No. Both regions sit atop the seismically active area named "The Ring Of Fire", which is a poetic name given to a seismically active rim boundary indicated by plots of earthquake epicenter. The purple band you see on the map is the area is the subduction zone of the Pacific Plate.
This is not a fault zone. Fault zones arise in response to subduction.
Re:Does anybody buy this Bullshit?
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
And what, with an eye on their market, did Polaroid call their first consumer model back in the 70s? "The Swinger"
Good catch. I forgot the venerable Polariod.
What I remebered as I was writing the parent was finding some 1950's skin mags as a young pre-teen that had ads in the back for 'discreet' film processing services.
I always wondered what Uncle Phil and Aunt Barb had received in a plain, brown paper wrapped box.
Re:High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Were you going for a Beavis and Butthead referance
You caught me.
Isn't that the guy whose camper off in they were wacking?
Best line in the whole movie.
Re:High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Eh... not quite.
My post was an attempt at humor.
It should be read that way.
Arguing over it is just pointless.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
You are missing the obvious here.
Apparently not as obvious as you think:
I imagine it can be damaging...
Can be? Not exactly definate....if only one person would watch porn, usually the man. His view of what a women should 'be' becomes skewed.
You have data to support that, right? How do you measure the "skew" of a "view"?
He might...
Again with the passive voice! You don't seem to be so sure of what you are writing....start to think his wife is not good enough, since she's not what he sees in the videos.
I think that is what you might think and that you are projecting your feelings.
Then, because the topic is difficult, instead of asking if she might be into 'that' (whatever it is) he goes out the door in search of it.
Do you think porn is what makes people cheat on their spouses? I guess the divorce rates should have shot through the roof with the increase in broadband.
What? It hasn't? That's strange because you implied a connection between porn and infidelity.
And as the parent has said, and you quoted, they are both viewing it "together". Why would the "the topic" be "difficult"? He could gauge her reaction while they are viewing it together, right? Wouldn't he get an indication of what she is "into" while viewing it "together"?
Not too hard to imagine.
"Imagine" != fact.
PS. You watch porn, but you also use the words fuck and shit
You didn't write "f*ck" and "sh*t" when making your point.
Perhaps the mods who pushed this one to the cellar can weigh in and explain how this post is "offtopic".
I thought it appropriate considering the fact that 1) porn is presented as attachements, 2) the person was trying to make a joke about "hot" and "bytes in body".
I took it as an S&M thing. Maybe that is just me.
Really, please weigh in as an AC and tell us how this is offtopic.
Re:High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
If your reason is the real one, then explain to me why South Korea has a much bigger need for porn than the rest of the world.
You started your post with an assumption, built a conclusion out of thin air, and then ask me to rationalize your assumption?
Sorry, I don't do strawmen.
What I posted was a joke. South Korea is not the United States, you do not possess the data to determine whether South Korea adopted broadband because of game play, and you should quit reading too much into my words.
Thank you for your time. You may go back to whacking it in your neighbors RV.
Re:Does anybody buy this Bullshit?
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd like to know what technological breakthroughs were driven by Porn?
I don't know that they were actually developed for porn, but their widespread commercial (as opposed to military) adoption may have something to do with porn.
Cameras were not originally developed for porn, but some of the earliest photographic images are of nudes and pornographic poses. Ditto for film-based home movies. And accelerating the spread of video recorders, cameras, and players was family reunions? I think mom and dad probably experimented a bit with the video equipment while waiting for the next graduation/birthday/anniversary.
No, I don't think any of these technologies was created soley with the purpose of producing or disseminating porn. But their wide adoption may have been accelerated by porn.
High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sure, you told your parents that you have them for computer games, but come on - we all know why they have both advanced so quickly.
Just about every site remodel has problems. I have just gone over the list of things I have issues with on our local public school's new website. Most of my comments have to do with broken capabilites. I'm sure that the folks at/. have tested this system in a non-production environment, but things are bound to go wrong at first. The unfortunate thing about my local school district's website has been access. How much of the/. staff resources are going to be committed to the rollout and how soon are problems going to be addressed?
Considering the fact that it took nearly two minutes for the form to arrive makes me think we are in for a bumpy ride!
Unless you have a medical reason, there is VERY LITTLE EXCUSE in this day and age and country for not knowing how to swim.
How good is your swimming skill in 25 mph current?
How long can you stay afloat?
