I keep seeing various media outlets making this sort of mistake with respect to various economic indicators.
Obviously, it would be incorrect to say that the net has reduced power consumption, if the stats that you have presented are correct. Perhaps, it would be more correct to say that it has reduced the rate of power consumption growth.
Hire some qualified editors... given that this is a "geek news" site, by "qualified" I could mean "technically knowledgable" in addition to the obvious "knows how to do fact-checking properly". In case no one there has noticed, both traits seem to be in short supply.
And even failing that, perhaps the number of apocryphal conspiracy theories can be reduced if the current editors are directed to take their schizophrenia medication more regularly?... =)
I'm getting tired of seeing stories with the theme '"the man" imposes yet more authoritarian restrictions on geeks everywhere', where the restrictions are actually imposed by the laws of physics and simple economics (and this can be easily confirmed in 10 minutes by any idiot with access to a good search engine). Together with the almost-daily accidental double posting of stories, and other wierd gossip that passes for "news" items, slashdot is becoming almost unreadable.
Yes, I know why. It's because of the DVD laser wavelength. Now, if you could all please stop skipping your schizophrenia(sp?) medication for long enough to figure out how to use a search engine, I'm sure the/. s/n ratio would skyrocket almost immediately. =)
I recently upgraded to 2.4.0-test12 from 2.2.17 to fix a problem with the ide-scsi emulation. If test12 is any indication, the final 2.4.0 will be great. Time to grab that prerelease and do some compiling... Or should I wait until my linux box isn't two time zones away? =)
And, on that note, I've come home for the holidays to find that my parents now have satellite TV. 150 channels, and there's still nothing good on, the food channel's iron chef marathon notwithstanding. =)
This levy only applies to blank recording media resold in Canada, and is remitted by resellers. This means that (a) the first reseller is usually a wholesaler/distributor (except when a retailer imports the media directly), (b) the levy is never collected by a customs agency, (c) you never have to remit the levy for media imported that will not be resold (while blank).
The limitation to blank recording media is interesting: If I import CD-RWs, and then resell them already recorded with something, it would seem that I don't have to pay the levy. =)
This law prohibits everyone from distributing zone one DVDs for a movie if it has a theatre release, even if you are the copyright holder. I can't see how this law supports "creator rights".
I'm assuming that their product is just a new instuction set bytecode that contains 1 instruction procedure calls or something like that, coupled with a design philosophy of using tons more procedures and giving the procedure set a smoother complexity gradient (and software to optimize towards this goal automagically). Sounds kind of cool to me.
But, they really need to fire their tech-writing staff and get a new one. (What the heck is an "MPEG-3" decoder? Does someone not know that MP3 Audio is in MPEG-1?)
... assuming that "first" and "second" refer to the order that the portions exist within the block, and not something else (order of importance, order that the portions are listed in in the patent).
Also, does a subset of things need in an ordered set need to be an unbroken sequence in order (bad pun =) to be called a "portion"? Assuming a strict interpretation is taken, you could point out that addresses and visible text in HTML are not organized into two separate portions, but are mixed together in the file, and thus do not fall into two separate "portions". But I'm not sure if that would hold up.
If a patent claim covers some proper subset of hyperlinking techniques, then a hypertext system (which, as you state, necessarily also contains a description of some hyperlinking technique or techniques) is prior art with respect to the patent if and only if the set of patented hyperlinking techniques has some members in common with the set of hyperlinking techniques used in the prior example.
1974... Which patent are you referring to? I'm talking about the one referred to in the New Scientist article, the one that the suit is apparently over (U.S. Patent 4,873,662).
Now that you're a bit better informed, you understand that it's the terminal apparatus (the client-server system that processes the hyperlinks) that the patent applies to; the patent doesn't apply to hyperlinking generally. =)
It would be difficult for BT to hit Prodigy with a patent infringement claim just for operating servers that could fit the descriptions in the patent; All of the claims treat the whole "terminal apparatus" (client-server system), and not the clients or servers separately. However, it's not unlikely that Prodigy can be hit with some specific case that is actually infringement of the patent; A web-based corporate intranet with modem dialups, something I assume that Prodigy has, would, for example.
