Why don't you click the link that lists several of the 144 cases where they sued farmers who weren't even using roundup, but were still "manufacturing" patented "devices", and it was their duty to genetically test each plant and then search USPO records to make sure they were in the clear?
The summary uses the term "patent exhaustion", which some people might not be familiar with. This is the doctrine of first sale for patents. Patents don't just cover the manufacture, sale, or distribution of protected devices/etc, they also cover the use, private, commercial, or any other kind of use. The law as written would therefore mean that you can patent your device, sell it, and then sue your customers for using it. So the courts have decided that OBVIOUSLY they can't do that, so the first time you sell a device, your patent interests are "exhausted" and can no longer be used to prevent the use of that particular device.
This is a complicated court case because patent exhaustion is not written down anywhere, it's a wibbly wobbly thing. But as usually stated, it covers the one device. You cannot buy one patent device, and then make your own copies and sell them, because only the one device is "exhausted", and the patent is not nullified. On the other hand, patent law says that if you buy a patented device that can make things, then patent exhaustion also allows you to sell the things made by that device, if they are not covered by patents. That is to say, although things made by a patented process are protected by patent law, if you can legally use such a process (whether by license or patent exhaustion) the patent rights no longer extend to the product. So the court here must decide if that includes self-replication.
On the one hand, the idea behind the Doctrine of Exhaustion is that its pretty obscene to sell somebody something and put the burden on THEM to research all of the currently valid patents to make sure they're allowed to use the damn thing. So that should imply that Exhaustion applies to all intended uses of the patented product. So if a seed is intended to be grown, patent exhaustion would apply to all uses of the final plant. Since for thousands of years farmers have replanted crops using seeds from the last generation, that should be an inalienable intended use of a plant. On the other hand, if you have a Star Trek Replicator which you have rightly patented, its intended use is to make things. So if it can make patented parts of itself, that is part of its intended use? (Other posters here have suggested such a thing). I'm not sure of that. I think for that to apply its intended use would have to be self-replication specifically. That is to say, its purpose is not to make itself specifically, but to make whatever pattern you give it. So patent exhaustion on the replicator would not extend to pattern files you feed it. Besides which, the Doctrine of Exhaustion only applies to unencumbered sales, not to licensed sales or leases or anything else. So if it was truly a concern, they could make you sign a license when you buy the replicator, which explicitly enumerates how you may use the patented device.
Ontario farmers also heavily protest light rail, and really any form of public transit whatsoever. Their reasoning is anything that allows you to not walk to work allows you to live farther away from work. That means city slickers living too close to farm land for their liking, far too close indeed.
Legally a lewd and lascivious act is a sexual act that is illegal, not just immoral like the dictionary says. Of course that doesn't apply to the "lewd language" bit that they also prohibit, as that's been viewed as meaning "anything sexual, except when it's not lewd";) See the definition of legal pornography vs illegal pornography, which is "if you get thrown in jail for 10 years, it was illegal, but that's the only way to tell".
Every word ever written? How do you interpret your own post as "obscene, lewd or profane language or [suggesting] any lewd or lascivious act, or [threatening] to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person"?
By itself, Jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense.
In 2006 the concept of arrestable vs. non-arrestable offenses was abolished in the USA. They are now grouped as "indictable" and "summary" offenses. If you are caught performing a summary offense (like jaywalking, or any traffic violation), the officer has the option of issuing a citation immediately, or arresting you, strip searching you, holding you in jail for up to 48 hours, then bringing you before a judge and having the judge write you a citation. At this point they can either continue to hold you until you pay the fine, or release you if the judge trusts you to pay up.
As long as the games don't feature the "always be connected to the Internet" feature
Yeah, only that's WHY you can't play used games. To boot up any game you need to be signed in to PSN. While this doesn't necessarily imply that you need to stay connected during play, you almost certainly will do. It will, I'm sure, be spun as a feature, since you save "TO THE NANOBUZZWORD CLOUD". So, next time hackers take down PSN, everybody will find their PS4 completely non-functional, except possible as a BluRay+1 player. And they'll probably try to tie THOSE to PSN accounts so you can't trade sell or lend them. (The MPAA wants to outlaw used and borrowed movies just as bad as game developers want to outlaw used and borrowed games, and publishers want to outlaw used and borrowed books).