How many impacts with buildings, trees, other debris can YOU sustain and still remain afloat?
Unless you take these factors into consideration, the fact that you *believe* you can swim out of flooding, tsunami surges, etc. only shows that you are bound to be the next victim.
There are water conditions so strong and trecherous that even the strongest swimmer cannot survive.
Oh, and Todd? Because I do not subscribe to Slashdot, your replies will fall off bottom of my user page. If you care to reply to this message, just post a message to geomon on talk.origins. Please do start off your message with the same old and wornout routine about science as a way of introduction.
The USPS is a service oriented niche while the USPTO is a regulatory one.
USPTO does not provide any regulation of patents. They fulfill a service role, just like USPS. Instead of routing and delivering mail, the USPTO issues patents. It is much like your local county agent who provides you with license plates.
Enforcement of patents is left to the holder.
Their respective effectiveness aside, how is one like the other?
I would rather that the USPTO get all of its funding from the fees that accompany a patent applicaton - just as the USPS derives all of its funding from the postage it charges for each piece of mail.
If I don't send mail, I don't pay the tax for the service.
Now, if you choose to respond, please leave out any points you THINK I made, and stick to what I actually said. No straw men please.
Yes Dad.
This displays your ignorance.
What a wonderful way of putting that sentiment.
As always, greater fees to a company would be passed on as greater fees to license the patents.
Please parse that sentence and explain it without the redundancy. I *think* I know what you mean (see below) but I do not want to be accused *again* of misusing someone's words.
He ststed that the fees hurt small investors. He DID NOT state that the fees alone hurt small investors. No one made that argument at all, actually.
You are correct. I did take liberties with their statement. I thought their taking liberties with my post give me some license to do so, however. They read my post, obviously read my call for higher application fees, and then wrote this:
So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO?
I did *not* encourage a bigger budget for the USPTO. I believe they should operate like the USPS. They twisted my words to make it sound as though I was advocating a higher allocation of general revenues for the USPTO. No one made that argument, actually.
If the GP was really that pissed they would have taken me to task for my post. The fact that they didn't makes me wonder why you have intervened on their behalf.
What axe do you have to grind? Do you disagree with higher fees for patent applications? If so, then explain how forcing companies to make risk decisions that could affect their profits is a "bad" thing.
If filing fees are higher, companies are more likely to file only those patents that have a better chance of not being overturned in court due to prior art. If you make the fees too low, then companies are encouraged to file ANYTHING on the slim chance that the patent clerk will grant it because they already have 1,000 more in the bin to process. That means less time to evaluate the veracity of the claim and more crappy patents get through the system. In short, the system we have today.
Are you unaware of the fact that the deluge of bad patents also impacts the consumer? Do you think these companies just eat the legal fees to defend themselves against these crappy patents? Do you really believe that Apple will, out of the goodness of their heart, just absorb the legal costs out of their profits? They explain why shareholders should be saddled with this increase in the cost of doing business.
What you have failed to show in your diatribe is how the entire system is a balancing act of interests. By increasing the fees on applicants there will indeed be pain to be felt by the consumer. My point is that it will happen whether the fees are $50US or $5,000US. The only difference will be that businesses will have to calculate the risk in filing on whether their claim has merit. Too many filings lost due to poor due diligence may help the process more than hurt it.
How about apple ignore them and challenge them in court.
Well, as respondents in a civil action, they can't really ignore Creative. But your second point is right on target. If Apple has the proof that they had the idea first (either by bringing it to market first, as was suggested by another poster, or through documetation), then Creative will ultimately have to back down.
Since money is the evil causing this then why don't we create a goup of people that created the real tech behind this and challenge these generic BS patents.
Money puts food on my table, so I am unwilling to criticize it too strongly. I think the source of this problem is the frantic attempt by companies to cover their intellectual property asses by filing as many claims as they can before someone sues them. The fact that people have successfully patented obvious stuff probably has them nervous.
Or sue the patent office.
Good luck getting the government to agreed to begin sued.
How about a boycott ? I sense widespread frustration.
I agree with a boycott, but several people have already pointed out that Apple has also engaged in this behavior themselves. I see Apple as a potential victim, but the real targets of this behavior are the rest of society. We will pay for this litigation through increasing costs for derivative products. The pace of innovation will also suffer when this is allowed to happen.
Why the hell does everybody assume Apple had the idea first,..
I don't assume that Apple had the idea first. Note the phrase in the quote you cited:
"...so it will be up to Apple to prove, if it can,..."
