The far more beneficial align adds to content is very expensive and required skilled people for both the company selling advertising space and the company buying advertising space
This is what Google Ad-Words is all about. It figures out the content of a page with no human ever looking at anything. Then is slips in appropriate ads. This has been going on for a long time. Ad words keeps the ads on the page targeted at the page content, with no human intervention.
This doesn't block ads, it just protects people's privacy from being abused by them. The companies will still be able to show ads. For targetted ads, they'll have to use the same techniques they use for TV and print media, and those things haven't died yet.
Actually for targeted ads, they can use the same techniques used before tracking was common. (Guys, it only been a few years since tracking was used in any meaningful way).
Prior to tracking being very common, when you visited sites about any given topic, you would see ads related to that topic. Now you see ads for things you looked up on the web last week.
If you turn off tracking, (to the extent it would be honored by either Google or the web sites), the sites usually revert to focused ads.
I've taken to using incognito mode when researching cars or toys, just so the don't spew those ads at me for the next few days.
I suspect that if 'do not track' became so common that it actually effected ad dollars to any measurable degree (which I doubt unless FF/Chrome/IE all bundle it by default), we would probably see a rise of people providing content for other reasons, reasons that do not require ad-type dollars
Wait, weren't ads present and effective in the past, prior to tracking?
I mean, if you went to a site about computers, they carried ads from computer manufacturers, etc. The audience was already "targeted" by the mere fact that they arrived on that particular site. They selected themselves, and the ads were timely and focused.
Now with tracking, if search for bicycles, and for the next few days you get bicycle ads on sites dealing with Smartphones, Baseball, Rose Bushes. ?!?? This detracts from every web site's focus. I'm looking for a Catcher's mitt and they want to sell me a bike?
And all it does is rub it in your face that you are being tracked. It sure doesn't endear me to that particular bicycle company.
"Do not track" might even prove to earn more money for the advertisers, because the various web sites will (probably) fall back on focused advertising.
No, they would probably be burning something else, perhaps coal which might be more of a pollutant. There is not enough wood in the country to serve as fuel source for the entire populace. In some cases they may be simply using fireplaces rather than stoves.
But the point remains that wood, and coal aren't composed of a billion tiny slivers of paper that can smolder and fly out the chimney. And combustion is bound to be incomplete, lots of fragments lifted by the updraft. potentially plugging any spark arresters in place.
Seems to me that blowing the shredded paper (not bales) into large coal fired electric generation facility might yield more clean and complete combustion, and electricity to boot.
Not sure how much energy it takes to process the currency into briquets, but it is certainly one of the most innovative "Recycling" programs I've seen, and from the looks of it, one that actually benefits all parties involved (Central Bank gets to destroy old currency, Poor get free fuel).
I doubt it takes more energy to process to briquets than they were already using to dispose of this stuff. In fact I suspect they are using off the shelf industrial grade shredder/balers that are already in use in places like military bases and embassies (and other high security sites) have to burn the waste on-site. These machines have metal separation built in so what you get is paper and plastic out. (Or in this case just paper).
There are commercial grade shredder/balers that make rather small bales, and I imagine some specialty machines do smaller bales for small incinerator burning.
Once shredded, its just paper, its not currency any more, and this program could be extended to millions of tons on other government paper as well.
Two things to consider: First: Is burning waste paper in uncontrolled incineration (home stoves) really a wise approach to recycling? The pollution effects of thousands of chimnies spewing smoke and smoldering embers onto roof tops is worrisome.
Second: Some countries (maybe not Hungary) have special papers used in their currency. (little blue and red threads in US, other special plastics used in Australia, etc). You don't want tons of this stuff roaming around for counterfeiters to pick up for free off of the back of a truck.
The article suggest there are two or three broad models of what is acceptable practice in this ares.
First
The Massachusetts Model is so called because it is prevalent in the northeastern United States. It was developed toward the end of the industrial revolution as a response to shop rights. Agreements written on this model tend to imply that the intellectual life of the employee is company property.
