You have a higher standard for non-obvious inventions than the courts do. And I still believe that you will find most "great inventions" simply took existing parts and pieced them together in a useful way. Edison didn't invent the first lightbulb -- his improvement was to use a high resistance carbon as the filament. He didn't invent high resistance carbon. So, he simply pieced together two existing things that happened to work well together.
On you last point: as I said, if it is a solid case of invalidity, then it will never go to jury and be decided by the judge in summary judgment. Even if it did go to jury, whether juries statistically favor plaintiffs is studied quite closely and depends on jurisdiction. So I don't agree with your generalization of bias towards the plaintiff.
Hindsight is 20/20. 99.99% of inventions are made with "off-the-shelf technology" and seem obvious 10 years after the fact. Like Edison's lightbulb. If the invention is blatantly obvious, as you claim, then the defendants should have no problem winning a summary judgment invalidating the claims.
Agreed. Tivo is the posterboy for why the patent system exists. They spent time, money and effort to develop a technology that was then widely adopted by other large companies with little to no effort. This is exactly why patent protection exists. Not every case where someone is sued for patent infringement is a case of trolling.
If you Person A owns a house+property and I decide I want to set up my new restaurant in your front yard because I think you aren't using your property wisely and for the full benefit of society, would Person A be accused of being a "Property Troll" for suing me? Silliness...
I am in a similar situation and live in Boston (the focus of the article). We have lived here 3 years and never owned a car. The killer cost is parking both at home and at work:
DRIVING:
Parking spot at our condo: $170/month
Parking spot in downtown: $400/month
Insurance in Boston: $300/month
Car Payment (depends on car): $300/month
Gas: $100/month
General maintenance: $100/month TOTAL = $16,440/year
NO CAR:
MBTA Pass: $59/month
ZipCar for occasional trips: $75/month TOTAL = $1,608/year
DIFFERENCE SAVED: $14,832
Even if some of my numbers are slightly off (insurance, maintenance...I don't know...never owned a car) cars are clearly a waste if you live and work in Boston.
If 145 children blew up in a school, the nation would morn it as a tragedy. If you could have stopped it with a simple solution, you would.
The fact is that the "tiny risk" of dying from chicken pox (once again...a low risk example; measles and other diseases are much bigger killers) is much greater than than the non-existant risk of dying from a vaccine.
You seem to imply that there is some reason to be distrustful of vaccines. It is fine to be skeptical, but the evidence is not on your side. Each vaccine carries at most 5 or 6 antigens. You are exposed to thousands of antigens every day. Your body can take it -- evolution bred it to. The initial studies of the chicken pox vaccine in the 1980s showed it was safe and new studies are constantly being released that continue to show that vaccines are safe. How much proof is necessary? 30 years of research is not enough?
Indeed. It sounds exactly like poison:
"Since 1990, VAERS has received over 123,000 reports, most of which describe mild side effects such as fever. Very rarely, people experience serious adverse events following immunization." Those damn fevers really are a bugger -- we should probably just let the kids die.
The question is how many people are saved versus how many are killed by vaccines. Show me the studies that show that vaccines are poison and then maybe there could be a sensible conversation.
Also, we happened to choose chicken pox. Vaccines for other diseases clearly have more benefit.
Whatever. When you watch these kids die, 145 is a lot. Laugh all you want, but you are the one making decisions about your daughters health based on irrational fear of vaccines that has no scientific proof.
The US Gov't spends more money and endangers more lives to save fewer lives in the name of fighting terrorism.
There has not been one study that shows vaccinations are actually effective.
I don't even know what to say to that.
Let's take the example of chicken pox.
Pre-Varicella vaccine, there were more then 15,000 hospitalizations due to Varicella from 1993-1995. Between 1990-1994, it was the cause of death for 145 people per year.
Post-vaccine, the number of varicella hospitalizations decreased by 75-88%, and decreased by 100% for infants! Only 16 deaths from Varicella were reported in 2003.
I don't know what your definition of effective is, but that certainly qualifies as effective to me.
You decided chicken pox was not a big deal because it wasn't for you. That does not make for a very good medical study.
Pre-Varicella vaccine, there were more then 15,000 hospitalizations due to Varicella from 1993-1995. Between 1990-1994, it was the cause of death for 145 people per year.
Post-vaccine, the number of varicella hospitalizations decreased by 75-88%, and decreased by 100% for infants! Only 16 deaths from Varicella were reported in 2003.
