There is a hell of a lot more going on then just stamping "approve" on the thing [patent].
There is a review process where an examiner searches for prior art that matches or closely matches the application. Then, in probably 90% or more of cases, a rejection letter for some or all of the claims is sent to the attorney (or the applicant if filing without an attorney). After a few months, a response from the attorney comes. This can now go one of two ways. If the attorney argued your prior art is not applicable, you can 1) uphold your decision, in which it become a "final rejection" or 2) change your rejection in which case you basically repeat the first step again.
The other method is they pre-date your prior art, using proof of older design date, if your rejection wasn't under 102(b) that is. You can now write a rejection with new prior art and this becomes a "final rejection". However, these "final rejections" are not the end of the process. They can either make a last ditch effort to amend to your liking (and probably get their "stamp"), they can basically repay the filing fees and start over with another two rounds, or they can file an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI, I think that is right.). If they still don't like the decision they can appeal to the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), and in the very unlikely case, all the way to the Supreme Court.
I recommend three pieces of literature before you say they just stamped "approve" on everything. Read title 35 of the United States Code (35 USC), title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulation (37 CFR), and the Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). I am pretty sure that is the right CFR, but all of those documents will give you an idea of what a patent examiner deals with. I gave you a very rough and very brief explanation of the procedure above. And to end this, I was a Patent Examiner, so yes, I do know something about this.
Not that I want to side with the US on this but I can understand why they might want to make online gambling illegal. First, it is considered a vice by many and as such, even if legal, they usually want to put controls on it.
Alcohol? The 1920s? Failure? We have proven that prohibition does not work. The government should not be in the business of enforcing morals on people. Because "a few" or "most" think gambling is a "vice" does not make it wrong. When AL was trying to add a Lottery there was a sign I saw that read, "What would Jesus do?" One of my friends had a great response, "Hang there and watch?"
Liquor is legal but there are certains laws put in place to restrict it. Sex is legal but laws restrict it again. Gambling is legal but there are laws to restrict it too.
And these are all STATE laws. Alcohol used to be all sorts of ages in the US, until the government threatened to pull highway money. Of course, I think a few states are now willing to take that risk. Sex is again, restricted by state. 16 is legal in some, 18 in others. Prostitution even has some legality. Gambling is again, a state issue. Most federal laws against certain types of gambling were an attempt to stop mobsters from making book. Instead, they bought themselves a state, it is called Nevada. State lotteries, horse racing are legal in even more states.
I really do believe this was protectionist measures. Those casino owners have A LOT of money to spend. I really believe this is nothing more then either: a) a moralist witch-hunt or more likely b) protecting the interests of Nevada, New Jersey, and any other state/locality where there are legal casinos.
There is not a patent here. This is a published application. Filed in 2006, not 2005, with priority to 2005 through a provisional application, which almost gives it the same level of priority as if it were file in 2005. Someone wake me up WHEN this gets issued and not when it is just an application that quite possibly hasn't even been viewed yet. (USPTO has almost a 3 yr backlog in some arts.)
A market requires actual money to be changing hands. As such, RedHat, Novell and Linspire are about the only ones in "the market" of selling a distribution. Add Canonical if you want to talk about the support market.
Wrong. First, add Mandriva, since they also offer to sell you a distro. Two, you do not need to be exchanging money to be directly involved in, influenced by, or influencing a market. There are several free software tools that are used by large corporations, and these free tools have affected the way some companies that charge for products make their software. In the same way, that the people making free software are watching the market to see what the people who could use their product would want. Also note, the market for a lot of distro's is user desktops. The only one of your three that makes most of its money off of user installs is Linspire, most user desktop installs for RH and Novell come from FC and openSuSE. You see, there can be a thing such as a "free" market. Not the ideological "free market" of economics, but a market where products don't cost money.
On the other hand, the insane amount of fragmentation we've seen in the "screw you guys, I'm starting my own distro" space has nothing to do with market forces and everything to do with geek egos.
Geek egos? Please. You really have not been following the Linux world that closely have you. Any complaints and splits coming from Debian are well founded. The distro has gone stagnant due to poor management. Some distros previously based on it are now based on Ubuntu (or are switching to it), which has become a better Debian. The difference here and what you will see in most situations is that here the licensing allows you to split off and "fork" into a new Distro. If licensing allowed, do you not think a few Devs at Microsoft would probably have split off and made Windows a little less shitty by now? (Sorry, that might have been a bit low.) To say that Linux distros do not affect or are not affected by "the market" is absurd.
How is what YouTube any different? Say your mythical ISP in question was, Geocities (now Yahoo). They have given you server space to host with for free, but this free page comes with advertising. Now, you are the one uploading infringing content, but they are the ones directly making money off of the pages with infringing content. Using your argument, the hosting company no longer is protected by the safe harbor clause and is now liable for damages. Of course, the company in question is not the one uploading the content, merely hosting it. Also, a request could be sent (and probably would be sent) to the host company for removal and not the "owner" of the page, since anonymity usually means going through the host company first anyway.
In the end, I think YouTube is no different then a web hosting company offering free space, so long as you put up with their ads. They do not directly control what is uploaded and therefore cannot be liable for its uploading. The fact that they make money should have absolutely nothing to do with it, since the DMCA does not say, "if you make money, this clause does not apply." I believe any ruling against YouTube that went against the safe harbor clause would go all the way to the Supreme Court, which might actually agree with what Congress apparently intended with this horrible law.
If any argument saying they make money off of infringement, and are therefore liable, is successful, it would destroy the safe harbor clause.
I'm not convinced of their argument that they are genuinely ignorant either - enough stuff seems to get pulled at quickly for decency reasons makes this seem weak.
I am pretty sure YouTube works on a reporting system for decency issues. As such, if someone tags an item it gets reviewed and pulled. I do not think many people are going around YouTube tagging infringing content, their reasons could be various. The DMCA puts the responsibility on the copyright holders to provide takedown notices. Viacom is not on good ground with the law in this case.
