More like a combination between a queen excluder and an inclined plane, so the dolphins would be rejected out an alternate chute. It didn't matter if some oil and/or water went, too, because it would just get sucked back in.
Intake was a suck-start trap siphon, a big round opening that was above sea level at the top but dipped down like a J trap, then came up and over and down. Water was pumped in above the down flow, which had open exit to air, but would be blocked by mass of water: the moving water created vacuum, drawing water at the intake down (into the J, to create a seal), then up, then over into the down flow, completing the siphon cycle. Gravity won't keep this going because it begins and terminates at sea level: you have to constantly pump water in and down, using the sea water at the bottom of the storage tank.
I remember her consistently applying judiciary favoritism, e.g. allowing a plaintiff to introduce late evidence all the damn time but denying defense evidence because it wasn't declared in discovery.
That assumes there'd be enough sniping to up the wages of 64,000 workers. I doubt there's that much exchange; most of these people have standing because they could have been affected, even if they in reality would never have been impacted.
Not if the method of doing so is simply to apply a mathemical formula, which in fact all the methods for doing so are.
Actually, you're wrong. Assembling a number of components into a new derivative work is what patents are all about. All machines are an assemblage of screws, levers, gears, pulleys, wheels, and inclined planes, and thus are simply applying a mathematical formula.
When the first photographic expert developed the idea to apply the well-known Discrete Cosine Transform and limit its precision as a method of producing highly-compressible image data at a sacrifice of some visual information, that was simply the application of a mathematical formula. It was also fully patentable, because nobody had thought to do that yet.
There's no patent controlling high-speed weaving machines because weaving was invented forever ago. We're well into incremental improvements on high-speed weaving machines.
A patent to control compression of sensory data (visual, audio, etc.) used in multimedia by eliminating some of the data would be fully patentable in 1975. No one at the time had considered lossy codecs. Someone could observe that phonographs are limited and not perfect, but acceptable; from that, they could extrapolate that some data can be removed intentionally as a way of storing sound and visual information digitally in a smaller space.
14 years later, that patent would expire. Then you'd have to patent specific techniques, which would need to be novel. The above patent may be broad-base and used for DCT and psychoacoustics; 15 years later, someone may decide to try encoding video by comparing sequential frames and moving similar areas--that becomes patentable because nobody has done it or thought of it yet.
That's how patents work. They have to follow those rules even if they're software. Some patents abuse these rules and just patent same thing "on a computer"; and some Internet pundits complain that "all software is math and thus unpatentable". Both are wrong.
When the software patent issue first came into public debate, I saw a lot of posts about how novel audio encoding schemes shouldn't be patented because "it's just math, you can't patent math!" This was big with AAC and MP3, which people claimed should be unpatentable because they're math.
That would actually be fine, if nobody had ever thought to turn fiber into clothing. Once the broad "fiber becomes clothing" patents wear out, you have to look for ways people have made thread before. "PLANT fiber becomes clothing." "Novel way to process Flax and Hemp fiber into clothing by hybrid chemical wash and bacterial fermentation." "New method and device for spinning fibers into clothing." "New method and device for separating high-quality fibers from weak, short fibers to produce better thread." "Novel method for removing seeds from harvested cotton fibers." "Enhancing the yield of cotton, flax, and cannabis fibers through novel growing methods."
The old-school problem with software patents was patenting everything "on a computer". A known eigenvector transform to separate out sinusoid frequencies from a set of sample points would be written and patented "on a computer", because nobody had ever done it in software before.
People started calling method patents "software patents" at some point. That is to say: people would come up with a brilliant new way to analyze and encode data (i.e. compression, psychoacoustics), and folks would start screaming that it shouldn't be patented.
Hardware patents are really the same way: a system of gears, levers, and cams placed in a certain order create a pair of timed shuttles that can weave fabric at high speeds. Software just feeds a similar list of steps (mathematical transformations) into a computer and does something. Hardware patents are mechanical algorithms; software patents are computational algorithms. Hardware patents take substance in (thread, electrons, steel) and produce an organized substance output (cloth, signal, gears); software patents take data in and produce an organized information output.
There's nothing wrong with software patents. Our problem is patenting shit that everyone knew about for the past 500 years, or retard shit that doesn't mean anything but can be manipulated in court to apply to anything.
Your situation with the Volvo dealership is similar to Tesla. There are not many Tesla cars on the road, and so there would not be thousands of dealerships in your city.
There would be as much support for Tesla as any other car with similar market share.
No it's not. Raw material usage is going down continually. Intermediate steps and input chemicals is likewise decreasing, and being replaced by lower cost substitutes. The total material content and input stream in both materials and energy continues to decrease, and shows no sign of stopping.
