You could have it voluntary and under your control (able to turn it on/off).
I'd have it turned on most of the time. Never having to worry about keys and whether I locked my house. Front door could open automatically. There was this English guy who had one for a while and missed it when he had to have it removed.
The phone could start ringing at regular intervals after being turned on by a tower/portable device, so rescue workers could hear them. Perhaps the phone could detect the earthquake itself.
I can't give a percentage of patent laws that have it, but it is not unheard of that a patent law contains an article that deals with appropriation of a patent. This is used in very restricted cases. For example, in case of a severe disease, a pharmaceutical company can't hold a country at ransom. The loophole exists that the patent is appropriated, and if properly done the company will be compensated (but not as much as the ransom). I believe that Brazil did this a couple of years ago (with respect to an AIDS drug). Economical reasons may also be case.
It is extraordinary rare that the article is used (don't know whether US patent law has it), but it just takes some action on the part of the government and a stack of money to boost the economy by giving anyone free access to a particular piece of technology, if that piece of technology is crucial and we can't afford to sit out the 20 year term before the patent lapses.
No, they used an iodine molecule which is made up of two fat atoms. I guess the smallest molecule will be hydrogen. After that, we'll have to resort to elementary particles. Bosons are the worst options of those, because they're so dense they can't compute very well.
Prior art is not something that has to go through an application process. Prior art is everything that is publicly known the day before the day of filing of an application. Prior art can be anything: A TV show, a paper held at a conference, an article in your local newspaper, a product sold on the market or demonstrated at an expo booth. It can be anything. When it comes to granting patents, it is not possible for an examiner to have knowledge of much of the above examples. There is a focus on patent literature (but not just that; more and more stuff gets indexed). Which is why any decent patent system has options for third parties to bring such prior art to the attention of the examiner (which is why it is a good thing that US patent applications get published after 18 months now; in contrast to the old system where the applications were secret until they were granted), and an option to kill a patent after it has been granted (a novelty recently added to the US patent system). In my country the person who loses the case has to pay the legal expenses of the other party too. While not as inflated as in the US, it involves still sizable amounts of money. No big gun can win here if the small guy is right. A rational process prevents many court cases. It requires Greek logic, though. A specialized court helps too.
- Abolish (costly and time-consuming) interference procedures by switching to First-to-file instead of (fraud-susceptible) first-to-invent. - Abolish the possibility to file a continuation (in part?) with added new matter. The only things you are allowed to do is amend based on what is in the application (and add a discussion of prior art). - Let European examiners train their US counterparts. The problem-solution approach and a healthy dose of Greek logic does wonders for granting patents for inventions and rejecting applications that do not involve an invention.
"If you are found to have filed the patent in bad faith (i.e. knowing that there was prior art) then this becomes wilful abuse of the patent system and the fine goes up to $100,000."
Prior art = everything known before the date of filing/priority.
Your suggestion is an invitation for applicants not to do a search first before filing. I don't think that results in a reduction of applications.
In my country renewal fees are charged every year. And they are progressive. They force a patentee to consider maintenance of the patent or not every year.
You can zoom anything very easily irrespective of the program you use. I don't know whether it is the standard setting, but I hold the control-key down and scroll with the scroll wheel of my mouse. If that doesn't work for you, pay a visit to System Preferences>Seeing>Zoom options and then the last option.
Even better (but not for generating energy): Make the trains levitate on magnets in the vacuum tube, and make the tube slope down away from the station. You get speed by going down the slope, lose little energy on the way, and at the destination the slope goes up, storing the energy for the next ride.
Yes, you need to invest energy into extract copper from ore etc. to create such a device. But, if the device is discarded after a couple of decennia, you've high grade copper that can be recycled with very little energy.
Again, I think this post supports my statements.
- Why is the yardstick of having to create a device used for this device to discard it as a valid proposal, where your argument goes for any device for generating (or saving) energy? What is so special about the device that makes it more important to apply that yardstick? The device involves nothing more than a copper tube (which is probably used to drain the waste water anyway), surrounded by a plastic tube for supplying the cold water (which had to be supplied via a tube anyway). Yes, there is some additional material used there, but not dramatically much more. There is nothing that can break. The maintenance is pulling a rag through it every year.
