The question for me is, why wouldn't any old URL be valid prior art?
I grok that there are differences in the underlying way the URL is handled by the back end technologies, but that's irrelevant really... it still boils down to you are using an 'address' to access 'content'.
"The forms included sections for the Social Insurance Number, Driver's License number, DOB, mother's Maiden name, and other information not normally used by employers."
All of those things have been on nearly every employment application I've filled out in the past 3-4 years.
"At least block your site from being indexed so people don't have to read your mundane dribble when looking for something. Quite frankly, the vast majority of bloggers don't have anything worthwhile to say on their blog and it's simply cluttering up search engines with more crap"
perhaps. but the number of times i've had some hardware/software problem and found the resolution on a site owned by some random person that had the same problem and posted how they got it working for them is relatively high. add in the number of times that someone has had a similar problem and given me a nudge in the right direction and it's even higher. for those reasons, i would rather leave them in the results.
i like having the stop/reload button change a'la opera also, but a wise friend of mine pointed out where it may be problematic (eg. waiting an overly long time for a page to load, decide screw it, click on 'stop' right as the page finishes loading and so hit reload instead... ) I can see that being especially true for dial up users (do such creatures still exist?)
From H.R.29 Sec. 2.5.b: "... preventing reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, a component of computer software by... causing such a component that the owner or authorized user has properly removed or disabled to automatically reinstall or reactivate on the computer. "
nevermind the info collection, i want to know if this means that when I replace notepad.exe with one of the many free (as in beer and speech) variants, and then windows changes it back to protect me from 'unwanted' changes, that it'd be illegal? (probably not, since it could be argued that I hadn't 'properly' removed it... )
Slashdot Mirror
The question for me is, why wouldn't any old URL be valid prior art?
... it still boils down to you are using an 'address' to access 'content'.
I grok that there are differences in the underlying way the URL is handled by the back end technologies, but that's irrelevant really
"The forms included sections for the Social Insurance Number, Driver's License number, DOB, mother's Maiden name, and other information not normally used by employers."
All of those things have been on nearly every employment application I've filled out in the past 3-4 years.
"At least block your site from being indexed so people don't have to read your mundane dribble when looking for something. Quite frankly, the vast majority of bloggers don't have anything worthwhile to say on their blog and it's simply cluttering up search engines with more crap"
perhaps. but the number of times i've had some hardware/software problem and found the resolution on a site owned by some random person that had the same problem and posted how they got it working for them is relatively high. add in the number of times that someone has had a similar problem and given me a nudge in the right direction and it's even higher. for those reasons, i would rather leave them in the results.
i like having the stop/reload button change a'la opera also, but a wise friend of mine pointed out where it may be problematic (eg. waiting an overly long time for a page to load, decide screw it, click on 'stop' right as the page finishes loading and so hit reload instead ... ) I can see that being especially true for dial up users (do such creatures still exist?)
From H.R.29 Sec. 2.5.b: ... causing such a component that the owner or authorized user has properly removed or disabled to automatically reinstall or reactivate on the computer. "
... )
"... preventing reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, a component of computer software by
nevermind the info collection, i want to know if this means that when I replace notepad.exe with one of the many free (as in beer and speech) variants, and then windows changes it back to protect me from 'unwanted' changes, that it'd be illegal? (probably not, since it could be argued that I hadn't 'properly' removed it