Are we now saying that only scientist whose experiments are successful can do experiments?
No because he still works at OPERA as a scientist. He now no longer has the extra duty of talking to the press, on account of failing in the (impossible?) task of making them report honestly and accurately on the OPERA results.
That anecdote shows they can very quickly make a lot of people work more hours. That's the opposite of what they have to do here, which is make more than a million people all work less. Their two options there are dropping contracts and/or letting deadlines slip, because they don't have the workforce to fill them all. Or, they can hire another quarter million full time employees. I'm sure there is space for those quarter million people to live, too.
You left out the part about how cancer treatments actually GIVE you cancer, that's why you feel fine, doctors tell you you have "cancer", they give you chemo, NOW you feel sick and start dying, so they tell you you need to buy more chemo! Come on, were you not paying attention in Cancer Conspiracy Theory 101?;)
You could RTFA instead of calling bullshit based on your understanding of the summary, but that would be work. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that in such a scenario, any less than 40% of the moon would be made up of magma from Theia.
If you RTFA, he says he can climb and run and dance, so he doesn't consider himself disabled. He does make the distinction between "cured" and "not disabled". And also, he said 90 years, with most of the work being done within 50. Besides which, they are making impressive strides regrowing limbs using biodegradable plastic substrates and patent-extracted stem cells, and 90 years is a long time for modern science.
He said the effects of most disability would be mitigated by the end of the century, but that a lot of that work would be done in the next 50. Besides which he's clearly talking about physical disability, not brain damage. He's not suggesting that in 2060 there will be fully working bionic brains, just that the bionic limbs, that are already quite good, are going to be very good by then. He has two below knee amputations, and his bionics let him run and climb and dance. He says he's not disabled anymore, and by 2100 almost nobody will be, because even above elbow bionic arms will be good enough to do just about everything a meat arm can do. As for spinal damage, there's already impressive work being done bypassing the nerves and sending signals straight to the muscles. Such people wouldn't have feeling from their limbs, so they would still be limited in what they can do, but it's totally possible that in 90 years they wouldn't really be considered disabled anymore, they just have to be careful when walking around due to limited sensation. From a non-bionic point of view, there are also constant strides being made in inducing nerve regeneration
Actually, patent infringement applies to someone selling or distributing the protected work. If you implement it yourself, there's no infringement whatsoever.
Absolutely incorrect. Patent infringement applies to anybody who makes, sells, distributes, USES, imports, imports something produced BY, makes a part that can only be used IN, or encourages or facilitates others to do any of the above is liable for patent infringement. If I have a patent on a new way to weave cloth, and you set up such a rig in your own home for personal use, you are liable. Now, it's terrible business to go after somebody for doing that, for several reasons, but most importantly, if you sue a hobbyist for non-commercial and non-competing use, even if you win the judge just might order the "infringer" to pay royalties in the form of a percentage of profits. So you get $0. Actually, that's not most important. Most important is that if you go around suing hobbyists, somebody will ask how this non-obvious invention keeps being reinvented by amateurs, and you just might lose your patent entirely, allowing actual competitors to use it!
In fact it took several lawsuits to establish the case law that you cannot patent an invention, sell the invention, and then sue your customers for using it. That's not even part of Patent Law, that's judges saying "well now that's just stupid" and coming up with the Doctrine of Exhaustion, which is like the Doctrine of First Sale, but for patents instead of copyright. What it says is that when you sell a patented device in an unencumbered manner, you have Exhausted your patent rights for that particular device, so the buyer can use it and resell it without requiring a patent license.