- Why are you talking about taking shorter showers? Heat recuperation with this device doesn't require that, I didn't mention it, so why do you bring it up?
- Why do you think providing an example as I did is a slam of other paths to try to reduce energy use? It was merely an example showing that you can save a substantial amount of energy without giving up any comfort. The only hard part is: Thinking ahead when building/renovating a home.
As far as logical reasoning goes, I believe your post supports my statements.
My point of view is: A situation is like it is, completely independent of my point of view, or yours, or the point of view of a majority. And I think that everybody should realise that all of the time. Like in: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no matter how strongly Toni and George believed it.
There was no mention of alternative energy in my post. The only example I gave concerned conservation of energy.
But if you want to discuss it. At one time or another, fuels (including nuclear fuels) that are used up when generating electricity run out. Wasting nuclear fuel isn't so much of a problem because you can't do nice other things with them. But oil you can use to make plastics; very convenient.
Not that I do care, but have you any idea how much tax money was invested into nuclear energy? Now, I don't want two wrongs to be a right, but using two different yardsticks wouldn't be fair, I think. Assuming you're correct and nuclear energy is cheap, it has become cheap(er) thanks to that subsidy. Is there a law of nature that says similar improvements in efficiency and lowering of costs can't be achieved for the alternative energy sources you mentioned? The answer in any case is no so far: The cost per kWh for each of these sources has come down over the years. The future is in the hands of smart people who can think creatively. Anyone can contribute by giving them some extra time by not wasting resources.
In the US, people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far. In my country, people are blunt and tell you if you're wrong (and why). If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated, discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged, isn't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues? People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact, and not as something that may be in for a rewrite. This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken (conservative, if I may say so) people to push their thoughts on others. We have (a minority of) creationists in our country too. We let them keep their thoughts and they don't bother us with theirs.
After years on slashdot, I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to: xyz is expensive, so phenomenon pqr does (not) exist). Uh, gulp. In this specific case of global warming: What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down. You pay the same (in the end), but do longer with a resource. Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits (look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot). There isn't a law of nature that says that *everything* a government proposes is wrong.
Saving energy can be so easy. For some homes: Take taking a shower. The water that drains is still warm. You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this). You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy. The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher (but your energy bill is lower). The unborn can't bid with you for that energy. Do you really have the liberty to waste it, our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says: Hm, we're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.
A couple of answers to Monsanto - You're giving us only one or a couple of modified strains. Which means that if another pest develops, it puts the entire crops world wide in jeopardy - You pollute the genes to other plants. - You spread the genes and then sue a Canadian farmer for polluting his own stuff.
Bert Who is a biochemist by original training, is a proponent of genetic engineering but only if you keep the organisms in tanks or if in big mammals including humans. A genetically engineered cow can be caught if it escaped. Men has a long history of fucking things up.
Well, we're not able to grow many of microbes here on earth either, e.g. those extremophiles dug up from 1 km down. Doesn't mean we don't know they're really real.
But there is a relation to the bible. The viruses show that Genesis is wrong. Viruses have been found at *exactly* the same locations in chimps as in humans. Extremely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor.
Don't encourage them. There are already too many of them.
Bert Slashdot favours people who can't type. It thought I typed too quickly and didn't want to include my response. So, that is why you get this remark as a bonus.
Slashdot Mirror
You could have it voluntary and under your control (able to turn it on/off).
I'd have it turned on most of the time. Never having to worry about keys and whether I locked my house. Front door could open automatically. There was this English guy who had one for a while and missed it when he had to have it removed.
Bert
The phone could start ringing at regular intervals after being turned on by a tower/portable device, so rescue workers could hear them.
Perhaps the phone could detect the earthquake itself.