Again: THE MARGINAL COST OF TECHNOLOGY REFINEMENT IS DECREASING. You know those manufacturing processes they use today? If they had refined them the same way 10 years ago, they'd have been cheaper back then than they are now. When they settle on a stable refinement process--like they have with steel--the cost will start to go up.
It's like we've switched from brick to wood, and then from hand tools to power tools, and you're like, "See? The cost of construction always gets cheaper." No. We're using different processes; the costs go up. We now have power tools, wood construction, engineered materials that roll right out, and construction is getting more expensive because we simply can't optimize it anymore.
Inflation is always a thing. The cost of constructing solar panels has been going up. We've been sinking less resources into it--we've been performing the same amount of construction for more output--so the cost per unit has gone down; but, when that levels off, you'll have approximately 1 unit of construction effort to produce 1 unit of solar panel for years on end, and the increasing cost of construction will show up as an increasing cost of goods.
You're comparing the construction of a technology we know how to build well to the construction of a technology we don't know how to make well at all. The construction methods are changing. We're using less costly methods; those methods are, themselves, always going up in cost; we just figure out newer, cheaper methods, until we find the cheapest, most effective, most scalable method. It's not going to spiral down forever.
The first 5 years produces itself, net 0. Then you produce another panel, back at net -5. The next 5 years produce that second panel--there are two panels, so 2.5 years gets you 5 running years. 7.5 years to break even.
You ever heard of the Iron Chink? It was so named because the Chinese were the best of the best at fishmongering. If it wasn't a chink, it wasn't worth shit.
I was more thinking the team shouldn't be Redskins because everyone knows Native Americans suck at baseball. They're always too busy conning people into 8,376% APR loans to support their whiskey addiction.
That would be my announcement upon changing the team name, after giving a brief history citing everyone who bitched about the team name. The dropping of the name Redskins would be the most offensive act in history.
Slashdot Mirror
My raise each year amounts to $100/month or so, after taxes.
More like a combination between a queen excluder and an inclined plane, so the dolphins would be rejected out an alternate chute. It didn't matter if some oil and/or water went, too, because it would just get sucked back in.
Intake was a suck-start trap siphon, a big round opening that was above sea level at the top but dipped down like a J trap, then came up and over and down. Water was pumped in above the down flow, which had open exit to air, but would be blocked by mass of water: the moving water created vacuum, drawing water at the intake down (into the J, to create a seal), then up, then over into the down flow, completing the siphon cycle. Gravity won't keep this going because it begins and terminates at sea level: you have to constantly pump water in and down, using the sea water at the bottom of the storage tank.
I developed a system that sucks in water and filters out dolphins a few minutes after the BP spill in the gulf.
That's not what equilibrium means.
I remember her consistently applying judiciary favoritism, e.g. allowing a plaintiff to introduce late evidence all the damn time but denying defense evidence because it wasn't declared in discovery.
Lucy Koh is still a judge?! My god, our legal system is a shithole.
That assumes there'd be enough sniping to up the wages of 64,000 workers. I doubt there's that much exchange; most of these people have standing because they could have been affected, even if they in reality would never have been impacted.
Not if the method of doing so is simply to apply a mathemical formula, which in fact all the methods for doing so are.
Actually, you're wrong. Assembling a number of components into a new derivative work is what patents are all about. All machines are an assemblage of screws, levers, gears, pulleys, wheels, and inclined planes, and thus are simply applying a mathematical formula.
When the first photographic expert developed the idea to apply the well-known Discrete Cosine Transform and limit its precision as a method of producing highly-compressible image data at a sacrifice of some visual information, that was simply the application of a mathematical formula. It was also fully patentable, because nobody had thought to do that yet.
Not to mention the Senate can weaken the bill, or strengthen it. Which way will they go?
There's no patent controlling high-speed weaving machines because weaving was invented forever ago. We're well into incremental improvements on high-speed weaving machines.
A patent to control compression of sensory data (visual, audio, etc.) used in multimedia by eliminating some of the data would be fully patentable in 1975. No one at the time had considered lossy codecs. Someone could observe that phonographs are limited and not perfect, but acceptable; from that, they could extrapolate that some data can be removed intentionally as a way of storing sound and visual information digitally in a smaller space.
14 years later, that patent would expire. Then you'd have to patent specific techniques, which would need to be novel. The above patent may be broad-base and used for DCT and psychoacoustics; 15 years later, someone may decide to try encoding video by comparing sequential frames and moving similar areas--that becomes patentable because nobody has done it or thought of it yet.
That's how patents work. They have to follow those rules even if they're software. Some patents abuse these rules and just patent same thing "on a computer"; and some Internet pundits complain that "all software is math and thus unpatentable". Both are wrong.
