As a scientist you can get famous for discovering something new and/or by discovering someone else was wrong. That is a very powerful self-correcting mechanism.
Firstly, these programs will be better than human drivers. Some programs will be better than others. Insurance companies will carefully monitor which programs are best and offer lower rates to drivers that run programs (versions) that have less accidents. Thus, companies will have an incentive to improve their programs and push out updates (program could make the car immobile if not updated timely). Every dollar spent on lawyers isn't spent on improving programs and saving people from death/loss of relatives/wrecked lives after an accident in countries that still don't have their medical plans not in order.
So, market forces can fix this. Just leave the lawyers out of the equation.
Start fishtailing on the highway? Apply corrective steering measures.
(Not a native speaker here. I assume that fishtailing is the same as tailgating/driving close to vehicle in front of you).
To the contrary, the best thing about programs as drivers is that they can safely tailgate. The cars can even communicate with each other directly, allowing braking simultaneously, if needed (it also provides you with backup: Eg. if the communication breaks down, the following vehicle will still rely on its own proximity sensors and/or braking light sensors to detect the lead vehicle is breaking). The great thing about tailgating is that it saves a huge amount of fuel, easily 15%.
Probably the blinkenlichten will be abolished because the cars will communicate directly with each other. Then you as a cyclist will be relegated to the same status as a pedestrian in the US (outside NY): a person with limited freedom to move (to and from the car is OK).
The driver who hands over control to the vehicle. So, the driver, just like now.
The driver will enjoy lower insurance rates.
The software company will have to analyze any accident and provide timely updates to avoid similar accidents to keep his liability to an acceptable level.
The first claim requires the camera to have a capture button.
"(d) a capture button for initiating capture of a still image while previewing the motion images presented on the color display;"
Apple may want to argue that a touch screen is technically not a button. It would explain Apple's position for apps in the app store that apps are not allowed to remap a physical button as a capture button.
Usually it is pretty clear whether there is infringement or not. Of course, there are the odd-ball cases where it is possible to quarrel over meanings of terms in the main claim (and that's what is usually done in court but if the arguments aren't good you're not going to win). But to imagine that Nokia's attorneys made 5 out of 5 wrong judgement calls is, well, strange.
Patent matters being handled in the US by non-specialized courts is not the best of things. If the ITC is equally competent then that is not the best of things too.
The reasoning behind the ruling is not yet available, according to TFA.
It is impossible for an individual to slowly change his own sleep schedule over the course of a couple of weeks, by say 5 minutes per day without consent from the government.
The intermediary results count as prior art just like anything else. And to get a patent the invention has to be Novel and involve an Inventive Step over that. Sure, the final result may be something obviously desirable, but if you can't solve the problem of how to get there just by studying that intermediary literature and know what to do, then the Inventive Step is there, and a patent is warranted.
There is a system to get rid of patents that shouldn't have been granted (called the Opposition procedure in Europe).
The advantage of a patent over prizes is that there is no need to have a committee putting a price on it. The market decides. And the problem as to what warrants a prize and what does not is about the same, I guess.
That aerogel could be fine for capacitors, that I can accept. But for batteries you need atoms to store the energy in. And an aerogel is mostly anything but atoms. Perhaps they fill the gaps in the aerogel, taking advantage of the conducting(?) aerogel structure? But if the aerogel structure is conducting, I don't understand why it would be fine for capacitors.
The driver, for choosing not to drive himself (and failing to intervene), and you're done.
And if the cars/programs are required to take a driving test (perhaps a bit tougher) just like a human has to pass, then there's little reason not to let them on the road. If there is an accident, software of all cars can be updated, reducing the chance of that accident.
In case of an accident, the data (including movies) can be retained automatically, making answering the question of who's to blame a short exercise.
Yes, Yagolah must have done that. The article specifically said "exoplanets" so as not to include our sun's planets, which would have muddled the figure.