Bert
I can't give a percentage of patent laws that have it, but it is not unheard of that a patent law contains an article that deals with appropriation of a patent. This is used in very restricted cases. For example, in case of a severe disease, a pharmaceutical company can't hold a country at ransom. The loophole exists that the patent is appropriated, and if properly done the company will be compensated (but not as much as the ransom). I believe that Brazil did this a couple of years ago (with respect to an AIDS drug). Economical reasons may also be case.
It is extraordinary rare that the article is used (don't know whether US patent law has it), but it just takes some action on the part of the government and a stack of money to boost the economy by giving anyone free access to a particular piece of technology, if that piece of technology is crucial and we can't afford to sit out the 20 year term before the patent lapses.
Bert
No, they used an iodine molecule which is made up of two fat atoms. I guess the smallest molecule will be hydrogen. After that, we'll have to resort to elementary particles. Bosons are the worst options of those, because they're so dense they can't compute very well.
Bert
Prior art is not something that has to go through an application process. Prior art is everything that is publicly known the day before the day of filing of an application.
Prior art can be anything: A TV show, a paper held at a conference, an article in your local newspaper, a product sold on the market or demonstrated at an expo booth. It can be anything.
When it comes to granting patents, it is not possible for an examiner to have knowledge of much of the above examples. There is a focus on patent literature (but not just that; more and more stuff gets indexed). Which is why any decent patent system has options for third parties to bring such prior art to the attention of the examiner (which is why it is a good thing that US patent applications get published after 18 months now; in contrast to the old system where the applications were secret until they were granted), and an option to kill a patent after it has been granted (a novelty recently added to the US patent system).
In my country the person who loses the case has to pay the legal expenses of the other party too. While not as inflated as in the US, it involves still sizable amounts of money. No big gun can win here if the small guy is right. A rational process prevents many court cases. It requires Greek logic, though. A specialized court helps too.
Bert
Sorry for being ambiguous. I didn't mean "known to the applicant", but "publicly known".
Bert
- Abolish (costly and time-consuming) interference procedures by switching to First-to-file instead of (fraud-susceptible) first-to-invent.
- Abolish the possibility to file a continuation (in part?) with added new matter. The only things you are allowed to do is amend based on what is in the application (and add a discussion of prior art).
- Let European examiners train their US counterparts. The problem-solution approach and a healthy dose of Greek logic does wonders for granting patents for inventions and rejecting applications that do not involve an invention.
Bert
"If you are found to have filed the patent in bad faith (i.e. knowing that there was prior art) then this becomes wilful abuse of the patent system and the fine goes up to $100,000."
Prior art = everything known before the date of filing/priority.
Your suggestion is an invitation for applicants not to do a search first before filing. I don't think that results in a reduction of applications.
In my country renewal fees are charged every year. And they are progressive. They force a patentee to consider maintenance of the patent or not every year.
Bert
"Apple prohibits any product which competes with their own."
Sweeping statement and not true. Want faster downloading? Get Opera and use that instead of Safari.
Bert
We want planes to lift off from the runway. Duh.
Bert
The mortgage on your house can include that cost as well.
Bert
You can zoom anything very easily irrespective of the program you use. I don't know whether it is the standard setting, but I hold the control-key down and scroll with the scroll wheel of my mouse. If that doesn't work for you, pay a visit to System Preferences>Seeing>Zoom options and then the last option.
Bert
Have one or two glasses of water accompany your dinner. There is a special device in your body specialized in excreting excess salt.
Salt not only has a flavour of its own, but enhances other flavours. Enjoy it.
Bert
Even better (but not for generating energy): Make the trains levitate on magnets in the vacuum tube, and make the tube slope down away from the station. You get speed by going down the slope, lose little energy on the way, and at the destination the slope goes up, storing the energy for the next ride.
Bert
PS Don't do this in Chile
Only *abuse* of monopoly is taken action upon.
Bert
Yes, you need to invest energy into extract copper from ore etc. to create such a device. But, if the device is discarded after a couple of decennia, you've high grade copper that can be recycled with very little energy.
Again, I think this post supports my statements.
