Design patents are not the same as utility patents. You may not want design patents to be covered under copyright law, where they would last for a century or so. Design patents cover things that provide distinctive design but are not necessary to the utility of the device. Such designs might not be copyrightable but can still get design patents. They are shorter in duration, in the US lasting only 14 years compared to 20 years for utility patents, 90 years for corporate copyright, and life plus 70 years for personal copyrights.
You seem to be confusing corporate utility with social utility. It is indeed in the interest of society to provide well-round educated to all those who can benefit intellectually. That does not usually serve the corporate interests.
So yes, it is indeed possible to do pretty much what you want without any sort of degree at all (the usual academic exceptions apply here) . . .
Other notable exceptions: Engineers and Architects. Those call for a license with a four year degree (with some exceptions). You can work in many of those specialties without a license, but you'd usually need to rely on someone that does have the degree and license, so you would find a hard time rising above the rank of skilled laborer to professional.
Although the downward leg of the siphon moves by gravity, the upward leg does indeed use air pressure to push it up. Try siphoning water up over a 34 foot high barrier if you don't believe me. (34 feet of water is approximately equivalent to atmospheric pressure).
How about the wire leading to your doorbell button?
Already under government regulation, unless you live in one of the few areas without building codes and electrical codes.
And don't get me started on that electric fence out there surrounding that cornfield...
Damn straight I want electric fences regulated. Almost by definition, they're on the border of the property, and therefore are not isolated from others. I don't want my dog or my kid (or yours) to get electrocuted because some idiot didn't know how to build that electric fence correctly.
Why should any of it be under government regulation? We're not a socialist State.
There's a big difference between the government owning the means of production (a socialist state) and the government regulating commercial conduct to protect the public from conscience-free private interests.
In my state (IL), I was hit by a cement truck (at low speed) in a private parking lot. The cop gave us forms to fill out for insurance, but specifically said he couldn't issue any tickets, or really do anything, since it was on private property.
That wouldn't apply if there were criminal conduct, though.
The Chicago River was a stinking mess, with factories and mills up and down the river dumping waste into it.
Today, living on the river is highly desirable
Ahh, I remember as an adolescent, whenever crossing the Chicago River on the way to the neighborhood park, we used to pause at the middle of the bridge and gaze at the flowing water, timing how long it would take until a used rubber floated by. Usually took less than a minute. Now, billions of tax dollars later, storms wash the sanitary waste from Chicago's old combined sewers into the Deep Tunnel instead of overflowing directly into the river, and gets treated before being pumped into the waterways. So, rubbers in the river are now rare.
FYI, Kagan recruited Lessig to Harvard when she was dean of their law school.
And he was a on cable news yesterday speaking in favor of her nomination and confirmation.
A lot of Supreme Court justices had no previous experience as a judge, about 40 of them, if what I heard is correct.
And the job of Supreme Court justice is not as similar to being a judge hearing regular cases as you might think.
Think of it this way: does one major disaster every thirty years (if you take Exxon Valdez plus BP Deepwater Horizon and extrapolate) outweigh thirty years of economic growth made possible by cheap energy?
Yes.
If Exxon and BP were forced to make full restitution - to promptly pay fully for every fisherman's lost business. to restore the environment to it's pre-spill conditions, etc., they'd lose money for years.
There are plenty of other ways to get energy, though they would take fighting the inertia of oil. You mentioned one - natural gas - but unfortunately lumped it together with oil. There is no shortage of methane in the US. In fact, there is a glut of production. If we could learn how to make use of it, we would have no need of foreign oil.
It is a concern that release of methane from clathrates could be one of the positive feedback mechanisms: Warmer oceans could cause the clathrates to decompose, releasing methane, which would add to the greenhouse effect, further warming the oceans. On the other hand, methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, only 10 to 15 years compared to centuries for CO2. Still, CH4 is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and over 100 years has a much bigger impact than CO2 (23 GWP or so).
Article says "Drillers have long been wary of methane hydrates because they can pack a powerful punch.. . . " . . . Doesn't exactly sound like this was a new and unforseen problem, . . .
The drilling is taking place in deeper and deeper water. Deep waters have high pressure and the low temperature. Both of these make formation of methane clathrates more likely. The high pressures a mile beneath the ocean surface also make it easier to dissolve gas in the oil. Avoiding pipeline blockages and explosive decompressions is not trivial. To the extent the industry is pushing the limits of what has been done before (and they are pushing limits of depth) they can be surprised by details that they haven't encountered before.