I'm not aware of any case law extending that to third-party patent infringement cases, but there damn well should be! Companies LOVE to make such threats, such as MS threatening to sue Android manufactures and their customers instead of Google, and that patent troll a while back threatening to sue anybody who owned a WiFi router.
It's not that similar, actually. In the above "paradox", you have a sum of the total distance covered after x time. If they were 10 feet a part, then after x minutes it is 5 + 2.5 + 1.25 +... until you have x terms. As x goes to infinity, this sum will approach the full 10 feet. So the math is right, never will 10 feet be reached. And so the physics/engineering joke is fine, technically they will not meet following those rules, but there's always a point of "close enough". The rule itself is impossible to follow, though.
In Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, it works like this. The tortoise is say moving at 1 foot per second, and is 10 feet ahead. Achilles moves at 10 feet per second (~7mph), so after 1 second he will reach the point where the tortoise is now. But after that 1 second the tortoise will be another foot head, so Achilles must take another 0.1 seconds to reach the new point, but in that 0.1 seconds the tortoise has moved again, and so on forever, with the next step taking 0.01 seconds but still not catching the tortoise. Even if you allow for the physics/engineering "close enough" at no point is Achilles EVER past the tortoise, only "close enough" to call him "caught up". The reason this is different is that x terms in the sum no longer take exactly x minutes, since each term is over a shorter time as well as a shorter distance. If you take the limits on the infinite sum, the distance between them goes to 0, and the total amount of time goes to a finite number, not infinity (in this case, that finite number is 1 and 1/9 second, exactly what you get if you just ask how long it takes a person going 9 feet per second to cross the original 10 foot distance). Mathematically there is no problem with taking a finite amount of time to go a finite distance, so there is no paradox, the equation works out exactly when Achilles catches up to the tortoise. It's not a time reachable in the sums you came up with to describe it, but it's still a finite time. Where in the dance paradox above, the time it takes to reach 0 distance IS infinite.
And even if you are approved, you will still be "randomly" given the gate rape + cancer cannon treatment, you just get to cut in line after they say "sorry, random enhanced security check".
Different judge, different case. This judge ruled against Righthaven based only on fair use, that a USER posting to your forum a 4 paragraph excerpt from a 34 paragraph article, linked to the full article, at 0 financial gain to the user or the website, was not copyright violation.
So in this case, the judge never ruled on who owns it, and he said that while he acknowledges that the ownership is now in dispute because of the wording of the transfer agreement, as far as he can tell, Righthaven is the registered owner of all 275 articles, so he has every right to transfer them to the holder of the receivership. The fact that they actually are registered to Righthaven takes some weight from their losses before the first judge. Only that judge also made a declaratory judgement, calling it fair use regardless of who actually owns the rights, awarding lawyers fees and actually even bringing somebody from Stephens Media in to scold them, because the contract gave them the right to have final say in who to sue in the event it ends up being a charity (which it was!) or a hobbyist, and they did not exercise it. Basically he chewed their ear off for suing a charity over fair use, when as publishers of a law journal, they should damn well know better. In any event, other posters have said that after this initial loss, Righthaven was given full control so they wouldn't lose again. And then they lost again over fair use. So in THAT case, it would have 0 effect on the previous case, since they didn't have them yet. But they do KNOW, so they are fair game for forfeiture to pay the judgement in the first case.
Basically, this is micro-Communism. Fuck that, pay them a wage, or let them keep a portion of the money earned for their labors.
How is 100%? Is that a fair enough portion of the money earned? Because that's what TFA says. The Slashdot summary is based on the way-off assumption that when it says "The homeless MiFi manager keeps all of the money they received" that the "manager" is the marketing agency or the charity. It's the homeless person carrying the hotspot. They keep all of it. The agency gets nothing, the charity gets whatever people ALSO donate to the charity, since the hotspot also presents their PayPal donate button, but you donate directly and 100% to the homeless person, with no subtraction for costs, and no splitting.
