Software is not an abstract idea nor has that ever been the argument.
Furthermore, these are not "proposed new rules" but new guidance and they are already "in effect" as noted later in the last paragraph. This new guidance is a good thing as it helps promote consistency and ends the craziness that erupted with the Alice decision. It is also entirely consistent with recent court rulings, the problem was that patent examiners are typically not lawyers and are not easily persuaded by legal arguments. By incorporating recent decisions in updated guidance, more consistency in granted patents can be achieved and less effort and money is wasted. This is all a good thing, it does not, in any way, make "software patents" easier to obtain.
In short, everything about this is wrong and the author is ignorant.
"If I go swimming in the ocean, there is enough of a difference between the surface and a few feet down that I can feel the difference."
No you can't.
"Am I a denialist if I ask how can these species easily live through constant fluctuations, and yet are killed off by temperature shifts that are an order of magnitude lower?"
Not sure what the point of this bizarre response is.
Coral is not "very sensitive to temperature changes" but rather can live at a variety of depths and temperatures. Temps are also not the only threat to reefs.
It's not enough to invest in cycling infrastructure, enforcement needs to occur as well. Bike lanes are not for city buses, UPS drivers and delivery vehicles. I deal with at least a dozen vehicles illegally using bike lanes every day, plenty of them commercial and city vehicles. Cops are completely unconcerned.
It would also be helpful for joggers and pedestrians to stay out of the lane and for scooters to respect that bike lanes are one way.
No experienced cyclist would tolerate such frequent collisions and injuries without doing something about it long before 7 concussions. That's just stupid.
I knew a Mr. Bad Decision that once suffered brain damage from not riding a bike but was cured once he started bicycle commuting.
How do you know that no one rides on it? Do you? If not, you have no idea, otherwise you are proof otherwise.
Bike lanes, like roads, often appear empty even when they are used frequently.
I bike commute daily on a path just like that and I see it used all the time, yet I regularly experience ignorant comments such as your about those very paths in my area. Odds are, you're simply not interested and feel entitled to comment on something you know nothing about.
No idea where these numbers come from other than they're probably made up, but "bicycle commuters" are not the only cyclists nor are cyclists ignored. Cycling infrastructure is for cyclists, not commuters.
Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations". Some move due to high cost of living but most move for actual life reasons, not political ones. Those remaining that qualify don't change the politics of the state and often move to urban areas that are progressive already.
No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.
TX has a different political system than CA, TX residents don't vote directly to enact laws.
Lastly, if this were occurring there would be evidence. Where is the evidence of "higher taxes and regulations" in TX caused by this influx of ex-CA voters? Does not exist. TX becomes more progressive as urban populations grow and the state becomes more ethnically diverse, just like everywhere else.
"I don't think you understand this is not an issue of engineering but rather physics."
I understand that it is both.
"You can't build something that moves with a certain amount of force to suddenly increase or change its mass (and size/structure) to withstand a force 4000 times as large."
First off, anyone who says "moves with a certain amount of force" shouldn't be lecturing others on physics. It's not your specialty.
Second, I've never argued that a device could be built that would "suddenly increase or change its mass".
Third, no device was ever designed to fail at an intended load level but spontaneously "fix itself" when placed under that load.
"How about we invent a motorcycle with two modes of operation - one optimized for high speed driving and one that suddenly reinforces itself while you are crashing."
You're getting warmer. Things like this, only intelligent and useful, are done all the time.
They are not "technically wings", and airfoil does not define a wing. A propellor is a screw, the airfoil makes it work better.
And so what? What does a "stall" in this context matter?
Furthermore, "stall" is irrelevant to the entire point you're trying to make, it's just used by you to establish a minimum speed for which to produce a relatively low speed range. The minimum speed of an aircraft is not a fundamental property of its strength so the entire basis of your argument is nonsense.
Ratios of loads don't matter, only maximum loads do. If you build a device to withstand a maximum load it will not fail under no load because the load "ratio" is too great. It may fail, though, if the load exceeds what it is designed for. That's what engineering is, something you pretend to be knowledgeable in but demonstrate time and again that you are not.
Airplanes can be designed for a wider range of speeds than you think they are capable of...and often are. Not that it's relevant.
With the ignorance you display here, it seems unlikely that you are a structural engineer, aero engineer or an engineer of any sort. Certainly not a good one. It's more likely you are a guy capable of using Google but not really understanding the results.
One thing I'm sure of, the solution to renewable energy won't be coming from your "creative mind". Good luck with your nose cones.
"So you want to make an analogy to prop-driven planes? They are destroyed at three times their minimum operating airspeed."
The only "analogy to prop-driven planes" is your straw man. Planes are required to be lightweight, required strength is an engineering input to the problem, not an inherent limitation.
"Still like that analogy?"
No, but you do! It is, after all, only your analogy.
"Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle."
Insert magic here!
"Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient."
You should stop talking here, you clearly have a lot of learning to do...if that's possible. An ICE is the "result of the laws of physics", is it 100% efficient? What can that possibly mean?