Not natural? It is common in nature. See for example this book (at least take a look at its great cover, e.g. on Amazon. com): Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
And of course if you Google for pictures on animal homosexuality and you'd have to change your mind about it not being natural.
But then, those scientist were shooting themselves in the foot because they were denying themselves patent protection abroad (outside the US).
Getting your article published takes a while. You can send it to the editor with a note that it should be kept confidential for patenting purposes and as far the patent office is concerned you're fine.
Perhaps crooks are quite happy with a more homogenous (and still "open", wink wink) MS OS landscape. All systems will be provided with the latest patch (read "new hole").
I think it is relevant because it is an example of the usefulness of recording by the public as part of the deal between a creator and society. A copyright holder has the right to stop anyone from using the material for a (ridiculous long) period of time. The reward for society of giving a copyright holder this power, is that in the end the work enters the public domain. What you see here, is that the copyright holder got his end of the bargain from society (it is not relevant whether he actually ever sued over it; he had the right to), society doesn't get anything once the copyright holder loses interest (or trashes the recording).
People should make a mental note of this when it comes to arguing the duration of copyright, and also when it comes to DRM. I don't think that copyright should apply to DRM material because there obviously is no guarantee that the work could end up in the public domain. More likely the DRM technique used is likely to be abandoned before the copyright expires.
Bert Who refuses to buy anything Blue-ray because of this.
Slashdot Mirror
As a scientist you can get famous for discovering something new and/or by discovering someone else was wrong. That is a very powerful self-correcting mechanism.
Bert
Firstly, these programs will be better than human drivers. Some programs will be better than others. Insurance companies will carefully monitor which programs are best and offer lower rates to drivers that run programs (versions) that have less accidents. Thus, companies will have an incentive to improve their programs and push out updates (program could make the car immobile if not updated timely). Every dollar spent on lawyers isn't spent on improving programs and saving people from death/loss of relatives/wrecked lives after an accident in countries that still don't have their medical plans not in order.
So, market forces can fix this. Just leave the lawyers out of the equation.
Bert
"In Hell when I trust my life and the lives of my loved ones to an algorithm"
You've already passed that stage, if you've ever flown in an airliner.
Bert
Start fishtailing on the highway? Apply corrective steering measures.
(Not a native speaker here. I assume that fishtailing is the same as tailgating/driving close to vehicle in front of you).
To the contrary, the best thing about programs as drivers is that they can safely tailgate. The cars can even communicate with each other directly, allowing braking simultaneously, if needed (it also provides you with backup: Eg. if the communication breaks down, the following vehicle will still rely on its own proximity sensors and/or braking light sensors to detect the lead vehicle is breaking). The great thing about tailgating is that it saves a huge amount of fuel, easily 15%.
Bert
Probably the blinkenlichten will be abolished because the cars will communicate directly with each other. Then you as a cyclist will be relegated to the same status as a pedestrian in the US (outside NY): a person with limited freedom to move (to and from the car is OK).
Bert
The driver who hands over control to the vehicle. So, the driver, just like now.
The driver will enjoy lower insurance rates.
The software company will have to analyze any accident and provide timely updates to avoid similar accidents to keep his liability to an acceptable level.
Bert
Not a professional court. But now you mention it, a jury, possibly.
Bert
The first claim requires the camera to have a capture button.
"(d) a capture button for initiating capture of a still image while previewing the motion images presented on the color display;"
Apple may want to argue that a touch screen is technically not a button. It would explain Apple's position for apps in the app store that apps are not allowed to remap a physical button as a capture button.
Bert
Correct. And also, the single integrated circuit is in claim 3, so not having it doesn't mean that the main claim may be invalid.
Bert
Usually it is pretty clear whether there is infringement or not. Of course, there are the odd-ball cases where it is possible to quarrel over meanings of terms in the main claim (and that's what is usually done in court but if the arguments aren't good you're not going to win). But to imagine that Nokia's attorneys made 5 out of 5 wrong judgement calls is, well, strange.