Yes, I saw a picture of the white "suspect". If you were watching the news, there was a video of him taking off his shirt next to the car bomb. Law enforcement was asking the media to ask the viewing public for any information they may have had about that guy, not President Obama. The white suspect didn't end up being the bomber, but at the time he was at least a potential witness.
The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities
You are wrong, the description was based on video, and did not come from the media, wishful thinking or otherwise.
the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color
The law also REQUIRES law enforcement to stop someone who is reasonably suspicious.
The law also allows third parties to sue law enforcement agencies if they DON'T stop people who are reasonably suspicious.
It's quite easy for a cop to stop someone based on racial profiling first and come up with an excuse about reasonable suspicion later if they have to.
While there IS a federal legal requirement for aliens to carry papers, there is NO requirement for citizens to carry papers, thankfully (so far, AZ law effectively excluded)
The law is fucked up
(CAPS are added to stay in keeping with parent's style)
how can you start a critique of anything by saying "I don't know how this works, but it's bad"?
I don't use either XBox or Facebook myself, but I don't need to know how they work to know that they're too much of a distraction to my kids (and my wife).
And what happens to a smart invester[sic] that buys stock at $0.01 that usually trades at $40, to quickly later sell it at $30? Will the $0.01 buys be cancelled, but the $30 sells not be cancelled? But that would leave you with a short position, having to buy them back at $40.
I agree that that would be unfair. Perhaps, though not ideal, they could address that issue by forcing the original $0.01 trade at the $30 price.
Informed speculation I heard this morning is that some markets had delays (and possibly other mechanisms) built in to trading in order to maintain stability (any feedback loop, including the stock market, can become unstable under certain conditions, such as when the timing of the feedback is such that swings are reinforced rather than restrained - sufficient delays in feedback can usually dampen such swings) Other markets had different delays and mechanisms. Automated arbitrage then took over to take advantage of the difference in markets to drive large trades that led to an almost out-of-control dive in prices.
Yes, head hurt.
Throw away your prejudice about causality and simultaneity and think of this this:
From the Earth's point of view, the probe has experienced 1.67 seconds less than the Earth.
From the probe's point of view, the Earth has experienced 1.67 seconds less than the probe.
(Actual numbers probably differ, because of gravity, varying motions, and uncertainties)
Paying for the cleanup, they can probably do (If it doesn't get too far out of hand)
But paying for the damages? From what appears to be happening, if it goes on long enough there may be no way that paying money will be able to compensate for the damages.
Some things (lives, extinctions, permanent changes to the ecosystem) can't be measured in money.
Alot of deleterious traits are inherited. After all, it's not the survival of any particular individual that matters in evolution, but the survival of the whole pool of genes shared within the species' population.
On the other hand, as you say, you can be born with traits that you didn't inherit. It may very well be, IMHO, a hormonal problem in the development of the embryo or fetus.
Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that it's undecided yet how this would fit in with the First Sale Doctrine. So, if the First Sale Doctrine could apply, then after buying the camera you can use it for any purpose you want, whether or not it's commercial. It could go the other way, though. We won't know anytime soon since for most users it would not be economically useful to drag the issues through a long trial, let alone through the inevitable appeals. Given the state of patents in the US, it seems likely that courts would decide that you bought a product licensed for only non-commercial use and you would need to pay any relevant license fees to use the camera commercially. If that license was unclear at the time of sale, you might be able to sue the manufacturer or sales company, but, again, that would require expensive and lengthy legal efforts, and it'd probably be more economical to just pay the license fees yourself and avoid the risk.
What license agreement? The one in the manual? . . . How is that even enforceable from a legal perspective?
Fortunately for MPEG-LA (in the USA, anyway), they don't have to enforce the license. They can enforce the patent at any time, as selectively as they want. The only thing the license does is maybe protect non-commercial users from losing in court because they relied on a statement that they would not be sued.
If you're using the raised floor plenum for supply, the efficient way to do it would be tosupply directly into rack ecnlosures and use the entire room as the warm side. That'd be very efficient, but might take some thought about how you build and ventilate the rack enclosures
If the air is supplied directly to the space, make the ceiling a return air plenum and provide ducted exhaust from the racks into the ceiling return and make the whole space the cold side (as illustrated in TFA). That's almost as efficient, but might still require a little thought about how to build and ventilate the enclosure.
Curtains or partitions to separate hot and cold aisles will require coordination for lighting, fire protection, egress, etc., which could pose problems, especially in an existing facility.
