Presumably whack-a-mole is too big to fail. This guy will be a good scapegoat, but it won't solve the problems inherent in an economy that depends so much on whack-a-mole.
Yeah. Through incompetence or malice, people can leave a national debt that will take generations to deal with, and economic ruin, yet I'd be surprised if any of them end-up doing more than five years. They'll get out even earlier if they're fortunate enough to be struck with a unique form of alzheimer's that mysteriously vanishes shortly after they're released from prison on medical grounds - as experienced by the Earnest Saunders.
Yeah, but then the same can be said of pretty much any choice when you're willing to reduce things down to such simple levels. By this logic, auto-insurance is an example of Pascal's Wager.
Kind of anecdotal, but I see the same thing. From personal experience, that approach got me in to buying a TV licence. The thought that I'd not be noticed evaporated when some guy came knocking on the door.
Yeah, a personalised (i.e. not addressed to "Dear RESIDENT") letter is a pretty good start. It's a wake-up call, and also helps on the PR side should the labels decide to unleash legal obliteration against some parents who failed to get their kids to stop downloading stuff. The latter is kind of difficult to defend when there's evidence that a clear and polite warning was issued.
Yeah, it's likely easier to extract him from the UK. We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case. The U.S. could have Asange if they'd just find something to charge him with. We in the UK are very helpful in that regard.
Not mention the vagueness of "hot" and "cold". Star Trek could have been far more entertaining if each episode featured Picard getting a face-full of super-heated steam in a cup.
He crops up in quite a few strange places. For example, in some of his blog posts he links to angrybirdsgames.com (currently parked) and targetnichemarket.com. These are registered to:
arnell johnson 1112 loveland lane virginia beach, Virginia 23454 United States
He's up to his eyeballs in Internet get-rich-quick schemes. He's the kind of person who's probably totally legal, but will make his greatest and most well-received contribution to this world on leaving it.
Yup, I find it difficult to trust Seth Avery "3D Enthusiast & Creative Director". As for the money-back guarantee, I question the ability of a composite character and stock photography to honour this kind of promise. Besides, Seth is busy selling coffee: http://home.nbl.fi/~nbl2417/scratch/Rode.jpg
"Seth" is selling the same product under two different names, and has a habit of doing this with other open source packages (Flight Gear). He's using legal yet very cheesy and misleading techniques, and offering nothing that can't quickly be found for free. For example, one of the amazing books he's offering with his ripped-off flight sim is freely downloadable from the FAA site.
He really is going for the low hanging fruit with lines like "as seen on Google". Hell, anyone who sees that as nothing but comical would likely pay a premium price for a DVD fashioned out of genuine atoms! Yup, these people are hucksters who will likely earn a decent bit of scratch from people who try to research this product, but likely find nothing but bogus reviews run by affiliates. Google really need to fix this kind of stuff in their searching. It's too easy to swamp search results with these bogus blogs.
The RFC doesn't specify things either way, but personally all the email systems I recall using would allow the BCC'ed person to see the To and CC recipients. Assuming people know how BCCing works, this is the best implementation.
Yeah, it's most useful anyway in a corporate setting, and then I'm in the habit of telling people to expect it. The only reason I'd use it outside of work is to send a bulk mail in which I put everyone on BCC. That though is incredibly rare.
It'd be more useful to conclusively disprove the existence of Darth Vader. The sky wizard did some pretty nasty things, but he stopped short at blowing up an entire world.
That's just a rehashing of the "don't be a dick" argument. The basic premise is pragmatic and sensible, but it's easily stretched to the point where pragmatism gives way to pandering. I can safely say that my morality is superior to anyones whose morality relies on divine edict and eternal punishments/rewards. It doesn't make me superior in general. The Pope might be a fine golfer, in which case he's certainly my superior on the driving range. I reckon though I can prove myself more ethical than he, and certainly more modest in that only a criminal, or someone afflicted with phenomenal egomaniacal delusion, would place themselves as the go-to guy of the most powerful being in all creation.
A mixture of honey and vinegar is what's needed. Your comments, being generalisations from the other end of the spectrum, seem a little on the sour side.