Well, Buffalo Technology offers this media player/DVD player, which has a download utility for Linux, though I have never tested it. Newegg has it for $230. I guess my complaint would be about the lack of support for some formats and the fact that firmware upgrades have gone about dead. It might not be bad if it had an HDMI or DVI output, but the components handle 1080i fairly well.
Just a quick example of a device that should work with Linux.
The patent # is actually 7028023. The summary quoted number is the application number. Also, this is OLD, issued almost a full year ago. I actually think we had an argument about this long before now. I am starting to wonder if some of these anonymous submissions for these are actually coming from examiners with a clue. (Trust me there are some.) And look, I found it.
But, oddly enough, I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses) to prosecute people and, at least in those cases, that's all the evidence they need!
Okay, to explain what has probably been said on slashdot a million times already, the burden of proof in a CIVIL case, like the suits by the RIAA and the MPAA, is considerably lower then the burden of proof in a CRIMINAL case. Now, I cannot recall a case yet, where the RIAA or MPAA have actually won in court. Most of them, as I recall, are settled out of court for considerably less, or the RIAA drops the suit when someone fights back hard enough and starts poking holes in their flaky evidence.
Considering this, am I shocked that a legally requisitioned computer can be submitted & used as evidence? Not really--though I should be. It's a shame what the "Justice System" is becoming these days.
Why should you be shocked? If you commit a crime and are charged with said crime, why shouldn't a legally obtained warrant allow a jurisdiction to seize your computer and review it for potential evidence? If anything, the courts would be keeping up in that regard, instead of keeping notes or writing messages on paper, criminal might be keeping track of information on their personal computer. In this particular case, they obviously determined that she was searching the internet and found out WHAT she was supposedly searching for. It might not convict her by itself, but it would show a level of pre-meditation, if the jury sees it that way.
I guess I could stretch this and look for people who search for "to build a fire" and charge them with all unsolved arsons in their area. Boy scouts & Jack London fans beware!
You have no probable cause. This sort of blanket searching would never fly in most courts and might only be allowed under convoluted items in the PATRIOT ACT. You would first have to suspect the individual of arson, have sufficient evidence to get a court issued warrant, find enough evidence on the PC to get a subpoena for the information from Google, and subsequently add evidence to the case. I am willing to bet this wasn't the beginning of their case.
You know the difference between blind faith and a theory like this? In blind faith, the religious do not need proof, they believe what they real, rather evidence proved otherwise or not. (There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and natural selection, yet many people of "blind faith" refuse to believe it.) Where this theory would be studied, tested, and some attempt would be made to prove it. You know what, if a better theory came along, people would even begin to accept it more then they would this theory. Hawking himself appears to have changed his own theory on the creation of the universe, and if that is the case, that alone make his ideas and theory above "blind faith."
Fanatical? He actually provided more counterpoints and claims then your abusive response to him. First, you insult slashdot and call it "total shit". Then you label him "fanatical" because he likes the Nintendo better then the PSP? I too have played both (both my younger brothers own PSPs, I own a DS) and I much prefer the DS. I think the games are more entertaining, there are fewer re-hashes (PSP has been said to have a lot of poor PS1 and PS2 clones) and the re-hashes are actually pretty good re-hashes, adding enough elements to at least make them new. I also liked the lower price point (I was the only one of the three boys to buy his own console), and I liked the fact that there was innovative gameplay. I made a calculated decision before purchasing my DS, of course it is also a holdover until I can get a Wii. (Note: I am not a straight Nintendo fanboy. I would like a Xbox 360, but I want a price drop first. I play most my games on a PC, and I own a PS2, though I bought it used. The only console I purchased at launch was a Dreamcast, which I love. I have tried getting a Wii since launch.)
Apparently, you don't argue with fanatics, but apparently you are willing to insult them (calling him some loser kid) and possibly insult his religion (whether Nintendo or otherwise). Then you call his life pathetic? Shame on you. I will proudly stand here and say I like Nintendo, and damnit I might be a fanatic. I am by no means a kid, I am actually in my late 20s and have a college degree. I live in a metropolitan area (with a lower CoL then NYC, thank god), and I make a fairly handy sum of cash (enough that public transit ain't my option). So please, do not call his life, nor other Nintendo fans' lives pathetic merely because we fully believe in the products Nintendo makes.
For generations (possibly equating to millenia), we thought the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Last I checked, I am living on a sphere, we are not the center of anything (except the moon's and man-made satellites' orbits). For just as long, man had no real concept of gravity, genetics, or disease. Heck, even some principles that became accepted and are Laws (Newton's Laws) are not perfect models, as we didn't learn until much later still.
Science is not exact. To definitively state that human production of CO2 is the only cause of global warming is absurd, and screams of someone with an agenda. While the opposite side, that we have no influence and that global warming is "just a fad", also screams agenda. The problem is that the scientific community seems unwilling to have an actual conversation on this. Someone decided "it must be fact" and so it was labelled. There are dozens of causes that have been unresearched or under-researched. Honestly, I believe the truth lies somewhere between CO2 emission and natural factors, like Solar Output, changing currents, and who knows what else.
But to say that the cause of global warming is "not up for debate" spits right in the face of the scientific method. If you read the article, it doesn't sound like the scientist is denying global warming; he is just stating that human CO2 emission may not be the only cause (or the key cause).
If any of these "deniers" are ever proven right, I hope we look back on some of the persecution and mistreatment these people received with almost the same level of shame and disbelief in which we view the treatment of the early scientists who showed that the Earth revolved around the Sun and that the world was indeed, mostly round.
Actually, there are "hidden" APIs to which developers have been trying to gain access for a long time. In fact, these "hidden" APIs are a big reason that wine doesn't run all programs and doesn't run many programs as fast as Windows can. It isn't just because they are translating the API, it is because Microsoft has obsfuscated a lot of its API and has, as we are referring to them, "hidden APIs".