Yes.
When the software patent issue first came into public debate, I saw a lot of posts about how novel audio encoding schemes shouldn't be patented because "it's just math, you can't patent math!" This was big with AAC and MP3, which people claimed should be unpatentable because they're math.
That would actually be fine, if nobody had ever thought to turn fiber into clothing. Once the broad "fiber becomes clothing" patents wear out, you have to look for ways people have made thread before. "PLANT fiber becomes clothing." "Novel way to process Flax and Hemp fiber into clothing by hybrid chemical wash and bacterial fermentation." "New method and device for spinning fibers into clothing." "New method and device for separating high-quality fibers from weak, short fibers to produce better thread." "Novel method for removing seeds from harvested cotton fibers." "Enhancing the yield of cotton, flax, and cannabis fibers through novel growing methods."
Yes.
Similarly, assembling a wooden crate "with a nail gun" is not an inventive step over "the same way for thousands of years, but with a hammer."
The old-school problem with software patents was patenting everything "on a computer". A known eigenvector transform to separate out sinusoid frequencies from a set of sample points would be written and patented "on a computer", because nobody had ever done it in software before.
People started calling method patents "software patents" at some point. That is to say: people would come up with a brilliant new way to analyze and encode data (i.e. compression, psychoacoustics), and folks would start screaming that it shouldn't be patented.
Hardware patents are really the same way: a system of gears, levers, and cams placed in a certain order create a pair of timed shuttles that can weave fabric at high speeds. Software just feeds a similar list of steps (mathematical transformations) into a computer and does something. Hardware patents are mechanical algorithms; software patents are computational algorithms. Hardware patents take substance in (thread, electrons, steel) and produce an organized substance output (cloth, signal, gears); software patents take data in and produce an organized information output.
There's nothing wrong with software patents. Our problem is patenting shit that everyone knew about for the past 500 years, or retard shit that doesn't mean anything but can be manipulated in court to apply to anything.
I added an IO device that overloads the battery so the phone explodes.
Your situation with the Volvo dealership is similar to Tesla. There are not many Tesla cars on the road, and so there would not be thousands of dealerships in your city.
There would be as much support for Tesla as any other car with similar market share.
No it's not. Raw material usage is going down continually. Intermediate steps and input chemicals is likewise decreasing, and being replaced by lower cost substitutes. The total material content and input stream in both materials and energy continues to decrease, and shows no sign of stopping.
Again: THE MARGINAL COST OF TECHNOLOGY REFINEMENT IS DECREASING. You know those manufacturing processes they use today? If they had refined them the same way 10 years ago, they'd have been cheaper back then than they are now. When they settle on a stable refinement process--like they have with steel--the cost will start to go up.
It's like we've switched from brick to wood, and then from hand tools to power tools, and you're like, "See? The cost of construction always gets cheaper." No. We're using different processes; the costs go up. We now have power tools, wood construction, engineered materials that roll right out, and construction is getting more expensive because we simply can't optimize it anymore.
Inflation is always a thing. The cost of constructing solar panels has been going up. We've been sinking less resources into it--we've been performing the same amount of construction for more output--so the cost per unit has gone down; but, when that levels off, you'll have approximately 1 unit of construction effort to produce 1 unit of solar panel for years on end, and the increasing cost of construction will show up as an increasing cost of goods.
You're comparing the construction of a technology we know how to build well to the construction of a technology we don't know how to make well at all. The construction methods are changing. We're using less costly methods; those methods are, themselves, always going up in cost; we just figure out newer, cheaper methods, until we find the cheapest, most effective, most scalable method. It's not going to spiral down forever.
The first 5 years produces itself, net 0. Then you produce another panel, back at net -5. The next 5 years produce that second panel--there are two panels, so 2.5 years gets you 5 running years. 7.5 years to break even.
Subsection (a) is why C. O. Jones mexican restaurant was forced into a name change after Hooters complained.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur.
You bought a Nigger(TM)! *cut to shot of electric battery-powered lawn mower*
Oh shut your cock hole or I'll hit you with my shillelagh.
Call them the "Blacksmiths" and send them out with hammers. Tackle at your own risk.
"How! Pale face! Bring you the whiskey?"
You ever heard of the Iron Chink? It was so named because the Chinese were the best of the best at fishmongering. If it wasn't a chink, it wasn't worth shit.
I was more thinking the team shouldn't be Redskins because everyone knows Native Americans suck at baseball. They're always too busy conning people into 8,376% APR loans to support their whiskey addiction.
That would be my announcement upon changing the team name, after giving a brief history citing everyone who bitched about the team name. The dropping of the name Redskins would be the most offensive act in history.