Depends on how a court interprets the phrase "public use". If the invention is used in secret by the inventor and his buddies sworn to secrecy, and the business cards incinerated to avoid disclosure, then it's probably not public use. If the invention is used reasonably openly in the company and being use to create products that are distributed outside of the company then I'd expect a judge to rule it as prior art. Of course that isn't guaranteed, which is possibly why the phrase could be better defined. The problem I think they try to avoid is that by defining things too tightly a law becomes more prone to loopholes or ageing. e.g. a law that specifically tackled the transmission of death threats via telex would probably not cover the same things done by fax.
If they just want to give it away then all they need do is publish sufficient details of their invention. That'll establish prior art which'll prevent others from being able to patent it. In a vague sense it's a bit like releasing in to the public domain, except the inventor retains the right to file a patent within a certain time period - but no-one else can.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be enti- tled to a patent unless— ‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, de- scribed in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
There's more to it than that, but there's the most relevant section of the bull.
If your widget is on the market then it may qualify as prior art. The international thing is presumably a problem right now if the U.S. is the only one operating a "first to invent" system. I'm assuming that a PCT patent could be rejected if its validity hinged on the inventor claiming to be the first to invent, and the UK IPO is probably not accepting that if used to challenge a patent that someone managed to file in the UK before the US guy got a chance to file.
"first inventor to file, rather than the first to invent" sounds like code for "prior art no longer matters". Think about this for a minute. You invent something. You try to use it. You get sued into oblivion because someone else filed first. Or how about this one: You invent something. You don't believe in patents, so you give it to the world for free. Someone files and locks it down. Or how about this one: You are sued for doing something that everyone has been doing for fifty years. When you try to defend yourself, your defense is struck down because prior art no longer matters--you didn't file first.
Most of that isn't possible. If you invent something and publish it to the world then it becomes prior art. You could certainly be sued if you tried to make us of your secret invention and someone filed before you did. Establishment of prior art doesn't appear to be changing. What's changing here is that anyone wanting to protect their invention had better file or make their invention public in order to prevent someone else from filing. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes publishing in this case, but it doesn't seem possible to retroactively patent anything that hasn't yet been patented.
Not really. If your competitor comes up with an amazing invention but keeps it secret then it can't be considered prior art, so you could indeed file a patent. If however the invention becomes public prior to your filing it then constitutes prior art. The downside to filing a patent is that the thing in question becomes a matter of public record. People not wanting that to be the case could maintain the thing as a trade secret, with the risk of someone else patenting it.
Everybody has to either file, publish details of their invention to sufficiently establish prior art, or operate in secrecy and hope that no-one else could independently develop the same invention.
Yeah, the photo ID thing is iffy. If photos are to believed, quite a few of my friends appear to be very young babies. Another bunch are cartoon characters.
Yeah. I think the Vulgate was the main source for the KJV translators.
It's problematic to use the term "original version" when discussing the Bible. At best we tend to have what would be described as the oldest sources available, and in some cases these oldest sources appear themselves descended from earlier unknown sources. I'm not sure what you're defining as insignificant here, and whether you're talking about the canonical Bible or its individual books?
The Bible, as in a canon of collected works, has been pretty stable for a long time now, but it's not as if 2000 years ago the Bible fell from the sky in its current form. There have been a number of canons and apocrypha. It took hundreds of years to arrive at what would be almost universally accepted as the canon we know today. That canon itself has been pretty consistent for at least 1500 years, and the KJV dates from the 16th or 17th century century (can't recall which), so it is wrong to claim that the *Bible* itself has changed a great deal. It is however perfectly correct to highlight the incredible quantity of apocryphal works and what appear to be later additions to individual books. I think the more important thing to look at is how interpretations of the Bible have changed.
I like to use KJV and NIV side-by-side. NIV is a bit dry and at times over-simplified, but far easier to comprehend. KJV alone can be a bit misleading, such as in Exodus (I forget the verse) where the word "gift" in the KJV is more correctly translated as "bribe". That wouldn't make sense to a KJV reader unless they were very careful to read the verse in its correct context.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably whack-a-mole is too big to fail. This guy will be a good scapegoat, but it won't solve the problems inherent in an economy that depends so much on whack-a-mole.
Yeah. Through incompetence or malice, people can leave a national debt that will take generations to deal with, and economic ruin, yet I'd be surprised if any of them end-up doing more than five years. They'll get out even earlier if they're fortunate enough to be struck with a unique form of alzheimer's that mysteriously vanishes shortly after they're released from prison on medical grounds - as experienced by the Earnest Saunders.