Also, you incorrectly assume that no one else knows about the "hidden APIs". This would be the perfect example of what an NDA would be used for, which I am sure plenty of companies dealing with Microsoft have signed. You also incorrectly assume the DoJ will do something. Need I point out that the DoJ went limp on Microsoft, and the biggest hurt to MS stateside has been from individual states and not from the US Government. (Recall, Microsoft was originally called to break-up, but the appeals court saw that didn't happen.)
Actually, the US has not really stood to tall against any monopoly lately. The break-up of AT&T has now proven to be a joke, and while AT&T had to make some concessions in order to acquire Bellsouth (subsequently becoming the sole owner of Cingular), those concessions were made to the FCC and not the FTC. (Personally, I find the somewhat cyclical history of AT&T interesting.) The EU might be able to force MS to do some things, but I will guarantee you that Microsoft would say, "We don't have to do that in the US though, since the EU has no power there." So it will be good for Europe, I guess...but the US still will have a convicted monopoly doing business as usual.
This sounds like a frustrated PS3 owner, let me address you.
What Wii games? Did Nintendo actually release some?
Or did you mean old GameCube games with some pointing bolted on?
Or did you mean PS2 games that publishers dumped on the system with some pointing bolted on?
Well, at least Wii owners can play their previous consoles games on the new console. And if they have PS2 games with "bolted on" pointing, well that might be beating PS3s own PS2 compatibility!
Or did you mean that awesome 'check the weather' game they have on the Wii?
Or did you mean those overpriced emulator games Nintendo has been trickling out to milk money out of desperate to play something Wii owners?
Or did you mean the most common Wii game of all - watching the machine gather dust. Fun for your whole family!
Checking the weather is nice, I guarantee if the PS3 was doing it, it would be the shit, right? Not like Sony hasn't stolen every other good Nintendo idea and renamed it. You know, like that motion controller and this latest "innovation".
Overpriced emulator games? It is a legal, affordable system for downloading and playing old video games. Classics that often stood the test of time. It says something for Nintendo and their audience that it works, because Nintendo fans are real gamers, and not just frat boys or rich kids with money to spend. I am a gamer, with my PC (you know the real game machine) and my DS Lite. I am still hunting for my Wii, to hell with an overpriced PS3 and I will wait for a 360 price drop.
Let's hear it for Nintendo innovation!
Indeed lets. Because it has led to more console sold, and a larger shortage. You know why you can find PS3's all over the place? No one wants them, no one can afford them, and I think some people actually realize they just ripped off a lot of Nintendo's ideas at the last minute. Add to that the PS3 has NO games (even fewer then Nintendo) and has made asses out of them selves through this whole thing (Yes, it is an honor to pay $600 for a console.). All Hail Nintendo, and the return of the true Japanese gaming power. (Stealing it away from an over-rated electronics maker.)
"Okay, i need to install my ATI drivers, lets see. Go to their website, see what's there. Oh look, Drivers, Windows Vista, the box said it was a Radeon, X800, and download. Clickthrough the install, next, next, next. Ah, done, no restart."
Installing drivers and windows == restart, especially graphics drivers. Unlike Linux, they cannot seem to just shut off "X" and restart it.
Hint: Synaptic has a search and the button is pretty clearly defined. Trust me, this process could be done without making your head explode. Worst case install Automatix, which you will see (http://www.getautomatix.com/) is even easier to use and will add some other proprietary installs with relative ease.
How is that much worse then Windows? Let us recall briefly that default installs of Windows still require you to install real nvidia or ATI drivers. Now, to run this in parallel...
Open Synapic, select Settings -> Repositories, tick the box that says "Proprietary drivers for devices (restricted)", Close. Select Sections (it's the default), scroll down to the bottom and select "restricted". Click on the box next to linux-restricted-modules-2.6.10.5-1. Click apply. Watch Synapic do it's thing, restart X. Open IE (or Firefox or Opera), click on the Address Bar, type http://www.nvidia.com/ or http://www.ati.com/. Navigate through the website to the Drivers section. Find the set of drivers most appropriate for your system. Download your drivers. Double-click the downloaded drivers to load the new versions. Click through the settings. When installation completes, restart windows.
Now tell me, how is this SO much harder then using Linux? And, yes, the original drivers in Windows can affect performance of things other than games and make the OS about as unusable as the original poster is claiming KDE was.
The first problem is that most of these laws have totally ignored the rating system currently in place. They use vaguely defined terms that could be interpretted in a variety of ways. It could actually result in T games being considered too inappropriate and result in stores being fined for selling a game that was rated to the purchasers level anyway.
Another problem is that even if they do not ignore the ratings system, most judges are still going to argue that you are preventing the expression of ideas. Stores may stop selling certains games in state because it becomes too difficult to control the sell of games. This is, of course, more likely with stores where video games are not their primary business. I wouldn't be surprised if a few judges also see the self-regulated movie industry and say, "They can do it, and so can video game retailers."
There is also this confusing idea that since the law, "only protects the children", then it is fair game. First, it is not the job of the federal government or states to raise your children. Second, kids have as much right to free expression and to open ideas as the 40 yr old. Does this mean your kid should see every R-rated movie or play M or AO rated games? No, but it also means they should be allowed to explore them with proper PARENTAL supervision, not GOVERNMENTAL supervision.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I won't use any "chilling effect" and I even avoid the "slippery slope," but at least my argument isn't an Ignoratio elenchi. (God, I love some of these terms.)
To further point out: Colossal Squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) != Giant Squid (Genus = Architeuthis). The Giant squid is one of multiple squid belonging to the Genus Architeuthis. The Colossal Squid is the only member of the Genus Mesonychoteuthis, well at least the only "known" and/or "living" one.
