We all know how fast new cars depreciate, and we also know the same is true (even more so) for electronic gadgets. So I predict if this ever goes into production it will be the fastest depreciating vehicle ever offered for sale.
On the other hand, if the 'robotic head' can be legally used as the 'second person' for the car pool lanes they may be on to something...
No, other then the patent in question, you need no other patent. You simply use it against others who are using their patent portfolio as a weapon or as leverage in a business deal.
It isn't a patent to own patents, it's a patent about the use of patents as a business process. So any business using their patents as a part of a business process, say leverage in negotiation or if simply acting as a patent troll, would have to pay up or license the right top use this 'business process' from the holder of the patent in question.
Well IBM isn't all good or all bad, but aside from that, you are assuming they would use this as a weapon against patent trolls, but the patent as applied for, would apply equally well to any company that uses it's patents as leverage in any business deal. Because it's not a patent about having or requiring patents for the holder of this patent, it's about a patent on the process of using patents as part of a business process.
Actually there is nothing in the patent that requires the owner of the patent to have any other patent. It is simply a patent application for a business process whereby one uses a patent portfolio to compel other companies into a pattern of behavior that suits the patent portfolio holder's idea of 'how things should be done', via threat of endless lawsuit.
And it quite exquisitely displays the horror of patents for business processes.
Humans don't have anything special to do with "observing" ("collapse of the wavefunction" or "state reduction"). A particle can be "observed" by a rock, or by any other "classical" macroscopic system with which it can entangle. Quantum decoherence in the consistent histories interpretation, IMHO, comes closest to explaining this process.
There seems to be a flaw in that.
It implies every thing is, in one way or another, being observed by something.
That would mean that all things are observed at all times.
And that would sort of do away with the premise of the article that things are not necessarily there unless observed.
Which might not be all that bad a deal --at least it would explain why everything stays the same when I come back to observe it again myself.
I suppose this means I'll have to give up on the possibility that one morning I'll wake up and only geeks will have girlfriends.... and that I'll be a super hero...
"are there any other common college apps that Vista fails to work with?"
Yes, I suspect there are quite a number of common collage apps, mostly things that involve DRM, that collage students will find Vista was intended to fail to work with.
If that's a snowflake it really is amazing - of course I haven't actually looked at millions of them as individuals either, so maybe it is a normal snowflake...
I agree with your basic thoughts, but it will be appealed, based on what Reggie Mitchell, a lawyer for People for the American Way, a group working with the Jennings campaign in challenging the election results, said: "the judge's decision would likely be appealed."
BTW; I think you are thinking of "Jury Nullification", only the Supreme Court can do the 'unconstitutional' bit. And at that you are right that Judges have about nullified the right of "Jury Nullification".
I think Judge Gray, and the City of Tuttle's city manager Jerry A. Taylor, must be roomies... they display about the same level of awareness... and incompetence.
This will surely be appealed, it's a bad decision on the Judge's part. And here's the obligatory IANAL bit.
But I am able to call bull shit when I see it. And refusing them, or at least a mutually agreed on qualified party, to review the code in question is asinine.
And proof positive that these things, if allowed at all, MUST be open source.
"their monopoly basically "forces" people to use their products, but in the end - the choice is up to the end-user."
That statement is a classic oxymoron; If it is not a monopoly then the end user has a choice - if it is a monopoly the end user has no choice... this is the very definition of 'monopoly'.
So either argue that Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, or agree that the end user has no choice - those are the only options. You can't have it both ways.
Remember it's just my opinion... but I think it's an accurate one. So try not to take offense, just think about my point, please. Thanks.
preventing or hindering access to a program or data held on a computer, or impairing the operation of any program or data held on a computer
This is a pretty good description of DRM! So it's illegal now?
Looked at the other way this may mean anyone has the right to access any data on any computer... your computer or any other computer... I think this even makes firewalls and NAT illegal... WOW!