The "MiFi Manager" that keeps ALL of the money is the homeless person carrying it, so that's the source of confusion I assume. Either that or Slashdot misrepresented TFA on purpose to get more angry posts in the comment section. The marketing agency does not get a single cent. The charity also doesn't get money unless you ALSO donate to the charity's paypal donations account, which is separate. In no event does the marketing agency get your money.
It is a meteorite now, and anything it did in the past is something it did, regardless of its technical state at the time. It's allowable to use something's/someone's current state/title/etc when referring to it's past. So when talking about a serving Senator's past actions in the private sector, it's not inaccurate to say "Ten years ago, the Senator blah blah blah" even though you are describing something that happened when they were NOT a Senator yet. And, a police officer giving testimony in court can say "Witnesses report that the deceased was seen driving away from his home at 7:35PM" without implying that a corpse was driving!
Since the "thinning" of the ozone layer is caused by ozone being reacted away, not by the stratosphere being annihilated, it would have 0 effect on the actual thickness of the actual atmosphere. Probably the uptick isn't in meteorite impacts, but meteorite impacts that get reported in the international news.
It says that information is disorder. And thermodynamic entropy is (for some definitions of order) order as well. If you have all of the air molecules in a room compressed into the corner, maybe that's ordered? But that's one small lump of air, and a whole lot of vacuum. Evenly distributed air is more ordered because it is uniform. If you let a system starting in any arbitrary corner-gas configuration (and there are a lot, since each molecule can have any number of different values describing it) progress for X amount of time, you find that almost certainly you have ended up in an even-gas configuration. On the other hand, if you start in an even-gas configuration, and progress for X amount of time, you will almost certainly still be in an even-gas configuration. This may seem at odds with the fact that laws of motion are time reversible (at least if you assume that molecules are like frictionless billiard balls, as physicists are wont to do). But it's not. If you take some specific corner-gas start A , and run it for X time, you will (probably) have an even-gas configuration B. If you take B, reverse the velocity of all molecules, and run it for X time again, you will be at A (again, assuming molecules are frictionless billiard balls). But, with discrete space and velocity, you can count the possible velocity and position vectors. There are a LOT more even-gas configurations than there are corner-gas configurations. So, with a tiny room and only a few molecules, you can establish the chance that after X time starting at even-gas, you end up at corner-gas. And even for very small systems it basically 0. Entropy is the concept of changes to a system that are not reversible, not because of laws of PHYSICS but laws of STATISTICS. The second law is the observation that, by statistics, you will tend to a uniform (ordered) system because there are a lot of ways to go that direction, and very few ways to go the other direction.
Landauer's observation is that any computational device, at the end of the day, stores information mechanically (again, I refer you to the fact that for our purposes, subatomic particles are frictionless billiard balls, so even things like the atom-trap from TFA are mechanical devices). So if you have a 32 bit register, it has 2^32 configurations. If you consider how many possibilities there are for ordered bit flips involving X bit flips total, it's 32^X. And if you start at 0, almost all of those ordered flips will take you to a pretty chaotic state. But if you start from a random state, almost none of those same bit flip orders will get you to 0. So treating the system as a completely mechanical one, thermodynamics applies and puts limits statistical limits on such changes. What Landauer did is establish a maximum circuit temperature T for your memory/CPU, and observe that you won't want Brownian motion breaking your system, so 0/1 need a minimum separation for the system to be useful at temperature T. This puts a lower bound on the state counts, and lets traditional thermodynamics establish a minimum energy dissipation to go from a high entropy state to a low one (like a 0'd out register). What information entropy does is take the same thing and say that therefore the disordered information has intrinsic entropy, since regardless of system design it requires a certain minimum entropy to store that information. It's avoidable if your system is reversible, which is possible if you have more ways to represent a bit pattern the more ordered that bit pattern is. So if you have fewer ways to store 10010101 compared to how many ways you have to store 00000000. It's also beatable if you find a way to store information non-physically. But good luck on that front.
Neat, huh? I took a course on Kolmogorov Complexity, which is somewhat related, and pretty cool.
