And by those documents, the wireless "segment" of AT&T brought in a 28.6% profit margin for 2009 Q1. Just to spell it out for people too lazy to click through.
Yeah, but that just pushes the problem off, doesn't it? Instead of worrying about 2038, we would then have to worry about 584554531360! What are we going to do 584 billion years from now when 64-bit time runs out?
Instead of following hare-brained schemes like this, I think we should look seriously at implementing RFC 2550.
Actually, the peak of human hearing sensitivity is around 3 KHz -- the frequency at which we scream. 600 Hz is only a bit more than an octave above middle C. (Think about the difference between a flute in the lower part of its range and a piccolo in the upper part of its range.)
A common misconception. Studies have shown repeatedly that the human eye is generally able to read quicker and comprehend more when the text is presented in narrow columns of about 65 to 75 characters each, or about as wide as you can actually read at once with no eye motion. Consider: make your window as wide as possible and stare at the middle of this line. How many words on either side of where you are staring can you read without moving your eyes?
If the lines are significantly wider than that amount, then it leads to more eye motion and greater strain. TeX and its derivatives and siblings have the right idea; if you've ever used it, you'll note that by default it creates narrow columns.
Or consider the newspapers that you have pointed out yourself. The column width was not implemented due to some limitation of early printing machines. Pages were printed all at once; why do you think they made columns the width they did? The WSJ could easily change to having two columns per page, but that would make it more difficult to read, so they continue to stick with six -- not out of tradition or an inherent limitation, but because that is the "friendly" thing to do.
No, the APEX player is not illegal
under the DMCA.
Yet.
There are provisions of the DMCA which,
according to the text of the legislation, take
effect two years after the law is signed. This
will be October 28, 2000. On that date, the
region-free APEX player will become illegal.
I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong,
but in order for the contract to be construed
under Maryland law, I believe that the corporation
has to have at least a branch office in Maryland.
Which just provides all the more impetus for
Maryland to pass the law, because then companies
will be flocking to open an office there.
That line about "potential trade barrier" had me wondering why the WTO hasn't been called in on this issue. After all, they're against trade barriers, right? And the region code is nothing but a trade barrier...
There is actually another way to defeat UCITA, although it's probably best for a back-up plan. UCITA expressly states that any Federal law which contradicts UCITA shall have precedence. (It doesn't really need to state this, since UCITA is a state law, and that's true anyways.)
So if Congress passes something saying that the right to reverse engineer (for example) cannot be abrogated, then that bit of UCITA goes out the window.
The only problem is getting Congress to do such a thing... Yeah, maybe you just better forget I mentioned this.
The full text of UCITA, as passed by the NCCUSL (Nat'l Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) is available online, as is a FAQ-type document written up by the NCCUSL.
It seems to me that this is once again a case of law being drafted by idiots. It really seems to me like the NCCUSL thinks they're doing the right thing by consumers, that they haven't thought through the implications of things, or how courts would be forced to rule on the issues. They claim that they are giving lots of new rights to consumers, that they are not outlawing reverse engineering or license transfers.
There are a couple of things in the FAQ that it seems to me can be universally agreed upon as being obvious.
Federal law supercedes state law. This means that if any provision of the UCITA contradicts Federal law, then that provision is invalid.
Unreasonable terms of a contract cannot be enforced. This means that if a provision of a software contract states that you shall never eat tomatoes again, it can be thrown out. It is up to the courts to determine what is "unreasonable".
After reading through the section on transfers, it seems to me (IANAL) that it does not outlaw transfers of licenses. Rather, it says that such transfers may be outlawed by a term in the license. AFAIK, this has always been the case. In the case of mass-market license, any such transfer-prohibiting term must be "conspicuous" (i.e. one of those annoying SECTIONS IN ALL CAPS).
Reverse engineering: UCITA explicitly states that it does not supercede existing "trade secret" laws. I'm having a hard time finding other areas of UCITA that would apply to reverse engineering (IANAL). Anybody care to help out on this one?