Slashdot Mirror
Design patents are not the same as utility patents. You may not want design patents to be covered under copyright law, where they would last for a century or so. Design patents cover things that provide distinctive design but are not necessary to the utility of the device. Such designs might not be copyrightable but can still get design patents. They are shorter in duration, in the US lasting only 14 years compared to 20 years for utility patents, 90 years for corporate copyright, and life plus 70 years for personal copyrights.
You seem to be confusing corporate utility with social utility. It is indeed in the interest of society to provide well-round educated to all those who can benefit intellectually. That does not usually serve the corporate interests.
So yes, it is indeed possible to do pretty much what you want without any sort of degree at all (the usual academic exceptions apply here) . . .
Other notable exceptions: Engineers and Architects. Those call for a license with a four year degree (with some exceptions). You can work in many of those specialties without a license, but you'd usually need to rely on someone that does have the degree and license, so you would find a hard time rising above the rank of skilled laborer to professional.
Although the downward leg of the siphon moves by gravity, the upward leg does indeed use air pressure to push it up. Try siphoning water up over a 34 foot high barrier if you don't believe me. (34 feet of water is approximately equivalent to atmospheric pressure).
How about the wire leading to your doorbell button?
Already under government regulation, unless you live in one of the few areas without building codes and electrical codes.
And don't get me started on that electric fence out there surrounding that cornfield...
Damn straight I want electric fences regulated. Almost by definition, they're on the border of the property, and therefore are not isolated from others. I don't want my dog or my kid (or yours) to get electrocuted because some idiot didn't know how to build that electric fence correctly.
Why should any of it be under government regulation? We're not a socialist State.
There's a big difference between the government owning the means of production (a socialist state) and the government regulating commercial conduct to protect the public from conscience-free private interests.
In my state (IL), I was hit by a cement truck (at low speed) in a private parking lot. The cop gave us forms to fill out for insurance, but specifically said he couldn't issue any tickets, or really do anything, since it was on private property.
That wouldn't apply if there were criminal conduct, though.
The Chicago River was a stinking mess, with factories and mills up and down the river dumping waste into it.
Today, living on the river is highly desirable
Ahh, I remember as an adolescent, whenever crossing the Chicago River on the way to the neighborhood park, we used to pause at the middle of the bridge and gaze at the flowing water, timing how long it would take until a used rubber floated by. Usually took less than a minute.
Now, billions of tax dollars later, storms wash the sanitary waste from Chicago's old combined sewers into the Deep Tunnel instead of overflowing directly into the river, and gets treated before being pumped into the waterways. So, rubbers in the river are now rare.
FYI, Kagan recruited Lessig to Harvard when she was dean of their law school.
And he was a on cable news yesterday speaking in favor of her nomination and confirmation.
A lot of Supreme Court justices had no previous experience as a judge, about 40 of them, if what I heard is correct.
And the job of Supreme Court justice is not as similar to being a judge hearing regular cases as you might think.
Think of it this way: does one major disaster every thirty years (if you take Exxon Valdez plus BP Deepwater Horizon and extrapolate) outweigh thirty years of economic growth made possible by cheap energy?
Yes.
If Exxon and BP were forced to make full restitution - to promptly pay fully for every fisherman's lost business. to restore the environment to it's pre-spill conditions, etc., they'd lose money for years.
There are plenty of other ways to get energy, though they would take fighting the inertia of oil. You mentioned one - natural gas - but unfortunately lumped it together with oil. There is no shortage of methane in the US. In fact, there is a glut of production. If we could learn how to make use of it, we would have no need of foreign oil.
It is a concern that release of methane from clathrates could be one of the positive feedback mechanisms: Warmer oceans could cause the clathrates to decompose, releasing methane, which would add to the greenhouse effect, further warming the oceans. On the other hand, methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, only 10 to 15 years compared to centuries for CO2. Still, CH4 is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and over 100 years has a much bigger impact than CO2 (23 GWP or so).
Article says "Drillers have long been wary of methane hydrates because they can pack a powerful punch.. . . " . . . Doesn't exactly sound like this was a new and unforseen problem, . . .
The drilling is taking place in deeper and deeper water. Deep waters have high pressure and the low temperature. Both of these make formation of methane clathrates more likely. The high pressures a mile beneath the ocean surface also make it easier to dissolve gas in the oil. Avoiding pipeline blockages and explosive decompressions is not trivial. To the extent the industry is pushing the limits of what has been done before (and they are pushing limits of depth) they can be surprised by details that they haven't encountered before.
Did you see any pics of the guy?