Yes, that's the false dichotomy inherent to the argument. See my comment on simplifying things.
It's possible to be killed in a crash, so what's the point in buying insurance to pay for repairs?
Yeah, but then the same can be said of pretty much any choice when you're willing to reduce things down to such simple levels. By this logic, auto-insurance is an example of Pascal's Wager.
Kind of anecdotal, but I see the same thing. From personal experience, that approach got me in to buying a TV licence. The thought that I'd not be noticed evaporated when some guy came knocking on the door.
Yeah, a personalised (i.e. not addressed to "Dear RESIDENT") letter is a pretty good start. It's a wake-up call, and also helps on the PR side should the labels decide to unleash legal obliteration against some parents who failed to get their kids to stop downloading stuff. The latter is kind of difficult to defend when there's evidence that a clear and polite warning was issued.
Well played, sir!
Yup. It's one of many relics from Tony Blair's policy of doing anything for the U.S. in the hopes of receiving the diplomatic equivalent of pity sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
Treason in all but name.
Yeah, it's likely easier to extract him from the UK. We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case. The U.S. could have Asange if they'd just find something to charge him with. We in the UK are very helpful in that regard.
Not mention the vagueness of "hot" and "cold". Star Trek could have been far more entertaining if each episode featured Picard getting a face-full of super-heated steam in a cup.
I'm pretty sure it's him.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Arnell-Johnson/1217436323
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arnell-johnson/2a/bbb/626
http://swom.com/people/99009-arnell-johnson
http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Arnell_Johnson#more-information
He crops up in quite a few strange places. For example, in some of his blog posts he links to angrybirdsgames.com (currently parked) and targetnichemarket.com. These are registered to:
arnell johnson
1112 loveland lane
virginia beach, Virginia 23454
United States
He's up to his eyeballs in Internet get-rich-quick schemes. He's the kind of person who's probably totally legal, but will make his greatest and most well-received contribution to this world on leaving it.
Yup, I find it difficult to trust Seth Avery "3D Enthusiast & Creative Director". As for the money-back guarantee, I question the ability of a composite character and stock photography to honour this kind of promise. Besides, Seth is busy selling coffee: http://home.nbl.fi/~nbl2417/scratch/Rode.jpg
"Seth" is selling the same product under two different names, and has a habit of doing this with other open source packages (Flight Gear). He's using legal yet very cheesy and misleading techniques, and offering nothing that can't quickly be found for free. For example, one of the amazing books he's offering with his ripped-off flight sim is freely downloadable from the FAA site.
He really is going for the low hanging fruit with lines like "as seen on Google". Hell, anyone who sees that as nothing but comical would likely pay a premium price for a DVD fashioned out of genuine atoms! Yup, these people are hucksters who will likely earn a decent bit of scratch from people who try to research this product, but likely find nothing but bogus reviews run by affiliates. Google really need to fix this kind of stuff in their searching. It's too easy to swamp search results with these bogus blogs.
I think it's 2445, but I could be wrong.
The RFC doesn't specify things either way, but personally all the email systems I recall using would allow the BCC'ed person to see the To and CC recipients. Assuming people know how BCCing works, this is the best implementation.
Yeah, it's most useful anyway in a corporate setting, and then I'm in the habit of telling people to expect it. The only reason I'd use it outside of work is to send a bulk mail in which I put everyone on BCC. That though is incredibly rare.
It'd be more useful to conclusively disprove the existence of Darth Vader. The sky wizard did some pretty nasty things, but he stopped short at blowing up an entire world.
Have you already reserved "e(nergy)-penis" for use as the literally translated name of a baffling anime title? If not, then I hereby claim it.
That's just a rehashing of the "don't be a dick" argument. The basic premise is pragmatic and sensible, but it's easily stretched to the point where pragmatism gives way to pandering. I can safely say that my morality is superior to anyones whose morality relies on divine edict and eternal punishments/rewards. It doesn't make me superior in general. The Pope might be a fine golfer, in which case he's certainly my superior on the driving range. I reckon though I can prove myself more ethical than he, and certainly more modest in that only a criminal, or someone afflicted with phenomenal egomaniacal delusion, would place themselves as the go-to guy of the most powerful being in all creation.