It's good to know our star is named Sol, though. Thanks for that.
Nonsense. I don't fear predation in my life today. Not so in the existence predicted by Nicole. It's not just the neighbors, it's the bears.
You assume the existence of a modern society whose vast umbrella you can live under and benefit from without directly engaging in. That's vastly different than life "off the grid" because no society and no grid exist at all.
Also, your entire argument is based on the idea that law enforcement, and a society of laws, offers no benefit to quality of life. Absurd.
"She’s just arguing about the loss on efficiency of needless energy conversion into electricity and the problems with centralized production and distribution."
She argues about more than that and she makes more profound points than that, but she's also frequently wrong on that particular point. For example, she claims that local energy production could operate a home without an inverter. That's just stupid and it demonstrates her poor understanding of the technologies for which she pretends to have expertise. No one forces consolidation/centralization of energy production and it's not universally done. It happens because it works better, contrary to her arguments.
Yes, there are problems with "centralized production and distribution". They've been known about forever, have received the benefit of enormous engineering effort, have been largely solved and are not new to renewable energy.
"I don’t know about you, but I’ve dreamt of being off grid since I was a child. The idea of being off grid gives me a sense of security and simplicity. If you have food + shelter + energy + community you can tell the rest of the world to fuck off."
Your fantasy world is dependent on an industrialized society that can afford to produce the conveniences that give you the illusion of independence and self-sufficiency. Accepting her fatally-flawed logic means that doesn't exist. Sure you will be "off the grid" because there will be no grid. Hope you enjoy your hunter gatherer existence since there won't be manufacturing, electric, transportation, etc.
You know, there are problems with centralized processing of waste, too so perhaps you should dig a hole in your back yard to take a crap in. Problems like this are well understood and attract the efforts of professionals because they are important. Just because the internet enables kooks like this to present arguments doesn't make them valid.
Slashdot Mirror
Software is not an abstract idea nor has that ever been the argument.
Furthermore, these are not "proposed new rules" but new guidance and they are already "in effect" as noted later in the last paragraph. This new guidance is a good thing as it helps promote consistency and ends the craziness that erupted with the Alice decision. It is also entirely consistent with recent court rulings, the problem was that patent examiners are typically not lawyers and are not easily persuaded by legal arguments. By incorporating recent decisions in updated guidance, more consistency in granted patents can be achieved and less effort and money is wasted. This is all a good thing, it does not, in any way, make "software patents" easier to obtain.
In short, everything about this is wrong and the author is ignorant.
"If I go swimming in the ocean, there is enough of a difference between the surface and a few feet down that I can feel the difference."
No you can't.
"Am I a denialist if I ask how can these species easily live through constant fluctuations, and yet are killed off by temperature shifts that are an order of magnitude lower?"
No, you are a denialist for other reasons.
Not sure what the point of this bizarre response is.
Coral is not "very sensitive to temperature changes" but rather can live at a variety of depths and temperatures. Temps are also not the only threat to reefs.
""It's not like we haven't known about Global Warming for decades now, but we haven't shifted policy an inch"
Who is the "we" here? The world is not one people with one policy.
It's not enough to invest in cycling infrastructure, enforcement needs to occur as well. Bike lanes are not for city buses, UPS drivers and delivery vehicles. I deal with at least a dozen vehicles illegally using bike lanes every day, plenty of them commercial and city vehicles. Cops are completely unconcerned.
It would also be helpful for joggers and pedestrians to stay out of the lane and for scooters to respect that bike lanes are one way.
Nothing quite like the viewpoint of someone who can't even ride a bike and knows literally nothing about the subject.
More made up "facts" that no one can challenge.
No experienced cyclist would tolerate such frequent collisions and injuries without doing something about it long before 7 concussions. That's just stupid.
I knew a Mr. Bad Decision that once suffered brain damage from not riding a bike but was cured once he started bicycle commuting.
How do you know that no one rides on it? Do you? If not, you have no idea, otherwise you are proof otherwise.
Bike lanes, like roads, often appear empty even when they are used frequently.
I bike commute daily on a path just like that and I see it used all the time, yet I regularly experience ignorant comments such as your about those very paths in my area. Odds are, you're simply not interested and feel entitled to comment on something you know nothing about.
Amen. It's almost as though the authors know nothing about bicycle commuting.
I commute 6 miles each way. Total time is basically the same as by car, but I get my exercise in at the same time. It is health decision.
as though any of that applies to cyclists. Why has /. posters become so ignorant?
"However 'cyclists', meaning the self-identified militant cult member,..."
You should seriously reevaluate your life, no one believes "cyclist" means this.
No idea where these numbers come from other than they're probably made up, but "bicycle commuters" are not the only cyclists nor are cyclists ignored. Cycling infrastructure is for cyclists, not commuters.
Over the last 3 years? Totally unlikely.
This entire post is garbage.
Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations". Some move due to high cost of living but most move for actual life reasons, not political ones. Those remaining that qualify don't change the politics of the state and often move to urban areas that are progressive already.