Never backed by law, this model is the most restrictive,
The cycle of innovation and renewal is fundamental to a healthy market economy. To foster this cycle, individuals require the same protections for non-work-related intellectual property that employers enjoy for work-related creations. In 1977, Minnesota formalized this concept with a law limiting the enforceable terms of pre-invention assignment agreements. The Minnesota Model adopts the philosophy that while the employer should enjoy protection, it should not come at the expense of today's employee to become tomorrow's new employer.
In California there are similar laws to the Minnesota system:
The State of California followed in 1980, by implementing protection for its famous entrepreneurial culture. As of this writing Utah, Washington, North Carolina, Kansas, Delaware, and Illinois have also promoted new business formation by means of similar laws
Appendix B of the above linked article has a summary of legislation in various states and list of states where such agreements are already limited by state law.
How can that possibly be better than to have the same information imparted via a video or audio show, which they can 1. Pause, 2. Rewind, and 3. Watch at a time when they are fully ready to concentrate? Especially since they will have the ability to email, facebook, or twat questions -- and may even have questions after fully taking in the entire lecture.
Probably at least the male students are in fact more concerned with twat questions, and have very little time in which they are fully ready to concentrate.
That's the yardstick of credibility these days? It's a piece of shit that just makes stuff up if the truth isn't exciting enough. Check out the Raspberry Pi site for more details.
Read story Get incensed about source Get distracted Post rushed reply to wrong story Priceless!
Wrong, its because those same advances in technology and competition FORCE AT&T to pass their savings on to you.
And the odd thing is the competition even works (at some level of impairment) in the carefully engineered anti-competitive market that the major carriers have managed to contrive in the US.
Why not replace the hurricane plane with a bunch of drones equipped for the task. Then you could have a half dozen flying around the hurricane at the same time. Yes that is just moving the pilot from the cockpit to command room (or where ever they sit), until they make them autonomous.
Given the loss of life record for hurricane hunter planes, the case for drones simply hasn't been made.
The last hurricane hunter lost was in 1974, the prior one in 1955. Far more of these planes were damaged on the ground than in the air.
Its doubtful drones would survive anywhere near as successfully, or produce anywhere near as much good data. Storms change slowly. An hour by hour measurement system is not warranted, and all of the tracking work (and an increasing amount of the measurement work) can be done by satellite.
Everybody on the ground will just be happy that things got a little more refined and predictable.
But who on the ground even knows that things got more refined and predictable?
After all, everyone on the ground sees the same news media clowns struggling to stand upright in the same puddle of water getting lashed by winds in areas especially selected for their wind tunnel effect. The media is constantly preaching of doom and gloom and great destruction from storms which are ALREADY predicted via current methods to be largely spent by time of arrival. Disaster theater.
When will you ever see a government agency suggesting people just baton down the hatches and ride a storm out, because our prediction model says it will not amount to much? It will Never Happen, post Katrina. And it leads to near universal disregard for official predictions.
Official predictions of "no big deal" only happen after the storm has made landfall and pretty much spent itself. The next state over, seeing the coverage of light damage from the prior state hunches their collective shoulders and says "Meh" long before the official predictions catch up.
It seems we crowd source hurricane predictions once it gets near to making landfall.
If this new modeling can tell more accurately predict intensity days before landfall, would government (let alone the press) act any differently?
Exactly. The FCC basically owns the waves that it's letting telecom use. They don't have to let them use that spectrum.
Fine. Lets take your position. Yank those licenses.
Now what? Find someone else who has the millions to buy the spectrum, the billions to build a network. Wait 10 years while the build it. Wait 3 years for them to go broke because NOBODY LIVES THERE!!! Then what? What have you accomplished?
The map is for 3G and 4G.
Ya know, you can still make phone calls in most of those areas. Probably your porn comes in a little slower over EDGE, and you can probably finish by hand faster than you will get it over GPRS, but there is still phone sex on your camping trip in the vast majority of those ares.
Huge swaths of Nevada are all black on the map. You can still make calls. A few places the road runs thru valleys and your phone says Emergency Calls Only. The State of Nevada has 911 towers out there.
The map shows 3G and 4G DATA. Many areas that appear totally devoid of coverage still have voice coverage, and slower Edge and GPRS for data.