*If* Apple can prove that it had the idea first, then it dilutes Creative's claim of uniqueness.
I don't know whether Apple or Creative had the idea first or not on the patented technology. That will be up to the courts to sort out.
As for mp3 players? Who knows who had the first idea for that technology. That is not what Creative's claim was for, so your point about Creative beating Apple to market first is moot.
So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO?
Nope.
Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?
Nope, I recommend application fees. They are a tax on the people who use the system.
I didn't think so.;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.
Well, I agree that small inventors are hurt by an increase in application fees. But you are incorrect that the fees alone hurt small inventors. There are plenty of ways that a large corporation can screw a small inventor out of their patent: the one Apple might be able to use on Creative is a good one - litigate a claim of prior art.
So the fees are not the only thing that bury small inventors. And as for the increase in fees? If there are more aggressive and better trained patent examiners on staff at the USPTO, there will be fewer patents for trivial crap that are filed just so some corporation will have a set of defensive patents to unleash in court.
Will the fees affect large corporations? Hell yes. The company I work for files thousands of patent applications a year. Their whole business is intellectual property. They would shit bricks if the fees were to double.
I have never seen the Patent Office's head so far up its own ass to grant something like this.
They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with.
Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
both regions lie along the same fault line.
No. Both regions sit atop the seismically active area named "The Ring Of Fire", which is a poetic name given to a seismically active rim boundary indicated by plots of earthquake epicenter. The purple band you see on the map is the area is the subduction zone of the Pacific Plate.
This is not a fault zone. Fault zones arise in response to subduction.
And what, with an eye on their market, did Polaroid call their first consumer model back in the 70s? "The Swinger"
Good catch. I forgot the venerable Polariod.
What I remebered as I was writing the parent was finding some 1950's skin mags as a young pre-teen that had ads in the back for 'discreet' film processing services.
I always wondered what Uncle Phil and Aunt Barb had received in a plain, brown paper wrapped box.
Were you going for a Beavis and Butthead referance
You caught me.
Isn't that the guy whose camper off in they were wacking?
Best line in the whole movie.
Eh... not quite.
My post was an attempt at humor.
It should be read that way.
Arguing over it is just pointless.
Apparently not as obvious as you think:
I imagine it can be damaging...
Can be? Not exactly definate.
You have data to support that, right? How do you measure the "skew" of a "view"?
He might...
Again with the passive voice! You don't seem to be so sure of what you are writing.
I think that is what you might think and that you are projecting your feelings.
Then, because the topic is difficult, instead of asking if she might be into 'that' (whatever it is) he goes out the door in search of it.
Do you think porn is what makes people cheat on their spouses? I guess the divorce rates should have shot through the roof with the increase in broadband.
What? It hasn't? That's strange because you implied a connection between porn and infidelity.
And as the parent has said, and you quoted, they are both viewing it "together". Why would the "the topic" be "difficult"? He could gauge her reaction while they are viewing it together, right? Wouldn't he get an indication of what she is "into" while viewing it "together"?
Not too hard to imagine.
"Imagine" != fact.
PS. You watch porn, but you also use the words fuck and shit
You didn't write "f*ck" and "sh*t" when making your point.
I find that 'remarkable'.
So do I.
What was your point?
Perhaps the mods who pushed this one to the cellar can weigh in and explain how this post is "offtopic".
I thought it appropriate considering the fact that 1) porn is presented as attachements, 2) the person was trying to make a joke about "hot" and "bytes in body".
I took it as an S&M thing. Maybe that is just me.
Really, please weigh in as an AC and tell us how this is offtopic.
If your reason is the real one, then explain to me why South Korea has a much bigger need for porn than the rest of the world.
You started your post with an assumption, built a conclusion out of thin air, and then ask me to rationalize your assumption?
Sorry, I don't do strawmen.
What I posted was a joke. South Korea is not the United States, you do not possess the data to determine whether South Korea adopted broadband because of game play, and you should quit reading too much into my words.
Thank you for your time. You may go back to whacking it in your neighbors RV.
I'd like to know what technological breakthroughs were driven by Porn?
I don't know that they were actually developed for porn, but their widespread commercial (as opposed to military) adoption may have something to do with porn.
Cameras were not originally developed for porn, but some of the earliest photographic images are of nudes and pornographic poses. Ditto for film-based home movies. And accelerating the spread of video recorders, cameras, and players was family reunions? I think mom and dad probably experimented a bit with the video equipment while waiting for the next graduation/birthday/anniversary.