No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.
TX has a different political system than CA, TX residents don't vote directly to enact laws.
Lastly, if this were occurring there would be evidence. Where is the evidence of "higher taxes and regulations" in TX caused by this influx of ex-CA voters? Does not exist. TX becomes more progressive as urban populations grow and the state becomes more ethnically diverse, just like everywhere else.
Prove it.
We get a great deal of hurricanes in the gulf coast, making the real world utility of that much fossil fuel-based energy impractical.
Wind doesn't stop when the sun goes down. Weather doesn't take nights off.
"I don't think you understand this is not an issue of engineering but rather physics."
I understand that it is both.
"You can't build something that moves with a certain amount of force to suddenly increase or change its mass (and size/structure) to withstand a force 4000 times as large."
First off, anyone who says "moves with a certain amount of force" shouldn't be lecturing others on physics. It's not your specialty.
Second, I've never argued that a device could be built that would "suddenly increase or change its mass".
Third, no device was ever designed to fail at an intended load level but spontaneously "fix itself" when placed under that load.
"How about we invent a motorcycle with two modes of operation - one optimized for high speed driving and one that suddenly reinforces itself while you are crashing."
You're getting warmer. Things like this, only intelligent and useful, are done all the time.
They are not "technically wings", and airfoil does not define a wing. A propellor is a screw, the airfoil makes it work better.
And so what? What does a "stall" in this context matter?
Furthermore, "stall" is irrelevant to the entire point you're trying to make, it's just used by you to establish a minimum speed for which to produce a relatively low speed range. The minimum speed of an aircraft is not a fundamental property of its strength so the entire basis of your argument is nonsense.
You are a moron.
Ratios of loads don't matter, only maximum loads do. If you build a device to withstand a maximum load it will not fail under no load because the load "ratio" is too great. It may fail, though, if the load exceeds what it is designed for. That's what engineering is, something you pretend to be knowledgeable in but demonstrate time and again that you are not.
Airplanes can be designed for a wider range of speeds than you think they are capable of...and often are. Not that it's relevant.
"wind was never meant to be practical"
How do you know? Did you ask the inventor of wind?
"i like how todays policay's are feelings driven, no time for studies and all that real crap"
Indeed, just like your posts.
With the ignorance you display here, it seems unlikely that you are a structural engineer, aero engineer or an engineer of any sort. Certainly not a good one. It's more likely you are a guy capable of using Google but not really understanding the results.
One thing I'm sure of, the solution to renewable energy won't be coming from your "creative mind". Good luck with your nose cones.
"So you want to make an analogy to prop-driven planes? They are destroyed at three times their minimum operating airspeed."
The only "analogy to prop-driven planes" is your straw man. Planes are required to be lightweight, required strength is an engineering input to the problem, not an inherent limitation.
"Still like that analogy?"
No, but you do! It is, after all, only your analogy.
"Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle."
Insert magic here!
"Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient."
You should stop talking here, you clearly have a lot of learning to do...if that's possible. An ICE is the "result of the laws of physics", is it 100% efficient? What can that possibly mean?
It's good to know our star is named Sol, though. Thanks for that.
Nonsense. I don't fear predation in my life today. Not so in the existence predicted by Nicole. It's not just the neighbors, it's the bears.
You assume the existence of a modern society whose vast umbrella you can live under and benefit from without directly engaging in. That's vastly different than life "off the grid" because no society and no grid exist at all.
Also, your entire argument is based on the idea that law enforcement, and a society of laws, offers no benefit to quality of life. Absurd.
Well so did I but I wouldn't call it good.
"She’s just arguing about the loss on efficiency of needless energy conversion into electricity and the problems with centralized production and distribution."
She argues about more than that and she makes more profound points than that, but she's also frequently wrong on that particular point. For example, she claims that local energy production could operate a home without an inverter. That's just stupid and it demonstrates her poor understanding of the technologies for which she pretends to have expertise. No one forces consolidation/centralization of energy production and it's not universally done. It happens because it works better, contrary to her arguments.
Yes, there are problems with "centralized production and distribution". They've been known about forever, have received the benefit of enormous engineering effort, have been largely solved and are not new to renewable energy.
"I don’t know about you, but I’ve dreamt of being off grid since I was a child. The idea of being off grid gives me a sense of security and simplicity. If you have food + shelter + energy + community you can tell the rest of the world to fuck off."
Your fantasy world is dependent on an industrialized society that can afford to produce the conveniences that give you the illusion of independence and self-sufficiency. Accepting her fatally-flawed logic means that doesn't exist. Sure you will be "off the grid" because there will be no grid. Hope you enjoy your hunter gatherer existence since there won't be manufacturing, electric, transportation, etc.
You know, there are problems with centralized processing of waste, too so perhaps you should dig a hole in your back yard to take a crap in. Problems like this are well understood and attract the efforts of professionals because they are important. Just because the internet enables kooks like this to present arguments doesn't make them valid.