Yes, I saw a picture of the white "suspect". If you were watching the news, there was a video of him taking off his shirt next to the car bomb. Law enforcement was asking the media to ask the viewing public for any information they may have had about that guy, not President Obama. The white suspect didn't end up being the bomber, but at the time he was at least a potential witness.
The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities
You are wrong, the description was based on video, and did not come from the media, wishful thinking or otherwise.
the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color
The law also REQUIRES law enforcement to stop someone who is reasonably suspicious.
The law also allows third parties to sue law enforcement agencies if they DON'T stop people who are reasonably suspicious.
It's quite easy for a cop to stop someone based on racial profiling first and come up with an excuse about reasonable suspicion later if they have to.
While there IS a federal legal requirement for aliens to carry papers, there is NO requirement for citizens to carry papers, thankfully (so far, AZ law effectively excluded)
The law is fucked up
(CAPS are added to stay in keeping with parent's style)
how can you start a critique of anything by saying "I don't know how this works, but it's bad"?
I don't use either XBox or Facebook myself, but I don't need to know how they work to know that they're too much of a distraction to my kids (and my wife).
And what happens to a smart invester[sic] that buys stock at $0.01 that usually trades at $40, to quickly later sell it at $30? Will the $0.01 buys be cancelled, but the $30 sells not be cancelled? But that would leave you with a short position, having to buy them back at $40.
I agree that that would be unfair.
Perhaps, though not ideal, they could address that issue by forcing the original $0.01 trade at the $30 price.
Informed speculation I heard this morning is that some markets had delays (and possibly other mechanisms) built in to trading in order to maintain stability (any feedback loop, including the stock market, can become unstable under certain conditions, such as when the timing of the feedback is such that swings are reinforced rather than restrained - sufficient delays in feedback can usually dampen such swings) Other markets had different delays and mechanisms. Automated arbitrage then took over to take advantage of the difference in markets to drive large trades that led to an almost out-of-control dive in prices.
Yes, head hurt.
Throw away your prejudice about causality and simultaneity and think of this this:
From the Earth's point of view, the probe has experienced 1.67 seconds less than the Earth.
From the probe's point of view, the Earth has experienced 1.67 seconds less than the probe.
(Actual numbers probably differ, because of gravity, varying motions, and uncertainties)
Paying for the cleanup, they can probably do (If it doesn't get too far out of hand)
But paying for the damages? From what appears to be happening, if it goes on long enough there may be no way that paying money will be able to compensate for the damages.
Some things (lives, extinctions, permanent changes to the ecosystem) can't be measured in money.
Alot of deleterious traits are inherited. After all, it's not the survival of any particular individual that matters in evolution, but the survival of the whole pool of genes shared within the species' population.
On the other hand, as you say, you can be born with traits that you didn't inherit. It may very well be, IMHO, a hormonal problem in the development of the embryo or fetus.
Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that it's undecided yet how this would fit in with the First Sale Doctrine. So, if the First Sale Doctrine could apply, then after buying the camera you can use it for any purpose you want, whether or not it's commercial. It could go the other way, though. We won't know anytime soon since for most users it would not be economically useful to drag the issues through a long trial, let alone through the inevitable appeals. Given the state of patents in the US, it seems likely that courts would decide that you bought a product licensed for only non-commercial use and you would need to pay any relevant license fees to use the camera commercially. If that license was unclear at the time of sale, you might be able to sue the manufacturer or sales company, but, again, that would require expensive and lengthy legal efforts, and it'd probably be more economical to just pay the license fees yourself and avoid the risk.
sucks.
What license agreement? The one in the manual? . . . How is that even enforceable from a legal perspective?
Fortunately for MPEG-LA (in the USA, anyway), they don't have to enforce the license. They can enforce the patent at any time, as selectively as they want. The only thing the license does is maybe protect non-commercial users from losing in court because they relied on a statement that they would not be sued.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
If you're using the raised floor plenum for supply, the efficient way to do it would be tosupply directly into rack ecnlosures and use the entire room as the warm side. That'd be very efficient, but might take some thought about how you build and ventilate the rack enclosures
If the air is supplied directly to the space, make the ceiling a return air plenum and provide ducted exhaust from the racks into the ceiling return and make the whole space the cold side (as illustrated in TFA). That's almost as efficient, but might still require a little thought about how to build and ventilate the enclosure.
Curtains or partitions to separate hot and cold aisles will require coordination for lighting, fire protection, egress, etc., which could pose problems, especially in an existing facility.
I'd like to know more about how he gets that entropy loss, though. He may have hit on the secret to making a perpetual serving machine.
And yet, Wierd Al does bother get permission from the original artists, which avoids the fight, usually.