No, I don't think any of these technologies was created soley with the purpose of producing or disseminating porn. But their wide adoption may have been accelerated by porn.
Sure, you told your parents that you have them for computer games, but come on - we all know why they have both advanced so quickly.
Haha! Years now I've been saying that the GPL is just a tool to advance the Leftists political agenda,...
Well, you've gone and blown it now. Posting as AC we have no way to verify that you have been "saying" anything for years. Or minutes, or seconds.
I would really rather see software patents not granted as a matter of policy, but the USPTO is too big a cash cow for that to happen.
Exactly the kind of leftist political rant I would expect to hear from Stallman.
Just about every site remodel has problems. I have just gone over the list of things I have issues with on our local public school's new website. Most of my comments have to do with broken capabilites. I'm sure that the folks at /. have tested this system in a non-production environment, but things are bound to go wrong at first. The unfortunate thing about my local school district's website has been access. How much of the /. staff resources are going to be committed to the rollout and how soon are problems going to be addressed?
Considering the fact that it took nearly two minutes for the form to arrive makes me think we are in for a bumpy ride!
Unless you have a medical reason, there is VERY LITTLE EXCUSE in this day and age and country for not knowing how to swim.
How good is your swimming skill in 25 mph current?
How long can you stay afloat?
How many impacts with buildings, trees, other debris can YOU sustain and still remain afloat?
Unless you take these factors into consideration, the fact that you *believe* you can swim out of flooding, tsunami surges, etc. only shows that you are bound to be the next victim.
There are water conditions so strong and trecherous that even the strongest swimmer cannot survive.
That is no excuse, it is just a fact.
Adhere to that message, and maybe you can stop the flood of ignorance of the bible and national enquirer from replacing really verifiable facts.
Who said anything about the Bible?
Are you high, Todd?
You should call Alanon. They can help you.
Seriously, Todd. They can help.
Oh, and Todd? Because I do not subscribe to Slashdot, your replies will fall off bottom of my user page. If you care to reply to this message, just post a message to geomon on talk.origins. Please do start off your message with the same old and wornout routine about science as a way of introduction.
Buhbye.
The USPS is a service oriented niche while the USPTO is a regulatory one.
USPTO does not provide any regulation of patents. They fulfill a service role, just like USPS. Instead of routing and delivering mail, the USPTO issues patents. It is much like your local county agent who provides you with license plates.
Enforcement of patents is left to the holder.
Their respective effectiveness aside, how is one like the other?
I would rather that the USPTO get all of its funding from the fees that accompany a patent applicaton - just as the USPS derives all of its funding from the postage it charges for each piece of mail.
If I don't send mail, I don't pay the tax for the service.
You're implying apple will raise prices to compensate for their legal fees.
Or... (as I noted before) it will cut into their profits.
Why should the shareholders be saddled with the increase in doing business?
Either the consumer or the shareholder will be hit with the costs of legal fees. They do not just disappear.
The problem isn't that they're understaffed and overworked, it's that they're morons.
Okay, I was trying to be gracious.
But where else are people with degrees in Leisure Services going to get jobs?
There can't be THAT many cruise ships or resorts.
Especially since they're now also busy coordinating relief efforts in New Orleans.
;)
Did they get added to the Department of Homeland Security too?
Shoot. No wonder they can't get anything done.
There are lots of ways to implement deterrent rating schemes without hurting the little guys.
Agreed. I think there are plenty of ways to adjust the current system without screwing the small inventor out of existence.
Now, if you choose to respond, please leave out any points you THINK I made, and stick to what I actually said. No straw men please.
Yes Dad.
This displays your ignorance.
What a wonderful way of putting that sentiment.
As always, greater fees to a company would be passed on as greater fees to license the patents.
Please parse that sentence and explain it without the redundancy. I *think* I know what you mean (see below) but I do not want to be accused *again* of misusing someone's words.
He ststed that the fees hurt small investors. He DID NOT state that the fees alone hurt small investors. No one made that argument at all, actually.
You are correct. I did take liberties with their statement. I thought their taking liberties with my post give me some license to do so, however. They read my post, obviously read my call for higher application fees, and then wrote this:
So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO?
I did *not* encourage a bigger budget for the USPTO. I believe they should operate like the USPS. They twisted my words to make it sound as though I was advocating a higher allocation of general revenues for the USPTO. No one made that argument, actually.