Mostly, I just tend to be a bit wary of things that scream, "THIS LAW IS EVIL!" I like to check them out. It doesn't seem to me that UCITA is as evil as it is cracked up to be. (IANAL) If people would refute this, I would appreciate it.
Do you have any proof of this? Point out exactly where in the bill it says this, please.
Besides, I think that you (like many other people) don't really understand the tech behind digital signatures. Under PGP, for instance, the use of a digital signature (creation, etc.) goes roughly as follows:
Creating a hash of the document. A hash is a method of taking all the bytes of the document and creating a checksum of sorts. Change the document (even one byte) and you change the hash.
Encode the hash with your private key.
Send the document to the recipient.
They will then encode the signature with your public key. Public keys and private keys are designed so that if you encode something with both of them, you get the original document back, regardless of what order you do the double-encoding. Also, it is mathematically impossible to figure out the private key from the public key without brute forcing it. (This may change, and is the biggest risk.)
They then compute their own hash of the document and compare it with the encoded hash. If they are the same, it is a valid signature.
You do not know my private key. If you modify a document I have signed, you will not be able to re-sign it with my private key, and it will appear as an invalid signature.
Furthermore, if you hack into Outpost.com and steal the signature I used on my last order with them... SO WHAT? You have my signature. Big deal. You cannot use that signature to forge other documents so as to appear as if they have come from me. You can't even figure out what the order was from the signature (though the order and signature will probably be kept together). In short, my signature is useless to you.
I browsed thru the norwegian copyright laws [and] I noticed that one is allowed to do whatever it takes in order to get access to a database that one owns or has licensed.
Then I do not see the contradiction between that argument and Stevew's claims that the DVD content is still owned by the copyright holder. That may be, but you have a license to that data. IMHO, that brings Ja's arguments to the forefront.
Assuming Ja was telling the truth. Not that I have any reason to think s/he is lying, but... paranoia seems to be the flavour of the day.
It dosn't matter that Pope John Paul III himself endorces the medium [...]; it's still about a single person trying to play Ebeneezer Scrooge and trying to determine what goes on.
Errr... what single person are you referring to? No single person is doing the UDP. It's a group effort. It would be meaningless without tens of thousands of sysadmins the world around. (And who the hell is John Paul III?)
For example one of the terminals has a version of MSIE 5 on it could someone tell me exactly how (considering a great deal of evil scooges may have disabled it in some way) access news from there.
The file does not include an entry for Frankfort, Kentucky, which is the capitol of the state and currently spans 9 zipcodes! It lists "Hatton, KY" for the 40601 zipcode, which I believe was Frankfort's first zipcode, but being the capitol of the state, Frankfort has probably been in the postal system since the beginning of the century.
Actually, if you go to the USPS's free zipcode lookup feature and type in 40601 in the blank, it will tell you that Frankfort and Hatton are both valid, with Frankfort being the "default" value.
However, having said that, I will say that it is very odd that 40602, 40603 and 40604 are not listed. (The other five ZIP codes of Frankfort, KY, are apparently reserved for state government usage, and so it may or may not be surprising that they are not listed in the text file.)
The last time I checked, we still are at war with North Korea.
"We" meaning, I presume, South Korea? South Korea is the only value of "we" for which that statement is true. South Korea and North Korea are still technically at war. The US and North Korea are not at war.
The US was never at war with North Korea. Not technically, at any rate -- war was never declared. Same goes for Panama, Iraq, Grenada and Vietnam. Sure, we fought, but war was not declared.
History lesson: The United States of America has only declared war eight times in its history. The first time was against the pirates of the Barbary Coast (1804). The second time was against England in the war of 1812. The third time was against Mexico in the Mexican-American War (1845-48). The fourth time was against Spain (1898-99). The fifth time was against Germany in World War One. The sixth time was against Italy in World War One. The seventh time was against Japan in World War Two. The eighth and most recent time was against Germany and Italy in World War Two.
The US has not been at war since 1945. Without war, there are no enemies. Without enemies, there is no treason.