A mixture of honey and vinegar is what's needed. Your comments, being generalisations from the other end of the spectrum, seem a little on the sour side.
Depends on how a court interprets the phrase "public use". If the invention is used in secret by the inventor and his buddies sworn to secrecy, and the business cards incinerated to avoid disclosure, then it's probably not public use. If the invention is used reasonably openly in the company and being use to create products that are distributed outside of the company then I'd expect a judge to rule it as prior art. Of course that isn't guaranteed, which is possibly why the phrase could be better defined. The problem I think they try to avoid is that by defining things too tightly a law becomes more prone to loopholes or ageing. e.g. a law that specifically tackled the transmission of death threats via telex would probably not cover the same things done by fax.
If they just want to give it away then all they need do is publish sufficient details of their invention. That'll establish prior art which'll prevent others from being able to patent it. In a vague sense it's a bit like releasing in to the public domain, except the inventor retains the right to file a patent within a certain time period - but no-one else can.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be enti- tled to a patent unless—
‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, de- scribed in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
There's more to it than that, but there's the most relevant section of the bull.
If your widget is on the market then it may qualify as prior art. The international thing is presumably a problem right now if the U.S. is the only one operating a "first to invent" system. I'm assuming that a PCT patent could be rejected if its validity hinged on the inventor claiming to be the first to invent, and the UK IPO is probably not accepting that if used to challenge a patent that someone managed to file in the UK before the US guy got a chance to file.
"first inventor to file, rather than the first to invent" sounds like code for "prior art no longer matters". Think about this for a minute. You invent something. You try to use it. You get sued into oblivion because someone else filed first. Or how about this one: You invent something. You don't believe in patents, so you give it to the world for free. Someone files and locks it down. Or how about this one: You are sued for doing something that everyone has been doing for fifty years. When you try to defend yourself, your defense is struck down because prior art no longer matters--you didn't file first.
Most of that isn't possible. If you invent something and publish it to the world then it becomes prior art. You could certainly be sued if you tried to make us of your secret invention and someone filed before you did. Establishment of prior art doesn't appear to be changing. What's changing here is that anyone wanting to protect their invention had better file or make their invention public in order to prevent someone else from filing. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes publishing in this case, but it doesn't seem possible to retroactively patent anything that hasn't yet been patented.
Not really. If your competitor comes up with an amazing invention but keeps it secret then it can't be considered prior art, so you could indeed file a patent. If however the invention becomes public prior to your filing it then constitutes prior art. The downside to filing a patent is that the thing in question becomes a matter of public record. People not wanting that to be the case could maintain the thing as a trade secret, with the risk of someone else patenting it.
Everybody has to either file, publish details of their invention to sufficiently establish prior art, or operate in secrecy and hope that no-one else could independently develop the same invention.
Yeah, the photo ID thing is iffy. If photos are to believed, quite a few of my friends appear to be very young babies. Another bunch are cartoon characters.
Yeah. I think the Vulgate was the main source for the KJV translators.
It's problematic to use the term "original version" when discussing the Bible. At best we tend to have what would be described as the oldest sources available, and in some cases these oldest sources appear themselves descended from earlier unknown sources. I'm not sure what you're defining as insignificant here, and whether you're talking about the canonical Bible or its individual books?
The Bible, as in a canon of collected works, has been pretty stable for a long time now, but it's not as if 2000 years ago the Bible fell from the sky in its current form. There have been a number of canons and apocrypha. It took hundreds of years to arrive at what would be almost universally accepted as the canon we know today. That canon itself has been pretty consistent for at least 1500 years, and the KJV dates from the 16th or 17th century century (can't recall which), so it is wrong to claim that the *Bible* itself has changed a great deal. It is however perfectly correct to highlight the incredible quantity of apocryphal works and what appear to be later additions to individual books. I think the more important thing to look at is how interpretations of the Bible have changed.
I like to use KJV and NIV side-by-side. NIV is a bit dry and at times over-simplified, but far easier to comprehend. KJV alone can be a bit misleading, such as in Exodus (I forget the verse) where the word "gift" in the KJV is more correctly translated as "bribe". That wouldn't make sense to a KJV reader unless they were very careful to read the verse in its correct context.
No, it's like Hitler adopting GPLed code and then arbitrarily deciding 10 years later to relicence it.