If the GP was really that pissed they would have taken me to task for my post. The fact that they didn't makes me wonder why you have intervened on their behalf.
What axe do you have to grind? Do you disagree with higher fees for patent applications? If so, then explain how forcing companies to make risk decisions that could affect their profits is a "bad" thing.
If filing fees are higher, companies are more likely to file only those patents that have a better chance of not being overturned in court due to prior art. If you make the fees too low, then companies are encouraged to file ANYTHING on the slim chance that the patent clerk will grant it because they already have 1,000 more in the bin to process. That means less time to evaluate the veracity of the claim and more crappy patents get through the system. In short, the system we have today.
Are you unaware of the fact that the deluge of bad patents also impacts the consumer? Do you think these companies just eat the legal fees to defend themselves against these crappy patents? Do you really believe that Apple will, out of the goodness of their heart, just absorb the legal costs out of their profits? They explain why shareholders should be saddled with this increase in the cost of doing business.
What you have failed to show in your diatribe is how the entire system is a balancing act of interests. By increasing the fees on applicants there will indeed be pain to be felt by the consumer. My point is that it will happen whether the fees are $50US or $5,000US. The only difference will be that businesses will have to calculate the risk in filing on whether their claim has merit. Too many filings lost due to poor due diligence may help the process more than hurt it.
How about apple ignore them and challenge them in court .
Well, as respondents in a civil action, they can't really ignore Creative. But your second point is right on target. If Apple has the proof that they had the idea first (either by bringing it to market first, as was suggested by another poster, or through documetation), then Creative will ultimately have to back down.
Since money is the evil causing this then why don't we create a goup of people that created the real tech behind this and challenge these generic BS patents.
Money puts food on my table, so I am unwilling to criticize it too strongly. I think the source of this problem is the frantic attempt by companies to cover their intellectual property asses by filing as many claims as they can before someone sues them. The fact that people have successfully patented obvious stuff probably has them nervous.
Or sue the patent office.
Good luck getting the government to agreed to begin sued.
How about a boycott ? I sense widespread frustration.
I agree with a boycott, but several people have already pointed out that Apple has also engaged in this behavior themselves. I see Apple as a potential victim, but the real targets of this behavior are the rest of society. We will pay for this litigation through increasing costs for derivative products. The pace of innovation will also suffer when this is allowed to happen.
Why don't you just bite the bullit and admit you were wrong? You spoke out your ass without thinking things through. Nice job.
Sure geekee.
Posting anonymously now, I see.
Are you my new stalker?
Why the hell does everybody assume Apple had the idea first,..
I don't assume that Apple had the idea first. Note the phrase in the quote you cited:
"...so it will be up to Apple to prove, if it can,..."
*If* Apple can prove that it had the idea first, then it dilutes Creative's claim of uniqueness.
I don't know whether Apple or Creative had the idea first or not on the patented technology. That will be up to the courts to sort out.
As for mp3 players? Who knows who had the first idea for that technology. That is not what Creative's claim was for, so your point about Creative beating Apple to market first is moot.
So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO?
;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.
Nope.
Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?
Nope, I recommend application fees. They are a tax on the people who use the system.
I didn't think so.
Well, I agree that small inventors are hurt by an increase in application fees. But you are incorrect that the fees alone hurt small inventors. There are plenty of ways that a large corporation can screw a small inventor out of their patent: the one Apple might be able to use on Creative is a good one - litigate a claim of prior art.
So the fees are not the only thing that bury small inventors. And as for the increase in fees? If there are more aggressive and better trained patent examiners on staff at the USPTO, there will be fewer patents for trivial crap that are filed just so some corporation will have a set of defensive patents to unleash in court.
Will the fees affect large corporations? Hell yes. The company I work for files thousands of patent applications a year. Their whole business is intellectual property. They would shit bricks if the fees were to double.
Seriously, it shouldn't even be possible to patent a hierarchical menu system...prior art abounds.
That used to be true. Most patent examiners today lack significant technical expertise for the areas where they are granting patents.
Sad but true.
I have never seen the Patent Office's head so far up its own ass to grant something like this.
They will just claim, as they have in the past, that they are understaffed and overwhelmed by the number of patents that they have to deal with.
Well, tough shit. Get more people on board and raise the application fees. The number of rejected patents due to proof of prior art will make defensive patents disappear.