I drive these areas often, and the number of places the phone drops to "No Signal" is really pretty small. The areas where you can't even make a voice call are usually canyons.
Bear in mind where this data comes from. The maps are those areas that are going to eventually be built out with the Federal Universal Service Charge. Thats the $5 per line that appears on your bill.
Since the cell companies have no customers here, and since virtually nobody even drives thru these area, there is no funding for building towers, backhaul, and relays. In many areas there isn't even power withing 50 miles.
So think long and hard about just how much you want to whine about this situation, because its coming directly out of YOUR pocket. Nobody lives there to pay the bills.
Yeah, I definitely can't think of ANY uses for mobile communication devices on a farm or ranch...
The article doesn't say they don't have access to mobile communications.
It says they don't have 3G or 4G. Many of these same areas have EDGE or GPRS, for Data and can make voice calls.
Much of this are is wilderness. No power. No backhaul. And nobody but campers and hunters out there. Try a little Google Earth some time and find out just how empty these areas are.
Start with the assumption that it is valid, which also means, by definition, it pre-dates all the thing we see on the web today. Then add the fact that almost everything on the web we see today depends on the invention in that patent?
How, then, can you arrive at the assumption that it was ubiquitous, uninventive, obvious, trivial, when, by definition everything on the web depends on that patent?
You can't look backward and say, well, certainly this would have been invented eventually, so it must be obvious. Its only obvious from your viewpoint in w world where it is already common.
Imagine, for sake of argument, that I had a valid patent for Ball Bearings, that predated their first use. Can you look at your kids tricycle, and a jet engine, and your dishwasher and say, this patent is invalid JUST because all these things depend on there being ball bearings?
Had you bothered to click the link you would have seen there is nothing at all like a SUV pictured on that page. Its a Crossover, maybe, but not an SUV.
The effect on a patent validity decision should not be a part of the process, and based on the article's description Tim had no business there giving any opinion.
If they are so familiar with the topic, then why do they side with crazy so frequently?
This appears to have been a case of luck--not experience--that ended Eolas' current tirade through the industry. It's only a matter of time before they appeal the decision, and before the next stupid patent result coming out of East Texas.
Exactly my thoughts.
This is bound to be an unpopular post, but if Eolas's patent was invalid due to prior art, THAT ALONE should have been the deciding factor.
On the other hand, TBL arguing that the patent, if valid, would be a problem for the web, amounts to further evidence that the patent was unique, inventive, non-obvious, non-trivial, and fully patent worthy. He essentially made an impassioned plea for something akin to Jury Nullification.
He set the grounds for appeal.
There is nothing in patent law that allows invalidating a patent simply because it has become essential.
A patent may be commandeered by government for national security reasons, as was done by the US Government when the US entered both world wars. The government seized funds and patents held by German firms, completely ignoring the 5th Amendment: (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”).
But baring that, simply because a patent has become essential seems insufficient reason to invalidate it.
I specifically remember one of my first batch jobs I was instructed to run as a budding operator was a large try of cards with with the word "Debbie" scrawled across the top edges of the cards. I loaded it up, the system read the entire deck in, and the line printer erupted spewing paper as fast as it could go, and two minutes later the staff were laughing their asses off at the new kid holding Debbie up to the light.
Weigh of an aircraft is not fixed. It varies during the flight. You never fully top off a bird that big, so you never actually know to the last pound your actual take off weigh.
Slashdot Mirror
The artificial loads are indoors.
People evolved largely outdoors.
Modern man gets far less sitting in a room full of wifi routers than bush man got tending his flock or hunting/gathering.
Sorry, the hysteria simply won't add up for you.
The far more beneficial align adds to content is very expensive and required skilled people for both the company selling advertising space and the company buying advertising space
This is what Google Ad-Words is all about.
It figures out the content of a page with no human ever looking at anything. Then is slips in appropriate ads.
This has been going on for a long time. Ad words keeps the ads on the page targeted at the page content, with no human intervention.
This doesn't block ads, it just protects people's privacy from being abused by them. The companies will still be able to show ads. For targetted ads, they'll have to use the same techniques they use for TV and print media, and those things haven't died yet.