You might think Chicken Pox is not dangerous, but you are wrong because, like most parents, you are basing your decision on YOUR experience instead of studies done my medical professionals.
MY experience as a child was that I didn't need a bike helmet because I never got hurt. Does that mean I am not going make my kid where a helmet? I hope not.
I understand the intention is to help and that I am being a drama queen. And I don't disagree that parents are generally better at parenting.
I dispute that this is a parenting decision and would say it is a public health decision. One of the goals of federal government (that most liberals and conservatives usually agree upon) is to protect the nation's citizens -- they just might disagree on the method: via an army (the GW Bush method) or through healthcare (the dirty commie way).
The other problem I have with your argument is that this is a decision government implements upon the recommendation of doctors. For the most part parents listen to doctors about healthcare decision. For some reason, some people think they know better when it comes to vaccines. I can promise you they don't. They haven't done the research (or even read the research). They are motivated by fear and the false impression that things like chicken pox and measles are not deadly diseases.
Parents can have all the good intentions they want. But when they don't have a) good information, b) reliable data, c) and a brain, they can make bad decisions that harm their children (and society as a whole). And there are certainly times when doctors are allowed to override the parents wishes, but that usually that occurs in more emergent situations like when some idiot does not want to treat their kid because they think god will handle it.
The problem is that it is not a matter of individual health -- it is a matter of community health. To prevent epidemics, a certain threshold of the population must be vaccinated. By not vaccinating your child you are not just threatening its life, but the communities overall well-being. As the husband of a pediatrician who honestly believes that not vaccinating your child is tantamount to child abuse (perhaps another thing that parents should be able to choose to do to their children?), I think this is exactly the sort of thing the government should dictate.
It may have to do with the fact that the paper you cited is measuring recoil momentum in a cold atom cloud and not a traditional dielectric material.
But I am not sure.
Where do you get the idea that other professions don't get tested? Perhaps some are more difficult to test on the spot (unlike IT), but lawyers (after passing the bar!) have to submit writing samples (memos, briefs, motions, etc.); potential professors often have to teach an example class to an evaluation committee consisting of professors from that department; doctors take board exams and are often quizzed on how they would approach a certain situation.
Get over yourself and do what the interviewer wants. You should be grateful that they do their job properly and care about the company enough to hire competent IT staff.
I agree with this list. Especially Griffith's books, which are written at a true undergraduate level and in an understandable way. Definitely not a be all end all resource, but a great intro.
I would recommend his quantum mechanics books, too. And Cohen-Tannoudji for a more thurough approach.
If you are going into astrophysics, you might find "Gravitation" by Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler useful. If you think you will need to know General Relativity, this is the tome to have. It is really more of a maths book, with applications to GR and astrophysics.
1) The US bombs country and tortures its citizens.
2) This increases support for terrorism among their audience.
3) Therefore the US is providing material support to terrorists.
4) Therefore the US are terrorists.
5) Therefore the US are all unlawful combatants.
6) Therefore it's OK to ship 'em all to Guantanamo.
#&*%...I guess we are all screwed.
Dude...all I said was that if the New Yorker libelled him, then asking for an apology is not pathetic. Personally, I could care less who gets credit for proving Poincare -- what I do care about is the media being responsible for what they print. Whether Yau is a jerk or not, libel is illegal and should be nipped in the bud.
If the New Yorker article contains falsehoods (which I believe it does), AND the statements were knowlingly false to the author (or they were included due to negligent research by the author), then I don't think the law suit is pathetic. Protecting ones reputation, especially when you are a big name involved with political issues in China, is important.
And the point of Yau's response is that most of the claims made by the article have no sources. From the legal letter, even the sources used in the New Yorker article claim they were misquoted. Many of the sources for the article also seemed to be Chinese news articles that were retracted as being false...but were still used as fact.
I am sure Dr. Yau has an ego and thinks of himself as awesome, but the New Yorker article went a bit over the top. In no way has Dr. Yau ever said Perelman does not deserve the Fields medal and that he (Dr. Yau) does (as the letter points out: He already has one and is no longer eligible because of his age).
As far as 're-hashing' the work: that is what is done when the proof of a conjecture is not well understood or even confirmed to be a proof. 'Re-hashing' is what mathematicians world-wide are doing with Perelman's work in order to see whether his work is valid. It is part of the mathematical process. And it does not seem that Dr. Yau is claiming that Perelman's work is wrong or useless...in fact, quite the opposite. He has publically stated that Perelman deserves the Fields medal.