It's impossible to pull that off without predictive software knowing the exact soundwaves the speaker is going to produce long before they do, so you have time to process the signal and then account for the speed of sound delay.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you click the link that lists several of the 144 cases where they sued farmers who weren't even using roundup, but were still "manufacturing" patented "devices", and it was their duty to genetically test each plant and then search USPO records to make sure they were in the clear?
The summary uses the term "patent exhaustion", which some people might not be familiar with. This is the doctrine of first sale for patents. Patents don't just cover the manufacture, sale, or distribution of protected devices/etc, they also cover the use, private, commercial, or any other kind of use. The law as written would therefore mean that you can patent your device, sell it, and then sue your customers for using it. So the courts have decided that OBVIOUSLY they can't do that, so the first time you sell a device, your patent interests are "exhausted" and can no longer be used to prevent the use of that particular device.
This is a complicated court case because patent exhaustion is not written down anywhere, it's a wibbly wobbly thing. But as usually stated, it covers the one device. You cannot buy one patent device, and then make your own copies and sell them, because only the one device is "exhausted", and the patent is not nullified. On the other hand, patent law says that if you buy a patented device that can make things, then patent exhaustion also allows you to sell the things made by that device, if they are not covered by patents. That is to say, although things made by a patented process are protected by patent law, if you can legally use such a process (whether by license or patent exhaustion) the patent rights no longer extend to the product. So the court here must decide if that includes self-replication.
On the one hand, the idea behind the Doctrine of Exhaustion is that its pretty obscene to sell somebody something and put the burden on THEM to research all of the currently valid patents to make sure they're allowed to use the damn thing. So that should imply that Exhaustion applies to all intended uses of the patented product. So if a seed is intended to be grown, patent exhaustion would apply to all uses of the final plant. Since for thousands of years farmers have replanted crops using seeds from the last generation, that should be an inalienable intended use of a plant. On the other hand, if you have a Star Trek Replicator which you have rightly patented, its intended use is to make things. So if it can make patented parts of itself, that is part of its intended use? (Other posters here have suggested such a thing). I'm not sure of that. I think for that to apply its intended use would have to be self-replication specifically. That is to say, its purpose is not to make itself specifically, but to make whatever pattern you give it. So patent exhaustion on the replicator would not extend to pattern files you feed it. Besides which, the Doctrine of Exhaustion only applies to unencumbered sales, not to licensed sales or leases or anything else. So if it was truly a concern, they could make you sign a license when you buy the replicator, which explicitly enumerates how you may use the patented device.
Ontario farmers also heavily protest light rail, and really any form of public transit whatsoever. Their reasoning is anything that allows you to not walk to work allows you to live farther away from work. That means city slickers living too close to farm land for their liking, far too close indeed.
Legally a lewd and lascivious act is a sexual act that is illegal, not just immoral like the dictionary says. Of course that doesn't apply to the "lewd language" bit that they also prohibit, as that's been viewed as meaning "anything sexual, except when it's not lewd" ;) See the definition of legal pornography vs illegal pornography, which is "if you get thrown in jail for 10 years, it was illegal, but that's the only way to tell".
Every word ever written? How do you interpret your own post as "obscene, lewd or profane language or [suggesting] any lewd or lascivious act, or [threatening] to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person"?
The USA has no legal concept of "arrestable" offense. Only summary vs. indictable offenses. You can be arrested for either.
In 2006 the concept of arrestable vs. non-arrestable offenses was abolished in the USA. They are now grouped as "indictable" and "summary" offenses. If you are caught performing a summary offense (like jaywalking, or any traffic violation), the officer has the option of issuing a citation immediately, or arresting you, strip searching you, holding you in jail for up to 48 hours, then bringing you before a judge and having the judge write you a citation. At this point they can either continue to hold you until you pay the fine, or release you if the judge trusts you to pay up.