On this Odd day, here is some Odd trivia for you:
11 and 19 are both primes, as well as odd numbers. If 1999 is also prime, this will make this Prime Day, as well.
Well, 1999 is prime as well.
Furthermore, many have pointed out the last odd second, which is this evening at 19:59:59. Well, we already know that 19 is prime... and so as 59. So the last odd second (until 3111) is also all-prime!
And now, featuring the all-nude, all-prime review!
Lets put the blame where it belongs and blackhole any site associated with anyone using these legal tactics as a form of censorship. This wouldn't be censoring the scientologists, more a widespread agreement not to listen to them as long as they persist in trying to suppress other's speech.
Then contact Congress. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act says that ISPs must shutdown websites that have been accused of copyright offenses. After shutdown, the owner of the site (xenu) has ten days to declare their intent to defend themselves in court. The owner of the copyrighted materials (CoS) then has ten days to pursue litigation. If the copyright owner (CoS) does not pursue litigation, then the ISP puts the site back up. If litigation is pursued, then the site stays down until the matter is resolved.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but this is how I understand it. Don't blame Sage Networks...
*nod* Yes, now that I think of it that way, you are right. Fewer people, more money to each...
With regards to my friend, I feel I should defend him a bit... He's not particularly interested in the Patent Office, as I understand him. It's a job, and he'll do what he does well, but he's not got inclination to strive harder on the patents than is really necessary.
It's kind of amusing, actually. He told me not too long ago that he had a new officemate, who turns out to be a real go-getter. So he has stepped up his rate of work to match (and, I admit, has said he no longer goofs off half the time. It's down to a quarter). The two of them together are outperforming the rest of their group combined (another six people or so, I believe).
Another indication of the problems the Office has been having with the quality of people is their attitude towards law school. For a while, the Office offered to pay for law school for their examiners... then they realised they were losing all their best examiners to law firms. So they stopped it. Then they couldn't get good talent, so they had to start offering it as a benefit again!
Unfortunately, the patent office's attitude seems to be to rubber stamp just about anything that crosses their desks these days that has the correct paperwork and $$$ attached to it, especially if it is for a big corporation.
Well, it's not quite that simple. I actually know a patent examiner -- a friend of mine who has been working there for about 3 months now. Not too long ago, I asked him why there were so many clueless idiotic patents coming out of there. He gave me two reasons.
The first reason is actually the reason that many of the people here have guessed: Lack of funding. The Patent Office cannot pay enough to attract real talent. Jobs examining computer-related patents start at $38K/year. So the people they do attract tend to be relatively clueles. (My friend is an exception, of course.:^) )
By way of example of the above, consider the following: My friend spends nearly half of his time at work goofing off: Reading the web, playing games, etc. And he is getting nearly twice as much done as the average examiner in his group...
The second reason, though, is actually the reason he gives more credence to. Quotas. Each patent examiner has to make a particular quota. Scoring goes roughly like this: One "point" for a first action on a patent application, one "point" for approving a patent, one "point" for denying a patent.
First action means, well, the first thing any examiner does. Give it a once-over and make sure it isn't written too broadly, or that it doesn't have any gaping holes in it. Usually first action is (or should be) to turn it down... Patent writers are greedy, and are actively trying to get the patent to cover as much as possible, of course.
However, turning it down at first is not a solid denial. If first action is to turn it away, when it comes back, it could be assigned to another examiner. Thus, there is actually motivation to approve an action on first action, thus scoring double, as it were. According to my friend, examiners who are hard-pressed to meet their quota will often do this. It is true that their manager has to look over the approved patent, but often this seems to be a rubber-stamp operation.
So there you have it... It actually isn't financial motivation on the part of the PTO as a whole... but rather on the part of individual examiners, who would rather not lose their jobs. Until the Office either changes this system or increases their salaries, we are likely to see many more ludicrous patents being issued. There's no motivation to do the job right (aside from the examiner's own ethics).
Note: I do not work for the Office, and my understanding of the procedures may be flawed; however, this is how it was explained to me.
Let's suppose I discover some obscure fungus in the Amazonian rain forest, and furthermore my testing shows that it cures cancer. Should I not be able to patent that?