The source I found says space shuttle orbit at about 300 km --- the baloon only made it 32 km. From what I read about the mystery object, it was pretty close to the shuttle and most likely from the cargo bay.
Here is a link to the whole timeline from e360Insight's webpage -- it includes info about the court and the judge and the decision:
http://www.e360insight.com/case_history.html
Slashdot Mirror
According to the researchers' website the nano-mechanical resonator is a few micrometers in diameter:
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~clelandgroup/research.html
The previous record was a buckyball.
You have a higher standard for non-obvious inventions than the courts do. And I still believe that you will find most "great inventions" simply took existing parts and pieced them together in a useful way. Edison didn't invent the first lightbulb -- his improvement was to use a high resistance carbon as the filament. He didn't invent high resistance carbon. So, he simply pieced together two existing things that happened to work well together.
On you last point: as I said, if it is a solid case of invalidity, then it will never go to jury and be decided by the judge in summary judgment. Even if it did go to jury, whether juries statistically favor plaintiffs is studied quite closely and depends on jurisdiction. So I don't agree with your generalization of bias towards the plaintiff.
Hindsight is 20/20. 99.99% of inventions are made with "off-the-shelf technology" and seem obvious 10 years after the fact. Like Edison's lightbulb. If the invention is blatantly obvious, as you claim, then the defendants should have no problem winning a summary judgment invalidating the claims.
Agreed. Tivo is the posterboy for why the patent system exists. They spent time, money and effort to develop a technology that was then widely adopted by other large companies with little to no effort. This is exactly why patent protection exists. Not every case where someone is sued for patent infringement is a case of trolling.
If you Person A owns a house+property and I decide I want to set up my new restaurant in your front yard because I think you aren't using your property wisely and for the full benefit of society, would Person A be accused of being a "Property Troll" for suing me? Silliness...
DRIVING:
Parking spot at our condo: $170/month
Parking spot in downtown: $400/month
Insurance in Boston: $300/month
Car Payment (depends on car): $300/month
Gas: $100/month
General maintenance: $100/month
TOTAL = $16,440/year
NO CAR:
MBTA Pass: $59/month
ZipCar for occasional trips: $75/month
TOTAL = $1,608/year
DIFFERENCE SAVED: $14,832
Even if some of my numbers are slightly off (insurance, maintenance...I don't know...never owned a car) cars are clearly a waste if you live and work in Boston.
The fact is that the "tiny risk" of dying from chicken pox (once again...a low risk example; measles and other diseases are much bigger killers) is much greater than than the non-existant risk of dying from a vaccine.
You seem to imply that there is some reason to be distrustful of vaccines. It is fine to be skeptical, but the evidence is not on your side. Each vaccine carries at most 5 or 6 antigens. You are exposed to thousands of antigens every day. Your body can take it -- evolution bred it to. The initial studies of the chicken pox vaccine in the 1980s showed it was safe and new studies are constantly being released that continue to show that vaccines are safe. How much proof is necessary? 30 years of research is not enough?
Indeed. It sounds exactly like poison: "Since 1990, VAERS has received over 123,000 reports, most of which describe mild side effects such as fever. Very rarely, people experience serious adverse events following immunization." Those damn fevers really are a bugger -- we should probably just let the kids die.
The question is how many people are saved versus how many are killed by vaccines. Show me the studies that show that vaccines are poison and then maybe there could be a sensible conversation.
Also, we happened to choose chicken pox. Vaccines for other diseases clearly have more benefit.
The US Gov't spends more money and endangers more lives to save fewer lives in the name of fighting terrorism.
There has not been one study that shows vaccinations are actually effective.
I don't even know what to say to that.
Let's take the example of chicken pox.
Pre-Varicella vaccine, there were more then 15,000 hospitalizations due to Varicella from 1993-1995. Between 1990-1994, it was the cause of death for 145 people per year.
Post-vaccine, the number of varicella hospitalizations decreased by 75-88%, and decreased by 100% for infants! Only 16 deaths from Varicella were reported in 2003.
I don't know what your definition of effective is, but that certainly qualifies as effective to me.
SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5604a1.htm [cdc.gov]
Pre-Varicella vaccine, there were more then 15,000 hospitalizations due to Varicella from 1993-1995. Between 1990-1994, it was the cause of death for 145 people per year.