The GPL aims to restrict only one "freedom": the freedom to restrict other people's freedoms. It says simply that if I as the original author granted everyone certain freedoms, you as a distributor or modifier of my code are not free to take away those freedoms and if you try you lose your right to be a distributor or modifier. Certainly this restricts your freedoms, but most people using the GPL don't see that as anything worse than laws against theft restricting the freedom of thieves to steal.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if the 'robotic head' can be legally used as the 'second person' for the car pool lanes they may be on to something...
I humbly bow to your vastly superior idea... and wish I'd have thought of it first!
It isn't a patent to own patents, it's a patent about the use of patents as a business process. So any business using their patents as a part of a business process, say leverage in negotiation or if simply acting as a patent troll, would have to pay up or license the right top use this 'business process' from the holder of the patent in question.
A fine distinction, but a rather important one.
Actually there is nothing in the patent that requires the owner of the patent to have any other patent. It is simply a patent application for a business process whereby one uses a patent portfolio to compel other companies into a pattern of behavior that suits the patent portfolio holder's idea of 'how things should be done', via threat of endless lawsuit.
And it quite exquisitely displays the horror of patents for business processes.
Do they hold any patents? Not that I'm aware of, which was sort of the point.
Then let the fun begin.
This is just nothing at all proof wise --unless their soft can show how it detected the Blue Pill box.
Now make it three (or more) laptops of her choice and winner takes all... that's a real test of who has the real stuff.
There seems to be a flaw in that.
It implies every thing is, in one way or another, being observed by something.
That would mean that all things are observed at all times.
And that would sort of do away with the premise of the article that things are not necessarily there unless observed.
Which might not be all that bad a deal --at least it would explain why everything stays the same when I come back to observe it again myself.
I suppose this means I'll have to give up on the possibility that one morning I'll wake up and only geeks will have girlfriends.... and that I'll be a super hero...
Bummer.
Yes, I suspect there are quite a number of common collage apps, mostly things that involve DRM, that collage students will find Vista was intended to fail to work with.
It's good to befriend a penguin.
They will never get sweet enough for me...
I remain 100% GNU/Linux and pleased as can be.
and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other important issues...
It was all about bullshit then, and it still is.
There is nothing "artificial" about Centrifugal force.
Possibly my objection should have been to such a poor choice of wording...
Saying what one actually means is always a good idea.
Thanks for the reply though.
Remains "Science Fiction", just like the first two ideas...
For a total of zero currently possible strategies proposed.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedis play/img_display.php?pic=ig35_snowflakes_10_02.jpg &cap=
If that's a snowflake it really is amazing - of course I haven't actually looked at millions of them as individuals either, so maybe it is a normal snowflake...
But is sure looks out of place.
And blue. Very blue.
Yes but now we will know who killed it...
BTW; I think you are thinking of "Jury Nullification", only the Supreme Court can do the 'unconstitutional' bit. And at that you are right that Judges have about nullified the right of "Jury Nullification".
I think Judge Gray, and the City of Tuttle's city manager Jerry A. Taylor, must be roomies... they display about the same level of awareness... and incompetence.
But I am able to call bull shit when I see it. And refusing them, or at least a mutually agreed on qualified party, to review the code in question is asinine.
And proof positive that these things, if allowed at all, MUST be open source.
Didn't they used to be a Linux company?
That statement is a classic oxymoron; If it is not a monopoly then the end user has a choice - if it is a monopoly the end user has no choice... this is the very definition of 'monopoly'.
So either argue that Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, or agree that the end user has no choice - those are the only options. You can't have it both ways.
Remember it's just my opinion... but I think it's an accurate one. So try not to take offense, just think about my point, please. Thanks.
Looked at the other way this may mean anyone has the right to access any data on any computer... your computer or any other computer... I think this even makes firewalls and NAT illegal... WOW!
And that's her problem...
She wants the function to follow her form.
This is the real +5 post. Well said.
juden-raus == Jews Out! From the Nazi era, and also a board game - of equal value.