No, that's prior art. You didn't invent the rain forest or the fungus; you just found it. What you can patent is the process by which you transform the raw fungus into the cancer-curing medicine
Suppose I discover some South American farmer has a tomato cultivar that resists blight. I take a sample back to my lab, figure out which genes are responsible for the resistance, and transfer them to cultivars with more desirable commercial properties. Should I not be able to patent that?
The genes already exist! IMHO, that should constitute prior "art". What, IMHO, should be patentable is the transferance process by which you make the more desirably commercial properties.
Let's suppose that I discover that adding baking soda to motor oil (not recommended!) doubles engine efficiency. Should I not be able to patent that?
This would be entirely patentable. You have invented a process to improve the efficiency. Furthermore, it is an original and non-obvious process. But I don't really see what this has to do with your first two examples, or genetics.
For the last two months or so, I have been using NiMH batteries in my Palm III, and been loving it. There are, however, a couple of things one needs to take into consideration with NiMH batteries:
The discharge curve is different. As alkaline batteries get discharged, their voltage decreases. The Palm uses the voltage to calculate how much charge is left. Compared to alkaline batteries, NiMH batteries have a sharper curve. In the early stages of discharge, they lose voltage much more slowly. Then there is a sharp voltage decrease at the end. You'll probably want to install the Battery Level Hack (which you can get from PalmCentral).
Their maximum charge is lower. At full charge, an alkaline battery has 1.5 volts, whereas a NiMH battery tops out at about 1.2 or 1.3. (For two batteries, that's 3.0 volts vs. 2.5 or so.) The Palm III (don't know about others) can keep going until the voltage gets down to around 2.1v.
I have found that I need to change the NiMH batteries more often than I needed to change alkaline batteries. I get about 3 weeks from a charge of NiMH and 4 or 5 weeks from alkaline batteries.
The savings, though, are impressive. A set of NiMH batteries can be re-used about 100 times and cost about $5 for a AAA pair. Alkaline batteries cost about $2/pair (if I remember aright) for AAA. Admittedly, there is the "startup cost" of buying the charger...
Lastly (and, admittedly, my primary motivation), it's much better for the environment. I'm throwing out less than 1/50 (taking the reduced "lifespan" into account) the amount of batteries that I used to! Much better for the environment.
Different techs, different purposes
on
USB2 Specs Are In
·
· Score: 2
This has been said so many times that I risk losing karma here for being redundant...
USB and Firewire were never intended for the same purpose! USB was intended for low-bandwidth stuff (mice, keyboards, printers, speakers). FW is aimed at higher bandwidth stuff. Most typically, your average home computer user would probably prefer a FW hard drive. DV and even networking are also within FW's desmesne.
Look at the G3 and G4 machines from Apple. USB and FW co-exist. Why on earth would you need your hard drive's bus and your mouse's bus to be co-compatible?? Sounds to me like you're saying that SCSI was a bad idea because you couldn't run your mouse through it. If you buy a SCSI PCI card, do you need to buy a new keyboard?
As for your implied price comparisons between USB hard-drives and FW hard-drives... you get what you pay for. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that USB drives are cheaper because they don't need to be as fast. It's like comparing SCSI drives with IDE drives. SCSI may be technically superior (and faster), but IDE is cheaper. You may be kicking yourself later when the latest & greatest thing needs a hard-drive connection faster than USB can provide you...
with every company trying to give IEEE 1394 their own name (and some trying to charge by the port, as Apple is trying with the name "firewire"), it has no chance.
I think you mean as Apple was trying with the name "firewire". Apple gave up on that quite a while ago, realising it wasn't making them any friends or winning acceptance for FW. It was right around that time that Intel initially announced USB2.0. Months and months ago this was. (Which reminds me -- this ain't exactly news, Roblimo...)
Slashdot Mirror
And by those documents, the wireless "segment" of AT&T brought in a 28.6% profit margin for 2009 Q1. Just to spell it out for people too lazy to click through.
That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!