Post-vaccine, the number of varicella hospitalizations decreased by 75-88%, and decreased by 100% for infants! Only 16 deaths from Varicella were reported in 2003.
You might think Chicken Pox is not dangerous, but you are wrong because, like most parents, you are basing your decision on YOUR experience instead of studies done my medical professionals.
MY experience as a child was that I didn't need a bike helmet because I never got hurt. Does that mean I am not going make my kid where a helmet? I hope not.
SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5604a1.htm
I dispute that this is a parenting decision and would say it is a public health decision. One of the goals of federal government (that most liberals and conservatives usually agree upon) is to protect the nation's citizens -- they just might disagree on the method: via an army (the GW Bush method) or through healthcare (the dirty commie way).
The other problem I have with your argument is that this is a decision government implements upon the recommendation of doctors. For the most part parents listen to doctors about healthcare decision. For some reason, some people think they know better when it comes to vaccines. I can promise you they don't. They haven't done the research (or even read the research). They are motivated by fear and the false impression that things like chicken pox and measles are not deadly diseases.
Parents can have all the good intentions they want. But when they don't have a) good information, b) reliable data, c) and a brain, they can make bad decisions that harm their children (and society as a whole). And there are certainly times when doctors are allowed to override the parents wishes, but that usually that occurs in more emergent situations like when some idiot does not want to treat their kid because they think god will handle it.
The problem is that it is not a matter of individual health -- it is a matter of community health. To prevent epidemics, a certain threshold of the population must be vaccinated. By not vaccinating your child you are not just threatening its life, but the communities overall well-being. As the husband of a pediatrician who honestly believes that not vaccinating your child is tantamount to child abuse (perhaps another thing that parents should be able to choose to do to their children?), I think this is exactly the sort of thing the government should dictate.
It may have to do with the fact that the paper you cited is measuring recoil momentum in a cold atom cloud and not a traditional dielectric material. But I am not sure.
So much for posting accurate comments.
Get over yourself and do what the interviewer wants. You should be grateful that they do their job properly and care about the company enough to hire competent IT staff.
If you are going into astrophysics, you might find "Gravitation" by Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler useful. If you think you will need to know General Relativity, this is the tome to have. It is really more of a maths book, with applications to GR and astrophysics.
1) The US bombs country and tortures its citizens.
2) This increases support for terrorism among their audience.
3) Therefore the US is providing material support to terrorists.
4) Therefore the US are terrorists.
5) Therefore the US are all unlawful combatants.
6) Therefore it's OK to ship 'em all to Guantanamo.
#&*%...I guess we are all screwed.
Dude...all I said was that if the New Yorker libelled him, then asking for an apology is not pathetic. Personally, I could care less who gets credit for proving Poincare -- what I do care about is the media being responsible for what they print. Whether Yau is a jerk or not, libel is illegal and should be nipped in the bud.
If the New Yorker article contains falsehoods (which I believe it does), AND the statements were knowlingly false to the author (or they were included due to negligent research by the author), then I don't think the law suit is pathetic. Protecting ones reputation, especially when you are a big name involved with political issues in China, is important.
too bad the 'acting director' who is reported to said that does not exist...did you even read the letter? perhaps you need a good cockpunch, also.
Ummm....In 1982 Yau was awarded the Fields Medal, the highest award in mathematics. And you are saying he just can't be in the very top. Yeah...ok.
I am sure Dr. Yau has an ego and thinks of himself as awesome, but the New Yorker article went a bit over the top. In no way has Dr. Yau ever said Perelman does not deserve the Fields medal and that he (Dr. Yau) does (as the letter points out: He already has one and is no longer eligible because of his age).
As far as 're-hashing' the work: that is what is done when the proof of a conjecture is not well understood or even confirmed to be a proof. 'Re-hashing' is what mathematicians world-wide are doing with Perelman's work in order to see whether his work is valid. It is part of the mathematical process. And it does not seem that Dr. Yau is claiming that Perelman's work is wrong or useless...in fact, quite the opposite. He has publically stated that Perelman deserves the Fields medal.
The source I found says space shuttle orbit at about 300 km --- the baloon only made it 32 km. From what I read about the mystery object, it was pretty close to the shuttle and most likely from the cargo bay.
Here is a link to the whole timeline from e360Insight's webpage -- it includes info about the court and the judge and the decision: http://www.e360insight.com/case_history.html