Though, your comment might still apply since they are also deep sea dwellers, they too may contain ammonia or some other substance to help them survive the depths.
Yes, you are completely right... the USPTO is one of those rarest things... a Government profit center. It's revenues come from the fees for the patents it awards. One granted patent = one billable fee. Actually, if a Patent survives its terms it is two or three billable fees. There are maintenance fees to keep a patent alive.
This might explain why the USPTO shows so little interest in making sure that the patents it awards are of high quality. For the USPTO it makes absolutely no economic sense to it spend more time on individual patents than the absolute minimum. Actually, it has a lot to do with time constraints and the backload of patents. The system is already upwards of 3 years or more behind in some fields. The problem is they are trying to catch up and do not have the time to do it. They also do not have the money since Congress funnels a lot of what they make to the government departments that LOSE money.
Honestly, one of the best things that could happen to the PTO is the ability to keep more or all of its money. This could be spent to hire more examiners, thereby spreading the load out over more people. I will say, they also need to re-examine the "count" system used to determine the Patent Examiner output. There is far more prior art to examine then there once was, and with more examiners you could offer up more time for examination. There also need to be limitations placed on continuation practice, but I could probably go on for days about ways to tweak the USPTO back into line. A good start would be SCOTUS reversing field and saying software and business methods are unpatentable.
Actually, none of your money is spent to fund the USPTO. The agency is completely funded by the fees it raises for examinations, re-examinations and the myriad of other fees associated with the patent system. Actually, a lot of the money the PTO makes winds up going back to fund other government agencies.
You sure we live in the same America? This is a country where a child can scream abuse for a spanking, and it is typically on the parents' shoulders to prove their innocence. Legislation was offered up in California to make it illegal to spank children under the age of 4. My mom was raised in a household where you were punished for misbehaving, and my grandfather was known for sending the boys out to pick the switches with which they would be punished. Could you imagine if a parent did that today? You leave a mark on your child and you will probably get a call from social services.
The real problem is parenting has become some sort of balance between punishment and political correctness. You'd better be careful how you raise your children or the government might come and take them away. What I love is that we now have the same people complaining that the youth do not show their elders respect, are often the same ones who are making it illegal to punish your children. Actually, we might not have needed these tougher laws if people were raised right in the first place.
You know, anyone I hear someone say they don't care for a product why does someone come along and say "you don't like [insert technology here] because you can't afford it." or roughly insinuate the same. It's a real nice backhanded argumentum ad hominem for when people really don't have much of a case to debate with the person but don't like what the person said. Cute. Because I can name a number of cases where this has been the case. You will find a number of people in this world who will berate things merely out of some degree of envy or jealousy. Are there people who do not want HD and could afford it? Yes, but he blatantly attacked a lack of content which is a terribly false assumption as I can list a fair number of HD channels.
Why do you join in on the lack of content? I know a lot of adopters who are sports fans, and maybe the fact that there is a good deal of sporting content in HD has something to do with that. Most prime time shows are now shown in HDTV. Of the top 20 rated shows from 1/17 - 1/21 of this year, I know that 14 of them are in HD. We have at least one local newcast in the DC metro in HD. If you get premium movie channels, there is an HD version available for the main channel of each. HD On-Demand is offered here. PBS has HD content and so does Discovery channel. INHD has shown movies older than me that have been converted to HD and they look GOOD. I hate using this as a source, but it will have to do.
One good channel doesn't validate dropping $100 let alone a thousand to most people -- sorry. Could I buy it? Sure. Just paid my new car off in 2 years. Would I care to waste my money on it at this point when I can wait 2 years, get a much higher quality set, and most likely 10-20x the amount of content? No thanks, I think-- you know, I'll invest some of that cash and maybe purchase a computer upgrade or two. I love your wait two years argument. You talk about spending money on computer upgrades, so you should know as well as anyone else that you can always wait for more features, for more power, or for lower prices, but at some point, you have to say it is time to invest. BTW, a lot of HDTV can be had for under $1000 if you know where to look. The price as actually gotten to the point where the difference between a regular definition set and an HD set is close enough to get some people to switch when their old TV blows up.
If someone wants to argue against HDTV, can you please come up with a better argument then a lack of content?
DiscoveryHD (which is worth it), TNT-HD, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, Comcast SportsNet HD, INHD (which shows VS. NHL games), the OTA stuff (which living as far away from the transmitters as I do, it is a good thing to have cable). There is also Universal HD (I don't get it, but I know it exist.), HBO HD, Showtime HD, Starz HD, Cinemax HD (I think), and HD On-Demand.
There is tons of content, and it isn't all crap. If you watches Sports then ESPN and ESPN2 in HD are both well worth it. If you like the movie channels, then why not have HBO, Showtime, Starz, et. al. There is also a good share of content on Discovery HD that I enjoy watching.
Apparently, the satellite companies are adding tons more HD channels, which is hopefully going to start driving Cable Companies to increase the numbers as well. So, do you not like HDTV because you think "the content is still crap", you haven't watched enough of it to know, or do you not like HDTV because you do not have it or cannot afford it? (BTW, if you think Discovery HD is crap, are you sure you belong with the nerds on slashdot?)
Honestly, I do not think Maine cares about their highway funds. There are not a lot of US routes through Maine, the only Interstate is I-95, which is tolled for portion where it is the Maine Turnpike. I think there could actually be a potential here for Maine, if they truly do not care about the highway funds. Lower the drinking age back to 18. I am sure a lot of kids in the parts closer to Canada already make trips across the border for alcohol, so why not just keep them in state and keep the money at home. It could also attract college students and other individuals from Boston and NH, who want to get alcohol legally.
