really feel the need to stand behind your nonsensical subjective beliefs, please feel free to publish your address so I can come on your private property any time I want. Thanks!
"I just don't get it."
It's called trespass. Here's a wikipedia article on the subject. You're welcome.
I didn't get the joke either, but I laughed at it the second time I read it. Subtle and funny. A great combination.
Now that Apple has replaced Wal-mart as the 1000 pound gorilla in music retail, maybe the company will be able to drag the music industry into the new millennium.
Why let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to troll?!
Isn't the "Arthur C. Clarke Burst" already used as a euphemism for cuming on a young boy's face?
"Finally, it looks like the industry (or at least Apple) is 'getting it'"
Apple has the most successful internet music distribution system available. From the millions of iPods sold to the billions of songs sold on iTunes. And needless to say, everyone else who has tried the "all you can eat" music pricing model has failed.
So please inform me exactly what Apple is finally getting! Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.
I read it, but where does it say that anonymous speech is a protected right? No where. The Court thinks it's a good and beneficial idea. And I agree with the court that it's a good ides. I've also already said that the Constitution should be amended to reflect it. But here's the simple truth, right now if I make anonymous speech, someone has the right to go into a court, get a subpoena and learn my identity. Which is another way of saying, if someone has the legal right to learn my identity, I don't have the legal right to be anonymous.
The laws of the US are based on the Constitution, case law, and statutes. Please provide any such law where it states that "Anonymous speech is a basic human right" and I'll concede your point. Until you do, keep your ignorant opinions about how our legal system works quiet. Thanks!
But there simply is no Constitutional right in the US to anonymous free speech.
I'm sure the argument is that if people are forced to expose their identity they'll be less likely to make unpopular speech. But that has been true since speaking was first invented. I'm not entirely sure how the internet changes that in any meaningful way.
What the internet did was to make anonymous speech easy, which in turn made it popular. But Constitutional rights are not a popularity contest. If there was no right to anonymous free speech in the 1700s, in the 1800s, and in the 1900s, I'm not entirely sure why it should suddenly appear in the 2000s.
And I'm sure someone will point out that the press can keep their sources private and confidential. That's true, but that right lies with the press, not with the speaker.
If this is really what people want, they should start the process to change the Constitution to reflect their changing values instead of trying to attach meaning to the Constitution where none can be found.
http://www.fispace.org/home/2004/01/_when_i_woke_up.html
"From my point of view, the reason to upgrade to Vista is its significantly higher security than XP, let alone the earlier OS's"
If higher security is the reason, wouldn't it be better to switch to Linux or OSX? Just asking.
United States District Court,
D. Colorado.
MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Sofamor Danek Holdings, Inc., St. Louis University, and Trustees of Dartmouth College, Plaintiffs,
v.
BRAINLAB MEDIZINISCHE COMPUTERSYSTEMS GMBH, Brainlab AG, Brainlab USA, Inc., and Brainlab, Inc., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 98-cv-01072-RPM.
Feb. 12, 2008.
Anthony Lawrence Giacomini, Sean Connelly, Daniel M. Reilly, Hoffman, Reilly, Pozner & Williamson, L.L.P., Conor Fitzgerald Farley, Lee Frederick Johnston, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO, J. James Li, Vera M. Elson, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Krista Leigh Vink Venegas, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt A. Luther, Leslie I. Bookoff, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, David W. Harlan, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.
James Edward Hartley, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO.
Jay R. Campbell, John J. Del Col, Joshua M. Ryland, Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, Kyle B. Fleming, Cleveland, OH, L. Andrew Cooper, Marc David Flink, Thomas H. Shunk, Baker & Hostetler, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO BRAINLAB DEFENDANTS
RICHARD P. MATSCH, Senior District Judge.
*1 The defendants (collectively BrainLAB) seek to recover all of their attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this suit for patent infringement, contending that it was filed and prosecuted not to protect the technology protected by the patent claims but to drive a competitor out of a market for an emerging technology for application in the navigation of surgical instruments in procedures requiring exquisite precision, as in the removal of a brain tumor. Medtronic Navigation, Inc. (Medtronic) and its predecessor Surgical Navigation Technologies, Inc. (SNT) marketed variations of a device called "StealthStation" in competition with BrainLAB's "VectorVision" devices. The accused devices can be described as passive optical systems in contrast to an active acoustic system. That contrasting technology was at the core of this case.
BrainLAB contends that it is entitled to fees and costs because this is an exceptional case justifying relief under 35 U.S.C. 285; that plaintiffs' lead counsel should be held responsible under 28 U.S.C. 1927 and that the Court should grant the motion in the exercise of its inherent authority to protect the integrity of the processes of adjudication. Upon reflection, this Court finds and concludes that the rulings on the claims construction issues adjudicated the fairly debatable issues in this case and that the manner in which plaintiffs' counsel continued the prosecution of the claims through trial was in disregard of their obligations as officers of the court. The fairness of the adversary system of adjudication depends upon the assumption that trial lawyers will temper zealous advocacy of their client's cause with an objective assessment of its merit and be candid in presenting it to the court and to opposing counsel. When that assumption has been contradicted by a trial record of conduct reflecting a winning is all that is important approach to the trial process, the court has a duty to redress this resulting harm to the opposing party.
BrainLAB has made a plausible argument that this entire civil action was frivolous. The chronology of the suit must be viewed against the backdrop of developments in the field of image-guided surgical navigation technology.
In approximately 1991, SNT began development of an image-guided surgical navigation product. SNT worked with Dr. Richard Bucholz of St. Louis University. SNT also collaborated with Dr. Peter Heilbrun of the University of Utah. In 1994, SNT obtained rights to the application for patent that issued as U.S. Patent No. B1 5,383,454 to Bucholz (the 454 Patent or the Bucholz Patent). The claims of that patent relate to a system that depends on the activation of sound emitters on a surgical instrument and the pati