There probably is prior art to this patent out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find any of it. (See my post on prior art for some more flame-oriented insight on this subject. =)
I would like to know just how a law firm like this expects not to damage its reputation.
What, by taking up frivolous lawsuits? Do you really think that there is any firm out there that hasn't taken up a few frivolous settlement-seeking cases like this one before?
I'm noticing that slashdot users seem to think that any demonstration or article that describes anthing related to a patent is prior art for the patent.
Now, IANAL, but I own a good dictionary... The only think that would constitute prior art is an apparatus that corresponds precisely to that in a patent claim, and not one that is a bit similar, contains some of the same pieces, was invented by the same guy, involves some of the same buzzwords, or something like that. I'll restate this for the extra-thick-skulled users out there: The patent covers only that which is described in a claim, and nothing else.
Now, given this, I'd like to suggest that:
- Slashdot users get their asses in gear and find some real prior art. AFAIK, none of the descibed systems that have been suggested as prior art contain a modem, for example.
Hey, all... I'm guessing that newscientist doesn't have any lawyers on staff, or else they would be a bit more clueful. =)
Which claim of the patent does their supposed prior art pertain to? Each claim seems to contain the word 'modem', and AFAIK the alleged prior art hyperlinking demonstration didn't involve one.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep seeing various media outlets making this sort of mistake with respect to various economic indicators.
Obviously, it would be incorrect to say that the net has reduced power consumption, if the stats that you have presented are correct. Perhaps, it would be more correct to say that it has reduced the rate of power consumption growth.
Uh... well, there is some kind of AHRA consumer media tag bitstream.. obviously that translates into some physical difference.
What the heck is a macrocomputer? =)
Hire some qualified editors... given that this is a "geek news" site, by "qualified" I could mean "technically knowledgable" in addition to the obvious "knows how to do fact-checking properly". In case no one there has noticed, both traits seem to be in short supply.
And even failing that, perhaps the number of apocryphal conspiracy theories can be reduced if the current editors are directed to take their schizophrenia medication more regularly?... =)
I'm getting tired of seeing stories with the theme '"the man" imposes yet more authoritarian restrictions on geeks everywhere', where the restrictions are actually imposed by the laws of physics and simple economics (and this can be easily confirmed in 10 minutes by any idiot with access to a good search engine). Together with the almost-daily accidental double posting of stories, and other wierd gossip that passes for "news" items, slashdot is becoming almost unreadable.
Yes, I know why. It's because of the DVD laser wavelength. Now, if you could all please stop skipping your schizophrenia(sp?) medication for long enough to figure out how to use a search engine, I'm sure the /. s/n ratio would skyrocket almost immediately. =)
Run on anything other than apple systems?
Gandi is slightly cheaper at 12 euros per year. Is there another registrar that's even cheaper for single domain name registrations?
I recently upgraded to 2.4.0-test12 from 2.2.17 to fix a problem with the ide-scsi emulation. If test12 is any indication, the final 2.4.0 will be great. Time to grab that prerelease and do some compiling... Or should I wait until my linux box isn't two time zones away? =)
And, on that note, I've come home for the holidays to find that my parents now have satellite TV. 150 channels, and there's still nothing good on, the food channel's iron chef marathon notwithstanding. =)
No, he doesn't have a DVD-R. He has a DVD-RAM drive. What's he going to do with that?
This levy only applies to blank recording media resold in Canada, and is remitted by resellers. This means that (a) the first reseller is usually a wholesaler/distributor (except when a retailer imports the media directly), (b) the levy is never collected by a customs agency, (c) you never have to remit the levy for media imported that will not be resold (while blank).