Patent matters being handled in the US by non-specialized courts is not the best of things. If the ITC is equally competent then that is not the best of things too.
The reasoning behind the ruling is not yet available, according to TFA.
Bert
Do you want to cancel the alarm?
[Cancel] [Cancel]
Bert
Computers can be used to detect earthquakes:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/quake_network
You can get a free sensor from the Quake Catcher network (or use a laptop).
http://qcn.ucr.edu/
Another subject that might be interesting: Fossils.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html
Bert
I wasn't talking about *causing* an 8.7 earthquake with a 2" thick Dell laptop.
Bert
You wouldn't believe it, but the scientists involved have a work-around for the occasional bump-problem.
Your laptop can be used to detect earthquakes:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/quake_network
Join the Quake Catcher network
http://qcn.ucr.edu/
Bert
It is impossible for an individual to slowly change his own sleep schedule over the course of a couple of weeks, by say 5 minutes per day without consent from the government.
Bert
The intermediary results count as prior art just like anything else. And to get a patent the invention has to be Novel and involve an Inventive Step over that. Sure, the final result may be something obviously desirable, but if you can't solve the problem of how to get there just by studying that intermediary literature and know what to do, then the Inventive Step is there, and a patent is warranted.
There is a system to get rid of patents that shouldn't have been granted (called the Opposition procedure in Europe).
The advantage of a patent over prizes is that there is no need to have a committee putting a price on it. The market decides. And the problem as to what warrants a prize and what does not is about the same, I guess.
Bert
That aerogel could be fine for capacitors, that I can accept. But for batteries you need atoms to store the energy in. And an aerogel is mostly anything but atoms. Perhaps they fill the gaps in the aerogel, taking advantage of the conducting(?) aerogel structure? But if the aerogel structure is conducting, I don't understand why it would be fine for capacitors.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Bert
The driver, for choosing not to drive himself (and failing to intervene), and you're done.
And if the cars/programs are required to take a driving test (perhaps a bit tougher) just like a human has to pass, then there's little reason not to let them on the road. If there is an accident, software of all cars can be updated, reducing the chance of that accident.
In case of an accident, the data (including movies) can be retained automatically, making answering the question of who's to blame a short exercise.
Bert
Yes, Yagolah must have done that. The article specifically said "exoplanets" so as not to include our sun's planets, which would have muddled the figure.
Bert
Not natural? It is common in nature. See for example this book (at least take a look at its great cover, e.g. on Amazon. com):
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
And of course if you Google for pictures on animal homosexuality and you'd have to change your mind about it not being natural.
Bert
But then, those scientist were shooting themselves in the foot because they were denying themselves patent protection abroad (outside the US).
Getting your article published takes a while. You can send it to the editor with a note that it should be kept confidential for patenting purposes and as far the patent office is concerned you're fine.
Bert
If you don't want something to be patented, publish it (in as much detail as possible). Cost: next to zero.
Bert
Rats are being used to detect landmines (and tuberculosis) in Africa. www.herorat.org
Bert
Perhaps crooks are quite happy with a more homogenous (and still "open", wink wink) MS OS landscape. All systems will be provided with the latest patch (read "new hole").
Bert
I think it is relevant because it is an example of the usefulness of recording by the public as part of the deal between a creator and society. A copyright holder has the right to stop anyone from using the material for a (ridiculous long) period of time. The reward for society of giving a copyright holder this power, is that in the end the work enters the public domain. What you see here, is that the copyright holder got his end of the bargain from society (it is not relevant whether he actually ever sued over it; he had the right to), society doesn't get anything once the copyright holder loses interest (or trashes the recording).
People should make a mental note of this when it comes to arguing the duration of copyright, and also when it comes to DRM. I don't think that copyright should apply to DRM material because there obviously is no guarantee that the work could end up in the public domain. More likely the DRM technique used is likely to be abandoned before the copyright expires.
Bert
Who refuses to buy anything Blue-ray because of this.