So, was anyone else expecting this to be an article on going out in public with a Mac and picking up women (or men)? Very disappointing.
Yeah, but that just pushes the problem off, doesn't it? Instead of worrying about 2038, we would then have to worry about 584554531360! What are we going to do 584 billion years from now when 64-bit time runs out?
Instead of following hare-brained schemes like this, I think we should look seriously at implementing RFC 2550.
Actually, the peak of human hearing sensitivity is around 3 KHz -- the frequency at which we scream. 600 Hz is only a bit more than an octave above middle C. (Think about the difference between a flute in the lower part of its range and a piccolo in the upper part of its range.)
A common misconception. Studies have shown repeatedly that the human eye is generally able to read quicker and comprehend more when the text is presented in narrow columns of about 65 to 75 characters each, or about as wide as you can actually read at once with no eye motion. Consider: make your window as wide as possible and stare at the middle of this line. How many words on either side of where you are staring can you read without moving your eyes?
If the lines are significantly wider than that amount, then it leads to more eye motion and greater strain. TeX and its derivatives and siblings have the right idea; if you've ever used it, you'll note that by default it creates narrow columns.
Or consider the newspapers that you have pointed out yourself. The column width was not implemented due to some limitation of early printing machines. Pages were printed all at once; why do you think they made columns the width they did? The WSJ could easily change to having two columns per page, but that would make it more difficult to read, so they continue to stick with six -- not out of tradition or an inherent limitation, but because that is the "friendly" thing to do.
No, the APEX player is not illegal under the DMCA.
Yet.
There are provisions of the DMCA which, according to the text of the legislation, take effect two years after the law is signed. This will be October 28, 2000. On that date, the region-free APEX player will become illegal.
I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but in order for the contract to be construed under Maryland law, I believe that the corporation has to have at least a branch office in Maryland.
Which just provides all the more impetus for Maryland to pass the law, because then companies will be flocking to open an office there.
AMEN!
That line about "potential trade barrier" had me wondering why the WTO hasn't been called in on this issue. After all, they're against trade barriers, right? And the region code is nothing but a trade barrier...
There is actually another way to defeat UCITA, although it's probably best for a back-up plan. UCITA expressly states that any Federal law which contradicts UCITA shall have precedence. (It doesn't really need to state this, since UCITA is a state law, and that's true anyways.)
So if Congress passes something saying that the right to reverse engineer (for example) cannot be abrogated, then that bit of UCITA goes out the window.
The only problem is getting Congress to do such a thing...
Yeah, maybe you just better forget I mentioned this.
The full text of UCITA, as passed by the NCCUSL (Nat'l Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) is available online, as is a FAQ-type document written up by the NCCUSL.
It seems to me that this is once again a case of law being drafted by idiots. It really seems to me like the NCCUSL thinks they're doing the right thing by consumers, that they haven't thought through the implications of things, or how courts would be forced to rule on the issues. They claim that they are giving lots of new rights to consumers, that they are not outlawing reverse engineering or license transfers.
There are a couple of things in the FAQ that it seems to me can be universally agreed upon as being obvious.
After reading through the section on transfers, it seems to me (IANAL) that it does not outlaw transfers of licenses. Rather, it says that such transfers may be outlawed by a term in the license. AFAIK, this has always been the case. In the case of mass-market license, any such transfer-prohibiting term must be "conspicuous" (i.e. one of those annoying SECTIONS IN ALL CAPS).
Reverse engineering: UCITA explicitly states that it does not supercede existing "trade secret" laws. I'm having a hard time finding other areas of UCITA that would apply to reverse engineering (IANAL). Anybody care to help out on this one?
Mostly, I just tend to be a bit wary of things that scream, "THIS LAW IS EVIL!" I like to check them out. It doesn't seem to me that UCITA is as evil as it is cracked up to be. (IANAL) If people would refute this, I would appreciate it.
Actually, that ain't the bill. If you look at that bill's info on Thomas, you'll see that HR 1572 hasn't been touched since May.
This is the real bill, HR1714.