Actually for targeted ads, they can use the same techniques used before tracking was common. (Guys, it only been a few years since tracking was used in any meaningful way).
Prior to tracking being very common, when you visited sites about any given topic, you would see ads related to that topic.
Now you see ads for things you looked up on the web last week.
If you turn off tracking, (to the extent it would be honored by either Google or the web sites), the sites usually revert to focused ads.
I've taken to using incognito mode when researching cars or toys, just so the don't spew those ads at me for the next few days.
I suspect that if 'do not track' became so common that it actually effected ad dollars to any measurable degree (which I doubt unless FF/Chrome/IE all bundle it by default), we would probably see a rise of people providing content for other reasons, reasons that do not require ad-type dollars
Wait, weren't ads present and effective in the past, prior to tracking?
I mean, if you went to a site about computers, they carried ads from computer manufacturers, etc.
The audience was already "targeted" by the mere fact that they arrived on that particular site. They selected themselves, and the ads were timely and focused.
Now with tracking, if search for bicycles, and for the next few days you get bicycle ads on sites dealing with Smartphones, Baseball, Rose Bushes. ?!??
This detracts from every web site's focus. I'm looking for a Catcher's mitt and they want to sell me a bike?
And all it does is rub it in your face that you are being tracked. It sure doesn't endear me to that particular bicycle company.
"Do not track" might even prove to earn more money for the advertisers, because the various web sites will (probably) fall back on focused advertising.
No, they would probably be burning something else, perhaps coal which might be more of a pollutant. There is not enough wood in the country to serve as fuel source for the entire populace. In some cases they may be simply using fireplaces rather than stoves.
But the point remains that wood, and coal aren't composed of a billion tiny slivers of paper that can smolder and fly out the chimney. And combustion is bound to be incomplete, lots of fragments lifted by the updraft. potentially plugging any spark arresters in place.
Seems to me that blowing the shredded paper (not bales) into large coal fired electric generation facility might yield more clean and complete combustion, and electricity to boot.
Not sure how much energy it takes to process the currency into briquets, but it is certainly one of the most innovative "Recycling" programs I've seen, and from the looks of it, one that actually benefits all parties involved (Central Bank gets to destroy old currency, Poor get free fuel).
I doubt it takes more energy to process to briquets than they were already using to dispose of this stuff. In fact I suspect they are using off the shelf industrial grade shredder/balers that are already in use in places like military bases and embassies (and other high security sites) have to burn the waste on-site. These machines have metal separation built in so what you get is paper and plastic out. (Or in this case just paper).
There are commercial grade shredder/balers that make rather small bales, and I imagine some specialty machines do smaller bales for small incinerator burning.
Once shredded, its just paper, its not currency any more, and this program could be extended to millions of tons on other government paper as well.
Two things to consider:
First: Is burning waste paper in uncontrolled incineration (home stoves) really a wise approach to recycling? The pollution effects of thousands of chimnies spewing smoke and smoldering embers onto roof tops is worrisome.
Second: Some countries (maybe not Hungary) have special papers used in their currency. (little blue and red threads in US, other special plastics used in Australia, etc). You don't want tons of this stuff roaming around for counterfeiters to pick up for free off of the back of a truck.
There is quite a bit of variation to be found in the practices of companies with regard to this issue.
A good write up is found here: http://www.ieeeusa.org/members/IPandtheengineer.pdf
The article suggest there are two or three broad models of what is acceptable practice in this ares.
First
The Massachusetts Model is so called because it is prevalent in the northeastern United States. It was developed toward the end of the industrial revolution as a response to shop rights. Agreements written on this model tend to imply that the intellectual life of the employee is company property.
Never backed by law, this model is the most restrictive,
The cycle of innovation and renewal is fundamental to a healthy market economy. To foster this cycle, individuals require the same protections for non-work-related intellectual property that employers enjoy for work-related creations. In 1977, Minnesota formalized this concept with a law limiting the enforceable terms of pre-invention assignment agreements. The Minnesota Model adopts the philosophy that while the employer should enjoy protection, it should not come at the expense of today's employee to become tomorrow's new employer.