Now, to argue the drinking age. Here is why 21 is bad. Is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Is binge drinking a problem? Yes, but one that has been a bit overblown. How to you solve both at once? Lower the age to 16. Here is why. Where do most 16 yr olds live? At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home. By having the drinking age 21, people are well into college before they can legally drink. For many college students, it is their first time away from home for any extended time. Without the parents around, the children will play and drinking becomes an issue. Since it is their first times drinking (and they are "unsupervised") they wound up into trouble situations. I could also use that old (and possible flawed) argument, "At 18 you are old enough to fight and die for this country, but you are not old enough to enjoy a little bit of alcohol." You will find that in the countries where drinking is legal, the countries with drinking ages of 21 are in the minority.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a hell of a lot more going on then just stamping "approve" on the thing [patent].
There is a review process where an examiner searches for prior art that matches or closely matches the application. Then, in probably 90% or more of cases, a rejection letter for some or all of the claims is sent to the attorney (or the applicant if filing without an attorney). After a few months, a response from the attorney comes. This can now go one of two ways. If the attorney argued your prior art is not applicable, you can 1) uphold your decision, in which it become a "final rejection" or 2) change your rejection in which case you basically repeat the first step again.
The other method is they pre-date your prior art, using proof of older design date, if your rejection wasn't under 102(b) that is. You can now write a rejection with new prior art and this becomes a "final rejection". However, these "final rejections" are not the end of the process. They can either make a last ditch effort to amend to your liking (and probably get their "stamp"), they can basically repay the filing fees and start over with another two rounds, or they can file an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI, I think that is right.). If they still don't like the decision they can appeal to the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), and in the very unlikely case, all the way to the Supreme Court.
I recommend three pieces of literature before you say they just stamped "approve" on everything. Read title 35 of the United States Code (35 USC), title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulation (37 CFR), and the Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). I am pretty sure that is the right CFR, but all of those documents will give you an idea of what a patent examiner deals with. I gave you a very rough and very brief explanation of the procedure above. And to end this, I was a Patent Examiner, so yes, I do know something about this.
Not that I want to side with the US on this but I can understand why they might want to make online gambling illegal. First, it is considered a vice by many and as such, even if legal, they usually want to put controls on it.
Alcohol? The 1920s? Failure? We have proven that prohibition does not work. The government should not be in the business of enforcing morals on people. Because "a few" or "most" think gambling is a "vice" does not make it wrong. When AL was trying to add a Lottery there was a sign I saw that read, "What would Jesus do?" One of my friends had a great response, "Hang there and watch?"
Liquor is legal but there are certains laws put in place to restrict it. Sex is legal but laws restrict it again. Gambling is legal but there are laws to restrict it too.
And these are all STATE laws. Alcohol used to be all sorts of ages in the US, until the government threatened to pull highway money. Of course, I think a few states are now willing to take that risk. Sex is again, restricted by state. 16 is legal in some, 18 in others. Prostitution even has some legality. Gambling is again, a state issue. Most federal laws against certain types of gambling were an attempt to stop mobsters from making book. Instead, they bought themselves a state, it is called Nevada. State lotteries, horse racing are legal in even more states.
I really do believe this was protectionist measures. Those casino owners have A LOT of money to spend. I really believe this is nothing more then either: a) a moralist witch-hunt or more likely b) protecting the interests of Nevada, New Jersey, and any other state/locality where there are legal casinos.
There is not a patent here. This is a published application. Filed in 2006, not 2005, with priority to 2005 through a provisional application, which almost gives it the same level of priority as if it were file in 2005. Someone wake me up WHEN this gets issued and not when it is just an application that quite possibly hasn't even been viewed yet. (USPTO has almost a 3 yr backlog in some arts.)
A market requires actual money to be changing hands. As such, RedHat, Novell and Linspire are about the only ones in "the market" of selling a distribution. Add Canonical if you want to talk about the support market.
Wrong. First, add Mandriva, since they also offer to sell you a distro. Two, you do not need to be exchanging money to be directly involved in, influenced by, or influencing a market. There are several free software tools that are used by large corporations, and these free tools have affected the way some companies that charge for products make their software. In the same way, that the people making free software are watching the market to see what the people who could use their product would want. Also note, the market for a lot of distro's is user desktops. The only one of your three that makes most of its money off of user installs is Linspire, most user desktop installs for RH and Novell come from FC and openSuSE. You see, there can be a thing such as a "free" market. Not the ideological "free market" of economics, but a market where products don't cost money.
On the other hand, the insane amount of fragmentation we've seen in the "screw you guys, I'm starting my own distro" space has nothing to do with market forces and everything to do with geek egos.
Geek egos? Please. You really have not been following the Linux world that closely have you. Any complaints and splits coming from Debian are well founded. The distro has gone stagnant due to poor management. Some distros previously based on it are now based on Ubuntu (or are switching to it), which has become a better Debian. The difference here and what you will see in most situations is that here the licensing allows you to split off and "fork" into a new Distro. If licensing allowed, do you not think a few Devs at Microsoft would probably have split off and made Windows a little less shitty by now? (Sorry, that might have been a bit low.) To say that Linux distros do not affect or are not affected by "the market" is absurd.
How is what YouTube any different? Say your mythical ISP in question was, Geocities (now Yahoo). They have given you server space to host with for free, but this free page comes with advertising. Now, you are the one uploading infringing content, but they are the ones directly making money off of the pages with infringing content. Using your argument, the hosting company no longer is protected by the safe harbor clause and is now liable for damages. Of course, the company in question is not the one uploading the content, merely hosting it. Also, a request could be sent (and probably would be sent) to the host company for removal and not the "owner" of the page, since anonymity usually means going through the host company first anyway.
In the end, I think YouTube is no different then a web hosting company offering free space, so long as you put up with their ads. They do not directly control what is uploaded and therefore cannot be liable for its uploading. The fact that they make money should have absolutely nothing to do with it, since the DMCA does not say, "if you make money, this clause does not apply." I believe any ruling against YouTube that went against the safe harbor clause would go all the way to the Supreme Court, which might actually agree with what Congress apparently intended with this horrible law.
