If your TI had the chicklet keypad (which actually looked kind of like your brother's PC jr's keys), it was a 99/4, the 99/4a came later and had a proper looking keyboard in it. I had a 99/4 myself originally, but I swapped it to a 4a soon after through an upgrade program TI offered, primarily due to the better graphics and sprite handling capabilities of the later model--features which were needed to run Parsec!
This appears to be one step closer to reason, but not quite the outbreak of common sense that many (including me) have been hoping (and/or pounding fists into tables and heads against walls) for. Patents are good when they (1) encourage the application of resources (time/money/intellect) in working out how to do something new/better/improved, (2) provide for a means of allowing the individual(s) who devoted these resources to derive some benefit from their efforts (primarily monetary, but not exclusively), (3) explicitly allow for the expiration of the rights (of exclusive ownership of the implementation details) to ensure that the the general public can, in time, benefit most fully from the invention after a suitable level of "encouragement" has been allowed to accrue to the inventor. A proper functioning patent system will not only address those 3 goals, but also balance the relationships among them to achieve the best long term outcome for all individuals (i.e. society).
What the change discussed in TFA addresses, is a part of the larger discussion on the refinement of the system regarding software patents to make sure that patents are only (hopefully) offered on the working out of the implemenation details to make it work, not on the concept or method itself (which took inspiration but not substantial development effort to invent). It's a critically important distinction that means the difference between a system which encourages people to invest their time/effort/money in developing new/novel/innovative ways of doing things without worrying about losing there shirt to copycats on day 2.
The invalidation of most software patents would get us back, here in the US, to being closer to a patent system which is as it should be: an economic inducement mechanism for encouraging investment in development of new things, not a prize system that locks up value within the organization who patent ideas first (or who have the biggest legal teams to do so).
He's obviously heading to Nigeria. There are plenty of like-minded businessmen there who, I am sure, would be willing to shelter him in exchange for a small fee...all he has to do is send them his bank account information and they will be right over to pick him up.
No doubt he has already received several of these offers in his email.
Slashdot Mirror
If your TI had the chicklet keypad (which actually looked kind of like your brother's PC jr's keys), it was a 99/4, the 99/4a came later and had a proper looking keyboard in it. I had a 99/4 myself originally, but I swapped it to a 4a soon after through an upgrade program TI offered, primarily due to the better graphics and sprite handling capabilities of the later model--features which were needed to run Parsec!
Great idea. I nominate Lawrence Lessig!
For more on Knol, issues of competion, and potential Google conflicts of interest check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol Of course
...black helicopter lands on Dr. Mitchell's lawn...
This appears to be one step closer to reason, but not quite the outbreak of common sense that many (including me) have been hoping (and/or pounding fists into tables and heads against walls) for. Patents are good when they (1) encourage the application of resources (time/money/intellect) in working out how to do something new/better/improved, (2) provide for a means of allowing the individual(s) who devoted these resources to derive some benefit from their efforts (primarily monetary, but not exclusively), (3) explicitly allow for the expiration of the rights (of exclusive ownership of the implementation details) to ensure that the the general public can, in time, benefit most fully from the invention after a suitable level of "encouragement" has been allowed to accrue to the inventor. A proper functioning patent system will not only address those 3 goals, but also balance the relationships among them to achieve the best long term outcome for all individuals (i.e. society). What the change discussed in TFA addresses, is a part of the larger discussion on the refinement of the system regarding software patents to make sure that patents are only (hopefully) offered on the working out of the implemenation details to make it work, not on the concept or method itself (which took inspiration but not substantial development effort to invent). It's a critically important distinction that means the difference between a system which encourages people to invest their time/effort/money in developing new/novel/innovative ways of doing things without worrying about losing there shirt to copycats on day 2. The invalidation of most software patents would get us back, here in the US, to being closer to a patent system which is as it should be: an economic inducement mechanism for encouraging investment in development of new things, not a prize system that locks up value within the organization who patent ideas first (or who have the biggest legal teams to do so).
He's obviously heading to Nigeria. There are plenty of like-minded businessmen there who, I am sure, would be willing to shelter him in exchange for a small fee...all he has to do is send them his bank account information and they will be right over to pick him up. No doubt he has already received several of these offers in his email.
So there is no spoon, but there may be a fork