Yeah, only that's WHY you can't play used games. To boot up any game you need to be signed in to PSN. While this doesn't necessarily imply that you need to stay connected during play, you almost certainly will do. It will, I'm sure, be spun as a feature, since you save "TO THE NANOBUZZWORD CLOUD". So, next time hackers take down PSN, everybody will find their PS4 completely non-functional, except possible as a BluRay+1 player. And they'll probably try to tie THOSE to PSN accounts so you can't trade sell or lend them. (The MPAA wants to outlaw used and borrowed movies just as bad as game developers want to outlaw used and borrowed games, and publishers want to outlaw used and borrowed books).
No because he still works at OPERA as a scientist. He now no longer has the extra duty of talking to the press, on account of failing in the (impossible?) task of making them report honestly and accurately on the OPERA results.
That anecdote shows they can very quickly make a lot of people work more hours. That's the opposite of what they have to do here, which is make more than a million people all work less. Their two options there are dropping contracts and/or letting deadlines slip, because they don't have the workforce to fill them all. Or, they can hire another quarter million full time employees. I'm sure there is space for those quarter million people to live, too.
You left out the part about how cancer treatments actually GIVE you cancer, that's why you feel fine, doctors tell you you have "cancer", they give you chemo, NOW you feel sick and start dying, so they tell you you need to buy more chemo! Come on, were you not paying attention in Cancer Conspiracy Theory 101? ;)
You could RTFA instead of calling bullshit based on your understanding of the summary, but that would be work. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that in such a scenario, any less than 40% of the moon would be made up of magma from Theia.
If you RTFA, he says he can climb and run and dance, so he doesn't consider himself disabled. He does make the distinction between "cured" and "not disabled". And also, he said 90 years, with most of the work being done within 50. Besides which, they are making impressive strides regrowing limbs using biodegradable plastic substrates and patent-extracted stem cells, and 90 years is a long time for modern science.
He said the effects of most disability would be mitigated by the end of the century, but that a lot of that work would be done in the next 50. Besides which he's clearly talking about physical disability, not brain damage. He's not suggesting that in 2060 there will be fully working bionic brains, just that the bionic limbs, that are already quite good, are going to be very good by then. He has two below knee amputations, and his bionics let him run and climb and dance. He says he's not disabled anymore, and by 2100 almost nobody will be, because even above elbow bionic arms will be good enough to do just about everything a meat arm can do. As for spinal damage, there's already impressive work being done bypassing the nerves and sending signals straight to the muscles. Such people wouldn't have feeling from their limbs, so they would still be limited in what they can do, but it's totally possible that in 90 years they wouldn't really be considered disabled anymore, they just have to be careful when walking around due to limited sensation. From a non-bionic point of view, there are also constant strides being made in inducing nerve regeneration
Absolutely incorrect. Patent infringement applies to anybody who makes, sells, distributes, USES, imports, imports something produced BY, makes a part that can only be used IN, or encourages or facilitates others to do any of the above is liable for patent infringement. If I have a patent on a new way to weave cloth, and you set up such a rig in your own home for personal use, you are liable. Now, it's terrible business to go after somebody for doing that, for several reasons, but most importantly, if you sue a hobbyist for non-commercial and non-competing use, even if you win the judge just might order the "infringer" to pay royalties in the form of a percentage of profits. So you get $0. Actually, that's not most important. Most important is that if you go around suing hobbyists, somebody will ask how this non-obvious invention keeps being reinvented by amateurs, and you just might lose your patent entirely, allowing actual competitors to use it!
In fact it took several lawsuits to establish the case law that you cannot patent an invention, sell the invention, and then sue your customers for using it. That's not even part of Patent Law, that's judges saying "well now that's just stupid" and coming up with the Doctrine of Exhaustion, which is like the Doctrine of First Sale, but for patents instead of copyright. What it says is that when you sell a patented device in an unencumbered manner, you have Exhausted your patent rights for that particular device, so the buyer can use it and resell it without requiring a patent license.
I'm not aware of any case law extending that to third-party patent infringement cases, but there damn well should be! Companies LOVE to make such threats, such as MS threatening to sue Android manufactures and their customers instead of Google, and that patent troll a while back threatening to sue anybody who owned a WiFi router.