If any argument saying they make money off of infringement, and are therefore liable, is successful, it would destroy the safe harbor clause.
I'm not convinced of their argument that they are genuinely ignorant either - enough stuff seems to get pulled at quickly for decency reasons makes this seem weak.
I am pretty sure YouTube works on a reporting system for decency issues. As such, if someone tags an item it gets reviewed and pulled. I do not think many people are going around YouTube tagging infringing content, their reasons could be various. The DMCA puts the responsibility on the copyright holders to provide takedown notices. Viacom is not on good ground with the law in this case.
Well, Buffalo Technology offers this media player/DVD player, which has a download utility for Linux, though I have never tested it. Newegg has it for $230. I guess my complaint would be about the lack of support for some formats and the fact that firmware upgrades have gone about dead. It might not be bad if it had an HDMI or DVI output, but the components handle 1080i fairly well.
Just a quick example of a device that should work with Linux.
The patent # is actually 7028023. The summary quoted number is the application number. Also, this is OLD, issued almost a full year ago. I actually think we had an argument about this long before now. I am starting to wonder if some of these anonymous submissions for these are actually coming from examiners with a clue. (Trust me there are some.) And look, I found it.
But, oddly enough, I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses) to prosecute people and, at least in those cases, that's all the evidence they need!
Okay, to explain what has probably been said on slashdot a million times already, the burden of proof in a CIVIL case, like the suits by the RIAA and the MPAA, is considerably lower then the burden of proof in a CRIMINAL case. Now, I cannot recall a case yet, where the RIAA or MPAA have actually won in court. Most of them, as I recall, are settled out of court for considerably less, or the RIAA drops the suit when someone fights back hard enough and starts poking holes in their flaky evidence.
Considering this, am I shocked that a legally requisitioned computer can be submitted & used as evidence? Not really--though I should be. It's a shame what the "Justice System" is becoming these days.
Why should you be shocked? If you commit a crime and are charged with said crime, why shouldn't a legally obtained warrant allow a jurisdiction to seize your computer and review it for potential evidence? If anything, the courts would be keeping up in that regard, instead of keeping notes or writing messages on paper, criminal might be keeping track of information on their personal computer. In this particular case, they obviously determined that she was searching the internet and found out WHAT she was supposedly searching for. It might not convict her by itself, but it would show a level of pre-meditation, if the jury sees it that way.
I guess I could stretch this and look for people who search for "to build a fire" and charge them with all unsolved arsons in their area. Boy scouts & Jack London fans beware!
You have no probable cause. This sort of blanket searching would never fly in most courts and might only be allowed under convoluted items in the PATRIOT ACT. You would first have to suspect the individual of arson, have sufficient evidence to get a court issued warrant, find enough evidence on the PC to get a subpoena for the information from Google, and subsequently add evidence to the case. I am willing to bet this wasn't the beginning of their case.
You know the difference between blind faith and a theory like this? In blind faith, the religious do not need proof, they believe what they real, rather evidence proved otherwise or not. (There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and natural selection, yet many people of "blind faith" refuse to believe it.) Where this theory would be studied, tested, and some attempt would be made to prove it. You know what, if a better theory came along, people would even begin to accept it more then they would this theory. Hawking himself appears to have changed his own theory on the creation of the universe, and if that is the case, that alone make his ideas and theory above "blind faith."
Fanatical? He actually provided more counterpoints and claims then your abusive response to him. First, you insult slashdot and call it "total shit". Then you label him "fanatical" because he likes the Nintendo better then the PSP? I too have played both (both my younger brothers own PSPs, I own a DS) and I much prefer the DS. I think the games are more entertaining, there are fewer re-hashes (PSP has been said to have a lot of poor PS1 and PS2 clones) and the re-hashes are actually pretty good re-hashes, adding enough elements to at least make them new. I also liked the lower price point (I was the only one of the three boys to buy his own console), and I liked the fact that there was innovative gameplay. I made a calculated decision before purchasing my DS, of course it is also a holdover until I can get a Wii. (Note: I am not a straight Nintendo fanboy. I would like a Xbox 360, but I want a price drop first. I play most my games on a PC, and I own a PS2, though I bought it used. The only console I purchased at launch was a Dreamcast, which I love. I have tried getting a Wii since launch.)
Apparently, you don't argue with fanatics, but apparently you are willing to insult them (calling him some loser kid) and possibly insult his religion (whether Nintendo or otherwise). Then you call his life pathetic? Shame on you. I will proudly stand here and say I like Nintendo, and damnit I might be a fanatic. I am by no means a kid, I am actually in my late 20s and have a college degree. I live in a metropolitan area (with a lower CoL then NYC, thank god), and I make a fairly handy sum of cash (enough that public transit ain't my option). So please, do not call his life, nor other Nintendo fans' lives pathetic merely because we fully believe in the products Nintendo makes.
For generations (possibly equating to millenia), we thought the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Last I checked, I am living on a sphere, we are not the center of anything (except the moon's and man-made satellites' orbits). For just as long, man had no real concept of gravity, genetics, or disease. Heck, even some principles that became accepted and are Laws (Newton's Laws) are not perfect models, as we didn't learn until much later still.
Science is not exact. To definitively state that human production of CO2 is the only cause of global warming is absurd, and screams of someone with an agenda. While the opposite side, that we have no influence and that global warming is "just a fad", also screams agenda. The problem is that the scientific community seems unwilling to have an actual conversation on this. Someone decided "it must be fact" and so it was labelled. There are dozens of causes that have been unresearched or under-researched. Honestly, I believe the truth lies somewhere between CO2 emission and natural factors, like Solar Output, changing currents, and who knows what else.