In California there are similar laws to the Minnesota system:
The State of California followed in 1980, by implementing protection for its famous entrepreneurial culture. As of this writing Utah, Washington, North Carolina, Kansas, Delaware, and Illinois have also promoted new business formation by means of
similar laws
The text of the California law is on the web here. Washington state Here.
Appendix B of the above linked article has a summary of legislation in various states and list of states where such agreements are already limited by state law.
How can that possibly be better than to have the same information imparted via a video or audio show, which they can 1. Pause, 2. Rewind, and 3. Watch at a time when they are fully ready to concentrate? Especially since they will have the ability to email, facebook, or twat questions -- and may even have questions after fully taking in the entire lecture.
Probably at least the male students are in fact more concerned with twat questions, and have very little time in which they are fully ready to concentrate.
That's the yardstick of credibility these days? It's a piece of shit that just makes stuff up if the truth isn't exciting enough. Check out the Raspberry Pi site for more details.
Read story
Get incensed about source
Get distracted
Post rushed reply to wrong story
Priceless!
Wrong, its because those same advances in technology and competition FORCE AT&T to pass their savings on to you.
And the odd thing is the competition even works (at some level of impairment) in the carefully engineered anti-competitive market that the major carriers have managed to contrive in the US.
Malaysia isn't a western country and probably doesn't have that rule.
Malaysia probably has just the opposite rule, considering The Malaysian constitution states that Islam is the state religion.
One has to wonder why this guy would flee to any Muslim Majority nation, let alone one with an official "state religion" of Islam.
Why not replace the hurricane plane with a bunch of drones equipped for the task. Then you could have a half dozen flying around the hurricane at the same time. Yes that is just moving the pilot from the cockpit to command room (or where ever they sit), until they make them autonomous.
Given the loss of life record for hurricane hunter planes, the case for drones simply hasn't been made.
The last hurricane hunter lost was in 1974, the prior one in 1955. Far more of these planes were damaged on the ground than in the air.
Its doubtful drones would survive anywhere near as successfully, or produce anywhere near as much good data. Storms change slowly. An hour by hour measurement system is not warranted, and all of the tracking work (and an increasing amount of the measurement work) can be done by satellite.
Everybody on the ground will just be happy that things got a little more refined and predictable.
But who on the ground even knows that things got more refined and predictable?
After all, everyone on the ground sees the same news media clowns struggling to stand upright in the same puddle of water getting lashed by
winds in areas especially selected for their wind tunnel effect. The media is constantly preaching of doom and gloom and great destruction from storms which are ALREADY predicted via current methods to be largely spent by time of arrival. Disaster theater.
When will you ever see a government agency suggesting people just baton down the hatches and ride a storm out, because our prediction model says it will not amount to much? It will Never Happen, post Katrina. And it leads to near universal disregard for official predictions.
Official predictions of "no big deal" only happen after the storm has made landfall and pretty much spent itself. The next state over, seeing the coverage of light damage from the prior state hunches their collective shoulders and says "Meh" long before the official predictions catch up.
It seems we crowd source hurricane predictions once it gets near to making landfall.
If this new modeling can tell more accurately predict intensity days before landfall, would government (let alone the press) act any differently?
http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v1/fcc.mobility-fund-phase-1-potentially-eligible-areas-oct-2011-data/mm/legend,zoompan,tooltips,zoomwheel,zoombox,attribution,bwdetect,share.html#6.00/38.617/-109.328
Exactly. The FCC basically owns the waves that it's letting telecom use. They don't have to let them use that spectrum.
Fine. Lets take your position. Yank those licenses.
Now what?
Find someone else who has the millions to buy the spectrum, the billions to build a network. Wait 10 years while the build it.
Wait 3 years for them to go broke because NOBODY LIVES THERE!!!
Then what? What have you accomplished?
The map is for 3G and 4G.
Ya know, you can still make phone calls in most of those areas. Probably your porn comes in a little slower over EDGE,
and you can probably finish by hand faster than you will get it over GPRS, but there is still phone sex on your camping
trip in the vast majority of those ares.
Huge swaths of Nevada are all black on the map. You can still make calls. A few places the road runs thru valleys and
your phone says Emergency Calls Only. The State of Nevada has 911 towers out there.