Do you have any proof of this? Point out exactly where in the bill it says this, please.
Besides, I think that you (like many other people) don't really understand the tech behind digital signatures. Under PGP, for instance, the use of a digital signature (creation, etc.) goes roughly as follows:
You do not know my private key. If you modify a document I have signed, you will not be able to re-sign it with my private key, and it will appear as an invalid signature.
Furthermore, if you hack into Outpost.com and steal the signature I used on my last order with them... SO WHAT? You have my signature. Big deal. You cannot use that signature to forge other documents so as to appear as if they have come from me. You can't even figure out what the order was from the signature (though the order and signature will probably be kept together). In short, my signature is useless to you.
Assuming that what Ja said is correct, namely:
Then I do not see the contradiction between that argument and Stevew's claims that the DVD content is still owned by the copyright holder. That may be, but you have a license to that data. IMHO, that brings Ja's arguments to the forefront.
Assuming Ja was telling the truth. Not that I have any reason to think s/he is lying, but... paranoia seems to be the flavour of the day.
Errr... what single person are you referring to? No single person is doing the UDP. It's a group effort. It would be meaningless without tens of thousands of sysadmins the world around. (And who the hell is John Paul III?)
Try www.deja.com.
Actually, if you go to the USPS's free zipcode lookup feature and type in 40601 in the blank, it will tell you that Frankfort and Hatton are both valid, with Frankfort being the "default" value.
However, having said that, I will say that it is very odd that 40602, 40603 and 40604 are not listed. (The other five ZIP codes of Frankfort, KY, are apparently reserved for state government usage, and so it may or may not be surprising that they are not listed in the text file.)
"We" meaning, I presume, South Korea? South Korea is the only value of "we" for which that statement is true. South Korea and North Korea are still technically at war. The US and North Korea are not at war.
The US was never at war with North Korea. Not technically, at any rate -- war was never declared. Same goes for Panama, Iraq, Grenada and Vietnam. Sure, we fought, but war was not declared.
History lesson: The United States of America has only declared war eight times in its history. The first time was against the pirates of the Barbary Coast (1804). The second time was against England in the war of 1812. The third time was against Mexico in the Mexican-American War (1845-48). The fourth time was against Spain (1898-99). The fifth time was against Germany in World War One. The sixth time was against Italy in World War One. The seventh time was against Japan in World War Two. The eighth and most recent time was against Germany and Italy in World War Two.
The US has not been at war since 1945. Without war, there are no enemies. Without enemies, there is no treason.
Well, 1999 is prime as well.
Furthermore, many have pointed out the last odd second, which is this evening at 19:59:59. Well, we already know that 19 is prime... and so as 59. So the last odd second (until 3111) is also all-prime!
And now, featuring the all-nude, all-prime review!
Then contact Congress. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act says that ISPs must shutdown websites that have been accused of copyright offenses. After shutdown, the owner of the site (xenu) has ten days to declare their intent to defend themselves in court. The owner of the copyrighted materials (CoS) then has ten days to pursue litigation. If the copyright owner (CoS) does not pursue litigation, then the ISP puts the site back up. If litigation is pursued, then the site stays down until the matter is resolved.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but this is how I understand it. Don't blame Sage Networks...
*nod* Yes, now that I think of it that way, you are right. Fewer people, more money to each...
With regards to my friend, I feel I should defend him a bit... He's not particularly interested in the Patent Office, as I understand him. It's a job, and he'll do what he does well, but he's not got inclination to strive harder on the patents than is really necessary.
It's kind of amusing, actually. He told me not too long ago that he had a new officemate, who turns out to be a real go-getter. So he has stepped up his rate of work to match (and, I admit, has said he no longer goofs off half the time. It's down to a quarter). The two of them together are outperforming the rest of their group combined (another six people or so, I believe).
Another indication of the problems the Office has been having with the quality of people is their attitude towards law school. For a while, the Office offered to pay for law school for their examiners... then they realised they were losing all their best examiners to law firms. So they stopped it. Then they couldn't get good talent, so they had to start offering it as a benefit again!