But to say that the cause of global warming is "not up for debate" spits right in the face of the scientific method. If you read the article, it doesn't sound like the scientist is denying global warming; he is just stating that human CO2 emission may not be the only cause (or the key cause).
If any of these "deniers" are ever proven right, I hope we look back on some of the persecution and mistreatment these people received with almost the same level of shame and disbelief in which we view the treatment of the early scientists who showed that the Earth revolved around the Sun and that the world was indeed, mostly round.
Actually, there are "hidden" APIs to which developers have been trying to gain access for a long time. In fact, these "hidden" APIs are a big reason that wine doesn't run all programs and doesn't run many programs as fast as Windows can. It isn't just because they are translating the API, it is because Microsoft has obsfuscated a lot of its API and has, as we are referring to them, "hidden APIs".
Also, you incorrectly assume that no one else knows about the "hidden APIs". This would be the perfect example of what an NDA would be used for, which I am sure plenty of companies dealing with Microsoft have signed. You also incorrectly assume the DoJ will do something. Need I point out that the DoJ went limp on Microsoft, and the biggest hurt to MS stateside has been from individual states and not from the US Government. (Recall, Microsoft was originally called to break-up, but the appeals court saw that didn't happen.)
Actually, the US has not really stood to tall against any monopoly lately. The break-up of AT&T has now proven to be a joke, and while AT&T had to make some concessions in order to acquire Bellsouth (subsequently becoming the sole owner of Cingular), those concessions were made to the FCC and not the FTC. (Personally, I find the somewhat cyclical history of AT&T interesting.) The EU might be able to force MS to do some things, but I will guarantee you that Microsoft would say, "We don't have to do that in the US though, since the EU has no power there." So it will be good for Europe, I guess...but the US still will have a convicted monopoly doing business as usual.
Actually, only Manny Both-Hanz died. Alas, Tag and Bink could not save him...
This sounds like a frustrated PS3 owner, let me address you.
What Wii games? Did Nintendo actually release some?
Or did you mean old GameCube games with some pointing bolted on?
Or did you mean PS2 games that publishers dumped on the system with some pointing bolted on?
Well, at least Wii owners can play their previous consoles games on the new console. And if they have PS2 games with "bolted on" pointing, well that might be beating PS3s own PS2 compatibility!
Or did you mean that awesome 'check the weather' game they have on the Wii?
Or did you mean those overpriced emulator games Nintendo has been trickling out to milk money out of desperate to play something Wii owners?
Or did you mean the most common Wii game of all - watching the machine gather dust. Fun for your whole family!
Checking the weather is nice, I guarantee if the PS3 was doing it, it would be the shit, right? Not like Sony hasn't stolen every other good Nintendo idea and renamed it. You know, like that motion controller and this latest "innovation".
Overpriced emulator games? It is a legal, affordable system for downloading and playing old video games. Classics that often stood the test of time. It says something for Nintendo and their audience that it works, because Nintendo fans are real gamers, and not just frat boys or rich kids with money to spend. I am a gamer, with my PC (you know the real game machine) and my DS Lite. I am still hunting for my Wii, to hell with an overpriced PS3 and I will wait for a 360 price drop.
Let's hear it for Nintendo innovation!
Indeed lets. Because it has led to more console sold, and a larger shortage. You know why you can find PS3's all over the place? No one wants them, no one can afford them, and I think some people actually realize they just ripped off a lot of Nintendo's ideas at the last minute. Add to that the PS3 has NO games (even fewer then Nintendo) and has made asses out of them selves through this whole thing (Yes, it is an honor to pay $600 for a console.). All Hail Nintendo, and the return of the true Japanese gaming power. (Stealing it away from an over-rated electronics maker.)
"Okay, i need to install my ATI drivers, lets see. Go to their website, see what's there. Oh look, Drivers, Windows Vista, the box said it was a Radeon, X800, and download. Clickthrough the install, next, next, next. Ah, done, no restart."
Installing drivers and windows == restart, especially graphics drivers. Unlike Linux, they cannot seem to just shut off "X" and restart it.
Hint: Synaptic has a search and the button is pretty clearly defined. Trust me, this process could be done without making your head explode. Worst case install Automatix, which you will see (http://www.getautomatix.com/) is even easier to use and will add some other proprietary installs with relative ease.
Open Synapic, select Settings -> Repositories, tick the box that says "Proprietary drivers for devices (restricted)", Close. Select Sections (it's the default), scroll down to the bottom and select "restricted". Click on the box next to linux-restricted-modules-2.6.10.5-1. Click apply. Watch Synapic do it's thing, restart X. Open IE (or Firefox or Opera), click on the Address Bar, type http://www.nvidia.com/ or http://www.ati.com/. Navigate through the website to the Drivers section. Find the set of drivers most appropriate for your system. Download your drivers. Double-click the downloaded drivers to load the new versions. Click through the settings. When installation completes, restart windows.
Now tell me, how is this SO much harder then using Linux? And, yes, the original drivers in Windows can affect performance of things other than games and make the OS about as unusable as the original poster is claiming KDE was.
Another problem is that even if they do not ignore the ratings system, most judges are still going to argue that you are preventing the expression of ideas. Stores may stop selling certains games in state because it becomes too difficult to control the sell of games. This is, of course, more likely with stores where video games are not their primary business. I wouldn't be surprised if a few judges also see the self-regulated movie industry and say, "They can do it, and so can video game retailers."
There is also this confusing idea that since the law, "only protects the children", then it is fair game. First, it is not the job of the federal government or states to raise your children. Second, kids have as much right to free expression and to open ideas as the 40 yr old. Does this mean your kid should see every R-rated movie or play M or AO rated games? No, but it also means they should be allowed to explore them with proper PARENTAL supervision, not GOVERNMENTAL supervision.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I won't use any "chilling effect" and I even avoid the "slippery slope," but at least my argument isn't an Ignoratio elenchi. (God, I love some of these terms.)