The map shows 3G and 4G DATA.
Many areas that appear totally devoid of coverage still have voice coverage, and slower Edge and GPRS for data.
I drive these areas often, and the number of places the phone drops to "No Signal" is really pretty small.
The areas where you can't even make a voice call are usually canyons.
Bear in mind where this data comes from. The maps are those areas that are going to eventually be built out
with the Federal Universal Service Charge. Thats the $5 per line that appears on your bill.
Since the cell companies have no customers here, and since virtually nobody even drives thru these area,
there is no funding for building towers, backhaul, and relays. In many areas there isn't even power
withing 50 miles.
So think long and hard about just how much you want to whine about this situation, because its
coming directly out of YOUR pocket. Nobody lives there to pay the bills.
from 10 years ago, the same areas look like wastelands for net access in general.
Telecommunications companies simply don't want to build out.
Clue Bat:
Nobody lives in the black areas. Try a little google earth some day.
Its pretty damned hard to get a chipmunk to pay a cell bill.
Yeah, I definitely can't think of ANY uses for mobile communication devices on a farm or ranch...
The article doesn't say they don't have access to mobile communications.
It says they don't have 3G or 4G.
Many of these same areas have EDGE or GPRS, for Data and can make voice calls.
Much of this are is wilderness. No power. No backhaul. And nobody but campers and hunters out there.
Try a little Google Earth some time and find out just how empty these areas are.
How can you possibly come up with that?
Start with the assumption that it is valid, which also means, by definition, it pre-dates all the thing we see on the web today.
Then add the fact that almost everything on the web we see today depends on the invention in that patent?
How, then, can you arrive at the assumption that it was ubiquitous, uninventive, obvious, trivial, when, by definition everything on the web depends on that patent?
You can't look backward and say, well, certainly this would have been invented eventually, so it must be obvious. Its only obvious from your viewpoint in w world where it is already common.
Imagine, for sake of argument, that I had a valid patent for Ball Bearings, that predated their first use. Can you look at your kids tricycle, and a jet engine, and your dishwasher and say, this patent is invalid JUST because all these things depend on there being ball bearings?
Had you bothered to click the link you would have seen there is nothing at all like a SUV pictured
on that page. Its a Crossover, maybe, but not an SUV.
The defence lawyers and the judge obviously decided they had valid grounds to do that.
So what?
Lots of defense lawyers and Judges make errors that open the door for appeal.
The effect on a patent validity decision should not be a part of the process, and based on the article's description Tim had no business there giving any opinion.
.
Exactly so, in fact, Tim may have handed them grounds for appeal. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2664719&cid=38997547
If they are so familiar with the topic, then why do they side with crazy so frequently?
This appears to have been a case of luck--not experience--that ended Eolas' current tirade through the industry. It's only a matter of time before they appeal the decision, and before the next stupid patent result coming out of East Texas.
Exactly my thoughts.
This is bound to be an unpopular post, but if Eolas's patent was invalid due to prior art, THAT ALONE should have been the deciding factor.
On the other hand, TBL arguing that the patent, if valid, would be a problem for the web, amounts to further evidence that the patent was unique, inventive, non-obvious, non-trivial, and fully patent worthy. He essentially made an impassioned plea for something akin to Jury Nullification.
He set the grounds for appeal.
There is nothing in patent law that allows invalidating a patent simply because it has become essential.
A patent may be commandeered by government for national security reasons, as was done by the US Government when the US entered both world wars. The government seized funds and patents held by German firms, completely ignoring the 5th Amendment: (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”).
But baring that, simply because a patent has become essential seems insufficient reason to invalidate it.
I specifically remember one of my first batch jobs I was instructed to run as a budding operator was a large try of cards with with the word "Debbie" scrawled across the top edges of the cards.
I loaded it up, the system read the entire deck in, and the line printer erupted spewing paper as fast as it could go, and two minutes later the staff were laughing their asses off at the new kid holding Debbie up to the light.
Nobody dared floor sorting that deck.
Weigh of an aircraft is not fixed.
It varies during the flight.
You never fully top off a bird that big, so you never actually know to the last pound your actual take off weigh.