- Why is the yardstick of having to create a device used for this device to discard it as a valid proposal, where your argument goes for any device for generating (or saving) energy? What is so special about the device that makes it more important to apply that yardstick? The device involves nothing more than a copper tube (which is probably used to drain the waste water anyway), surrounded by a plastic tube for supplying the cold water (which had to be supplied via a tube anyway). Yes, there is some additional material used there, but not dramatically much more. There is nothing that can break. The maintenance is pulling a rag through it every year.
- Why are you talking about taking shorter showers? Heat recuperation with this device doesn't require that, I didn't mention it, so why do you bring it up?
- Why do you think providing an example as I did is a slam of other paths to try to reduce energy use? It was merely an example showing that you can save a substantial amount of energy without giving up any comfort. The only hard part is: Thinking ahead when building/renovating a home.
Bert
As far as logical reasoning goes, I believe your post supports my statements.
My point of view is: A situation is like it is, completely independent of my point of view, or yours, or the point of view of a majority. And I think that everybody should realise that all of the time. Like in: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no matter how strongly Toni and George believed it.
There was no mention of alternative energy in my post. The only example I gave concerned conservation of energy.
But if you want to discuss it. At one time or another, fuels (including nuclear fuels) that are used up when generating electricity run out. Wasting nuclear fuel isn't so much of a problem because you can't do nice other things with them. But oil you can use to make plastics; very convenient.
Not that I do care, but have you any idea how much tax money was invested into nuclear energy? Now, I don't want two wrongs to be a right, but using two different yardsticks wouldn't be fair, I think. Assuming you're correct and nuclear energy is cheap, it has become cheap(er) thanks to that subsidy. Is there a law of nature that says similar improvements in efficiency and lowering of costs can't be achieved for the alternative energy sources you mentioned? The answer in any case is no so far: The cost per kWh for each of these sources has come down over the years. The future is in the hands of smart people who can think creatively. Anyone can contribute by giving them some extra time by not wasting resources.
Bert
In the US, people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far. In my country, people are blunt and tell you if you're wrong (and why). If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated, discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged, isn't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues? People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact, and not as something that may be in for a rewrite. This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken (conservative, if I may say so) people to push their thoughts on others. We have (a minority of) creationists in our country too. We let them keep their thoughts and they don't bother us with theirs.
After years on slashdot, I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to: xyz is expensive, so phenomenon pqr does (not) exist). Uh, gulp. In this specific case of global warming: What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down. You pay the same (in the end), but do longer with a resource. Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits (look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot). There isn't a law of nature that says that *everything* a government proposes is wrong.
Saving energy can be so easy. For some homes: Take taking a shower. The water that drains is still warm. You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this). You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy. The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher (but your energy bill is lower). The unborn can't bid with you for that energy. Do you really have the liberty to waste it, our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says: Hm, we're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.
Bert
I'm in favour. No one should be allowed to send an e-mail to multiple persons without knowing what a BCC field is and how to use it.
Bert
A couple of answers to Monsanto
- You're giving us only one or a couple of modified strains. Which means that if another pest develops, it puts the entire crops world wide in jeopardy
- You pollute the genes to other plants.
- You spread the genes and then sue a Canadian farmer for polluting his own stuff.
Bert
Who is a biochemist by original training, is a proponent of genetic engineering but only if you keep the organisms in tanks or if in big mammals including humans. A genetically engineered cow can be caught if it escaped. Men has a long history of fucking things up.
I'm looking forward to your articles on this subject in scientific journals.
Bert
Well, we're not able to grow many of microbes here on earth either, e.g. those extremophiles dug up from 1 km down. Doesn't mean we don't know they're really real.
Bert
But there is a relation to the bible. The viruses show that Genesis is wrong. Viruses have been found at *exactly* the same locations in chimps as in humans. Extremely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Bert
So, no original sin etc.
Don't encourage them. There are already too many of them.
Bert
Slashdot favours people who can't type. It thought I typed too quickly and didn't want to include my response. So, that is why you get this remark as a bonus.
"... are often listened to while in traffic with the volume very high to drown out outside noise."
So, it would be nice if they imposed some regulations on traffic noise (and inside car noise) as well.
Bert