To further point out: Colossal Squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) != Giant Squid (Genus = Architeuthis). The Giant squid is one of multiple squid belonging to the Genus Architeuthis. The Colossal Squid is the only member of the Genus Mesonychoteuthis, well at least the only "known" and/or "living" one.
Though, your comment might still apply since they are also deep sea dwellers, they too may contain ammonia or some other substance to help them survive the depths.
This might explain why the USPTO shows so little interest in making sure that the patents it awards are of high quality. For the USPTO it makes absolutely no economic sense to it spend more time on individual patents than the absolute minimum. Actually, it has a lot to do with time constraints and the backload of patents. The system is already upwards of 3 years or more behind in some fields. The problem is they are trying to catch up and do not have the time to do it. They also do not have the money since Congress funnels a lot of what they make to the government departments that LOSE money.
Honestly, one of the best things that could happen to the PTO is the ability to keep more or all of its money. This could be spent to hire more examiners, thereby spreading the load out over more people. I will say, they also need to re-examine the "count" system used to determine the Patent Examiner output. There is far more prior art to examine then there once was, and with more examiners you could offer up more time for examination. There also need to be limitations placed on continuation practice, but I could probably go on for days about ways to tweak the USPTO back into line. A good start would be SCOTUS reversing field and saying software and business methods are unpatentable.
Actually, none of your money is spent to fund the USPTO. The agency is completely funded by the fees it raises for examinations, re-examinations and the myriad of other fees associated with the patent system. Actually, a lot of the money the PTO makes winds up going back to fund other government agencies.
You sure we live in the same America? This is a country where a child can scream abuse for a spanking, and it is typically on the parents' shoulders to prove their innocence. Legislation was offered up in California to make it illegal to spank children under the age of 4. My mom was raised in a household where you were punished for misbehaving, and my grandfather was known for sending the boys out to pick the switches with which they would be punished. Could you imagine if a parent did that today? You leave a mark on your child and you will probably get a call from social services.
The real problem is parenting has become some sort of balance between punishment and political correctness. You'd better be careful how you raise your children or the government might come and take them away. What I love is that we now have the same people complaining that the youth do not show their elders respect, are often the same ones who are making it illegal to punish your children. Actually, we might not have needed these tougher laws if people were raised right in the first place.
Why do you join in on the lack of content? I know a lot of adopters who are sports fans, and maybe the fact that there is a good deal of sporting content in HD has something to do with that. Most prime time shows are now shown in HDTV. Of the top 20 rated shows from 1/17 - 1/21 of this year, I know that 14 of them are in HD. We have at least one local newcast in the DC metro in HD. If you get premium movie channels, there is an HD version available for the main channel of each. HD On-Demand is offered here. PBS has HD content and so does Discovery channel. INHD has shown movies older than me that have been converted to HD and they look GOOD. I hate using this as a source, but it will have to do.
One good channel doesn't validate dropping $100 let alone a thousand to most people -- sorry. Could I buy it? Sure. Just paid my new car off in 2 years. Would I care to waste my money on it at this point when I can wait 2 years, get a much higher quality set, and most likely 10-20x the amount of content? No thanks, I think-- you know, I'll invest some of that cash and maybe purchase a computer upgrade or two. I love your wait two years argument. You talk about spending money on computer upgrades, so you should know as well as anyone else that you can always wait for more features, for more power, or for lower prices, but at some point, you have to say it is time to invest. BTW, a lot of HDTV can be had for under $1000 if you know where to look. The price as actually gotten to the point where the difference between a regular definition set and an HD set is close enough to get some people to switch when their old TV blows up.
If someone wants to argue against HDTV, can you please come up with a better argument then a lack of content?
DiscoveryHD (which is worth it), TNT-HD, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, Comcast SportsNet HD, INHD (which shows VS. NHL games), the OTA stuff (which living as far away from the transmitters as I do, it is a good thing to have cable). There is also Universal HD (I don't get it, but I know it exist.), HBO HD, Showtime HD, Starz HD, Cinemax HD (I think), and HD On-Demand.
There is tons of content, and it isn't all crap. If you watches Sports then ESPN and ESPN2 in HD are both well worth it. If you like the movie channels, then why not have HBO, Showtime, Starz, et. al. There is also a good share of content on Discovery HD that I enjoy watching.
Apparently, the satellite companies are adding tons more HD channels, which is hopefully going to start driving Cable Companies to increase the numbers as well. So, do you not like HDTV because you think "the content is still crap", you haven't watched enough of it to know, or do you not like HDTV because you do not have it or cannot afford it? (BTW, if you think Discovery HD is crap, are you sure you belong with the nerds on slashdot?)
Honestly, I do not think Maine cares about their highway funds. There are not a lot of US routes through Maine, the only Interstate is I-95, which is tolled for portion where it is the Maine Turnpike. I think there could actually be a potential here for Maine, if they truly do not care about the highway funds. Lower the drinking age back to 18. I am sure a lot of kids in the parts closer to Canada already make trips across the border for alcohol, so why not just keep them in state and keep the money at home. It could also attract college students and other individuals from Boston and NH, who want to get alcohol legally.
Now, to argue the drinking age. Here is why 21 is bad. Is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Is binge drinking a problem? Yes, but one that has been a bit overblown. How to you solve both at once? Lower the age to 16. Here is why. Where do most 16 yr olds live? At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home. By having the drinking age 21, people are well into college before they can legally drink. For many college students, it is their first time away from home for any extended time. Without the parents around, the children will play and drinking becomes an issue. Since it is their first times drinking (and they are "unsupervised") they wound up into trouble situations. I could also use that old (and possible flawed) argument, "At 18 you are old enough to fight and die for this country, but you are not old enough to enjoy a little bit of alcohol." You will find that in the countries where drinking is legal, the countries with drinking ages of 21 are in the minority.
How long until this is shown in our junior high and high schools?