It's not that similar, actually. In the above "paradox", you have a sum of the total distance covered after x time. If they were 10 feet a part, then after x minutes it is 5 + 2.5 + 1.25 + ... until you have x terms. As x goes to infinity, this sum will approach the full 10 feet. So the math is right, never will 10 feet be reached. And so the physics/engineering joke is fine, technically they will not meet following those rules, but there's always a point of "close enough". The rule itself is impossible to follow, though.
In Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, it works like this. The tortoise is say moving at 1 foot per second, and is 10 feet ahead. Achilles moves at 10 feet per second (~7mph), so after 1 second he will reach the point where the tortoise is now. But after that 1 second the tortoise will be another foot head, so Achilles must take another 0.1 seconds to reach the new point, but in that 0.1 seconds the tortoise has moved again, and so on forever, with the next step taking 0.01 seconds but still not catching the tortoise. Even if you allow for the physics/engineering "close enough" at no point is Achilles EVER past the tortoise, only "close enough" to call him "caught up". The reason this is different is that x terms in the sum no longer take exactly x minutes, since each term is over a shorter time as well as a shorter distance. If you take the limits on the infinite sum, the distance between them goes to 0, and the total amount of time goes to a finite number, not infinity (in this case, that finite number is 1 and 1/9 second, exactly what you get if you just ask how long it takes a person going 9 feet per second to cross the original 10 foot distance). Mathematically there is no problem with taking a finite amount of time to go a finite distance, so there is no paradox, the equation works out exactly when Achilles catches up to the tortoise. It's not a time reachable in the sums you came up with to describe it, but it's still a finite time. Where in the dance paradox above, the time it takes to reach 0 distance IS infinite.
And even if you are approved, you will still be "randomly" given the gate rape + cancer cannon treatment, you just get to cut in line after they say "sorry, random enhanced security check".
Different judge, different case. This judge ruled against Righthaven based only on fair use, that a USER posting to your forum a 4 paragraph excerpt from a 34 paragraph article, linked to the full article, at 0 financial gain to the user or the website, was not copyright violation.
So in this case, the judge never ruled on who owns it, and he said that while he acknowledges that the ownership is now in dispute because of the wording of the transfer agreement, as far as he can tell, Righthaven is the registered owner of all 275 articles, so he has every right to transfer them to the holder of the receivership. The fact that they actually are registered to Righthaven takes some weight from their losses before the first judge. Only that judge also made a declaratory judgement, calling it fair use regardless of who actually owns the rights, awarding lawyers fees and actually even bringing somebody from Stephens Media in to scold them, because the contract gave them the right to have final say in who to sue in the event it ends up being a charity (which it was!) or a hobbyist, and they did not exercise it. Basically he chewed their ear off for suing a charity over fair use, when as publishers of a law journal, they should damn well know better. In any event, other posters have said that after this initial loss, Righthaven was given full control so they wouldn't lose again. And then they lost again over fair use. So in THAT case, it would have 0 effect on the previous case, since they didn't have them yet. But they do KNOW, so they are fair game for forfeiture to pay the judgement in the first case.
How is 100%? Is that a fair enough portion of the money earned? Because that's what TFA says. The Slashdot summary is based on the way-off assumption that when it says "The homeless MiFi manager keeps all of the money they received" that the "manager" is the marketing agency or the charity. It's the homeless person carrying the hotspot. They keep all of it. The agency gets nothing, the charity gets whatever people ALSO donate to the charity, since the hotspot also presents their PayPal donate button, but you donate directly and 100% to the homeless person, with no subtraction for costs, and no splitting.
The "MiFi Manager" that keeps ALL of the money is the homeless person carrying it, so that's the source of confusion I assume. Either that or Slashdot misrepresented TFA on purpose to get more angry posts in the comment section. The marketing agency does not get a single cent. The charity also doesn't get money unless you ALSO donate to the charity's paypal donations account, which is separate. In no event does the marketing agency get your money.