The limitation to blank recording media is interesting: If I import CD-RWs, and then resell them already recorded with something, it would seem that I don't have to pay the levy. =)
(See Neil Herber's FAQ on the levy for plenty more useful information.)
But, obviously independent artists fall in the "music industry" category and are eligible for the zero-rating. Or, am I missing something?
How is this copy protection? Or are you just an ignorant fuckhead who doesn't know what s/he's talking about?
"[...]just like a computer would."
Someone give this guy a clue. =)
Obviously, you couldn't do this in the US, because it would violate the DMCA.
This law prohibits everyone from distributing zone one DVDs for a movie if it has a theatre release, even if you are the copyright holder. I can't see how this law supports "creator rights".
But, how would this be considered a cultural issue?
I'm assuming that their product is just a new instuction set bytecode that contains 1 instruction procedure calls or something like that, coupled with a design philosophy of using tons more procedures and giving the procedure set a smoother complexity gradient (and software to optimize towards this goal automagically). Sounds kind of cool to me.
But, they really need to fire their tech-writing staff and get a new one. (What the heck is an "MPEG-3" decoder? Does someone not know that MP3 Audio is in MPEG-1?)
Also, does a subset of things need in an ordered set need to be an unbroken sequence in order (bad pun =) to be called a "portion"? Assuming a strict interpretation is taken, you could point out that addresses and visible text in HTML are not organized into two separate portions, but are mixed together in the file, and thus do not fall into two separate "portions". But I'm not sure if that would hold up.
If a patent claim covers some proper subset of hyperlinking techniques, then a hypertext system (which, as you state, necessarily also contains a description of some hyperlinking technique or techniques) is prior art with respect to the patent if and only if the set of patented hyperlinking techniques has some members in common with the set of hyperlinking techniques used in the prior example.
1974... Which patent are you referring to? I'm talking about the one referred to in the New Scientist article, the one that the suit is apparently over (U.S. Patent 4,873,662).
In answer to your question, sort of.
Hint: READ THE @#$%@#&@ PATENT CLAIMS!!
(Hint #2: The Delphion (formerly IBM) Patent Server Entry might be handy.)
Now that you're a bit better informed, you understand that it's the terminal apparatus (the client-server system that processes the hyperlinks) that the patent applies to; the patent doesn't apply to hyperlinking generally. =)
It would be difficult for BT to hit Prodigy with a patent infringement claim just for operating servers that could fit the descriptions in the patent; All of the claims treat the whole "terminal apparatus" (client-server system), and not the clients or servers separately. However, it's not unlikely that Prodigy can be hit with some specific case that is actually infringement of the patent; A web-based corporate intranet with modem dialups, something I assume that Prodigy has, would, for example.
There probably is prior art to this patent out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find any of it. (See my post on prior art for some more flame-oriented insight on this subject. =)
I would like to know just how a law firm like this expects not to damage its reputation.
What, by taking up frivolous lawsuits? Do you really think that there is any firm out there that hasn't taken up a few frivolous settlement-seeking cases like this one before?
eek. s/think/thing/
Sorry about that, all.
-amt
I'm noticing that slashdot users seem to think that any demonstration or article that describes anthing related to a patent is prior art for the patent.
Now, IANAL, but I own a good dictionary... The only think that would constitute prior art is an apparatus that corresponds precisely to that in a patent claim, and not one that is a bit similar, contains some of the same pieces, was invented by the same guy, involves some of the same buzzwords, or something like that. I'll restate this for the extra-thick-skulled users out there: The patent covers only that which is described in a claim, and nothing else.
Now, given this, I'd like to suggest that: - Slashdot users get their asses in gear and find some real prior art. AFAIK, none of the descibed systems that have been suggested as prior art contain a modem, for example.
Uh... How is this prior art?
Which claim of the patent does their supposed prior art pertain to? Each claim seems to contain the word 'modem', and AFAIK the alleged prior art hyperlinking demonstration didn't involve one.