Well, it's not quite that simple. I actually know a patent examiner -- a friend of mine who has been working there for about 3 months now. Not too long ago, I asked him why there were so many clueless idiotic patents coming out of there. He gave me two reasons.
The first reason is actually the reason that many of the people here have guessed: Lack of funding. The Patent Office cannot pay enough to attract real talent. Jobs examining computer-related patents start at $38K/year. So the people they do attract tend to be relatively clueles. (My friend is an exception, of course. :^) )
By way of example of the above, consider the following: My friend spends nearly half of his time at work goofing off: Reading the web, playing games, etc. And he is getting nearly twice as much done as the average examiner in his group...
The second reason, though, is actually the reason he gives more credence to. Quotas. Each patent examiner has to make a particular quota. Scoring goes roughly like this: One "point" for a first action on a patent application, one "point" for approving a patent, one "point" for denying a patent.
First action means, well, the first thing any examiner does. Give it a once-over and make sure it isn't written too broadly, or that it doesn't have any gaping holes in it. Usually first action is (or should be) to turn it down... Patent writers are greedy, and are actively trying to get the patent to cover as much as possible, of course.
However, turning it down at first is not a solid denial. If first action is to turn it away, when it comes back, it could be assigned to another examiner. Thus, there is actually motivation to approve an action on first action, thus scoring double, as it were. According to my friend, examiners who are hard-pressed to meet their quota will often do this. It is true that their manager has to look over the approved patent, but often this seems to be a rubber-stamp operation.
So there you have it... It actually isn't financial motivation on the part of the PTO as a whole... but rather on the part of individual examiners, who would rather not lose their jobs. Until the Office either changes this system or increases their salaries, we are likely to see many more ludicrous patents being issued. There's no motivation to do the job right (aside from the examiner's own ethics).
Note: I do not work for the Office, and my understanding of the procedures may be flawed; however, this is how it was explained to me.
No, that's prior art. You didn't invent the rain forest or the fungus; you just found it. What you can patent is the process by which you transform the raw fungus into the cancer-curing medicine
The genes already exist! IMHO, that should constitute prior "art". What, IMHO, should be patentable is the transferance process by which you make the more desirably commercial properties.
This would be entirely patentable. You have invented a process to improve the efficiency. Furthermore, it is an original and non-obvious process. But I don't really see what this has to do with your first two examples, or genetics.
For the last two months or so, I have been using NiMH batteries in my Palm III, and been loving it. There are, however, a couple of things one needs to take into consideration with NiMH batteries:
Compared to alkaline batteries, NiMH batteries have a sharper curve. In the early stages of discharge, they lose voltage much more slowly. Then there is a sharp voltage decrease at the end. You'll probably want to install the Battery Level Hack (which you can get from PalmCentral).
This has been said so many times that I risk losing karma here for being redundant...
USB and Firewire were never intended for the same purpose! USB was intended for low-bandwidth stuff (mice, keyboards, printers, speakers). FW is aimed at higher bandwidth stuff. Most typically, your average home computer user would probably prefer a FW hard drive. DV and even networking are also within FW's desmesne.
Look at the G3 and G4 machines from Apple. USB and FW co-exist. Why on earth would you need your hard drive's bus and your mouse's bus to be co-compatible?? Sounds to me like you're saying that SCSI was a bad idea because you couldn't run your mouse through it. If you buy a SCSI PCI card, do you need to buy a new keyboard?
As for your implied price comparisons between USB hard-drives and FW hard-drives... you get what you pay for. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that USB drives are cheaper because they don't need to be as fast. It's like comparing SCSI drives with IDE drives. SCSI may be technically superior (and faster), but IDE is cheaper. You may be kicking yourself later when the latest & greatest thing needs a hard-drive connection faster than USB can provide you...
I think you mean as Apple was trying with the name "firewire". Apple gave up on that quite a while ago, realising it wasn't making them any friends or winning acceptance for FW. It was right around that time that Intel initially announced USB2.0. Months and months ago this was. (Which reminds me -- this ain't exactly news, Roblimo...)