They do, RTFA. Summary is wrong, which is pretty typical around here ;)
It is a meteorite now, and anything it did in the past is something it did, regardless of its technical state at the time. It's allowable to use something's/someone's current state/title/etc when referring to it's past. So when talking about a serving Senator's past actions in the private sector, it's not inaccurate to say "Ten years ago, the Senator blah blah blah" even though you are describing something that happened when they were NOT a Senator yet. And, a police officer giving testimony in court can say "Witnesses report that the deceased was seen driving away from his home at 7:35PM" without implying that a corpse was driving!
Since the "thinning" of the ozone layer is caused by ozone being reacted away, not by the stratosphere being annihilated, it would have 0 effect on the actual thickness of the actual atmosphere. Probably the uptick isn't in meteorite impacts, but meteorite impacts that get reported in the international news.
It says that information is disorder. And thermodynamic entropy is (for some definitions of order) order as well. If you have all of the air molecules in a room compressed into the corner, maybe that's ordered? But that's one small lump of air, and a whole lot of vacuum. Evenly distributed air is more ordered because it is uniform. If you let a system starting in any arbitrary corner-gas configuration (and there are a lot, since each molecule can have any number of different values describing it) progress for X amount of time, you find that almost certainly you have ended up in an even-gas configuration. On the other hand, if you start in an even-gas configuration, and progress for X amount of time, you will almost certainly still be in an even-gas configuration. This may seem at odds with the fact that laws of motion are time reversible (at least if you assume that molecules are like frictionless billiard balls, as physicists are wont to do). But it's not. If you take some specific corner-gas start A , and run it for X time, you will (probably) have an even-gas configuration B. If you take B, reverse the velocity of all molecules, and run it for X time again, you will be at A (again, assuming molecules are frictionless billiard balls). But, with discrete space and velocity, you can count the possible velocity and position vectors. There are a LOT more even-gas configurations than there are corner-gas configurations. So, with a tiny room and only a few molecules, you can establish the chance that after X time starting at even-gas, you end up at corner-gas. And even for very small systems it basically 0. Entropy is the concept of changes to a system that are not reversible, not because of laws of PHYSICS but laws of STATISTICS. The second law is the observation that, by statistics, you will tend to a uniform (ordered) system because there are a lot of ways to go that direction, and very few ways to go the other direction.
Landauer's observation is that any computational device, at the end of the day, stores information mechanically (again, I refer you to the fact that for our purposes, subatomic particles are frictionless billiard balls, so even things like the atom-trap from TFA are mechanical devices). So if you have a 32 bit register, it has 2^32 configurations. If you consider how many possibilities there are for ordered bit flips involving X bit flips total, it's 32^X. And if you start at 0, almost all of those ordered flips will take you to a pretty chaotic state. But if you start from a random state, almost none of those same bit flip orders will get you to 0. So treating the system as a completely mechanical one, thermodynamics applies and puts limits statistical limits on such changes. What Landauer did is establish a maximum circuit temperature T for your memory/CPU, and observe that you won't want Brownian motion breaking your system, so 0/1 need a minimum separation for the system to be useful at temperature T. This puts a lower bound on the state counts, and lets traditional thermodynamics establish a minimum energy dissipation to go from a high entropy state to a low one (like a 0'd out register). What information entropy does is take the same thing and say that therefore the disordered information has intrinsic entropy, since regardless of system design it requires a certain minimum entropy to store that information. It's avoidable if your system is reversible, which is possible if you have more ways to represent a bit pattern the more ordered that bit pattern is. So if you have fewer ways to store 10010101 compared to how many ways you have to store 00000000. It's also beatable if you find a way to store information non-physically. But good luck on that front.
Neat, huh? I took a course on Kolmogorov Complexity, which is somewhat related, and pretty cool.
It's impossible to pull that off without predictive software knowing the exact soundwaves the speaker is going to produce long before they do, so you have time to process the signal and then account for the speed of sound delay.