I just purchased a Netgear WN2500RP at a Best Buy store because it was cheaper than NewEgg, and the same price as Amazon. It wasn't on sale, that was the regular price. Yes, I paid some sales tax (which you're supposed to pay directly to your state on mail order purchases), but I didn't have to wait 2-5 days for pay for express shipping to get it quickly.
Many of us Mac users are now avoiding newer versions of Safari on Mac OS X as well. Webkit is a good engine, but Safari has issues, and they're getting worse, not better.
Apple's proposal is a smaller form factor, but it's electrically compatible with existing SIM (it can be inserted into a physical adapter containing no electronics and work with devices designed for micro, or mini SIM cards), making it backward compatible. It doesn't fragment the market any more than micro or mini SIM does.
The Nokia proprosal has changes to technical specs, it would actually create a new, (non-compatible???) standard.
No, it means 150M people thought it was worth the price. The GP said it was too expensive, I simply pointed out the 40M+ BUYERS disagree with him. I said NOTHING about quality (good/bad).
The GP said it wasn't worth the price, I simply pointed out that 40+M buyers disagree. I made no claims about how "good it is". Everything you responded with has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Apple refurb products have the same warranty as the original product, and for the iPad that also includes:
We test and certify all Apple refurbished products and include a 1-year warranty. All refurbished iPad models also include a brand new battery and outer shell.
The hectare is a bad example because the "are", and consequently the hectare, was not accepted as an SI unit. It exists as a legacy measure unit "...whose use was limited to the measurement of land."
Similarly, hectopascal is a modern adaptation of the legacy pressure measurement "millibar". It allows them to continuing using the customary unit of millibar by redefining 1mbar = 1 hPa. In effect, they're still using millibars, they just use a different name now.
As for your other examples, the fact that you had to find very specific examples in specific countries and cultures demonstrates my point quite effectively. Ever heard the phrase "the exception proves the rule"? This is a great example of that.
Yeah, no one uses dm, or any unit that isn't a multiple/factor of 1000 other than cm and occasionally cl. Deci, deca, and hecto are defined, but almost never used, so most people who know the metric system won't recognize or understand them.
But your experience is with science where the models are well tested. You experience does not directly translate to this situation. Of course it's good to question the measurements, double check the equipment and calibration, etc. But it's pure arrogance to assume your unproven models are correct and that the measurements must be wrong.
Is there some part of "it could be measurement error" that is unclear to you?
As for the FTL neutrons, etc. it all depends upon the strength of the evidence for the model. The evidence for "c" being a limit is very strong, so measurements that conflict with it are likely to be measurement error. But the evidence for geomodeling isn't nearly as solid, so measurements that conflict with the model are more likely to imply a flaw in the model.
"Our geochemistry colleagues kept sending us back to the showers saying 'Your gravity field can't be right because none of the internal structure models are fitting.' But we do now know that we got the gravity field right. It was very difficult."
If the measurements don't fit your models, it doesn't mean the measurements are wrong. It could be measurement error, but it's more likely that your models are wrong. And they call themselves scientists.
And it auto-magically changed from "Market" to "Play Store" (along with an icon change) on my Samsung/Sprint Conquer Android phone overnight. I don't like it when user facing changes happen silently without user intervention or notification, it's not a good way to keep users happy or productive.
Thank you. I can't decide what's worse, not having mod points when you want them, or having them when you also want to comment on an article. All these choices....;)
Two issues with that. First, the actual complaint states:
14. In connection with researching, filing and prosecuting certain patent applications, McDonnell made and/or distributed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), and perhaps others, unauthorized copies of copyrighted articles from plaintiffs' journals Such unauthorized copies were used for the commercial benefit of defendants and their clients.
15. Upon information and belief, defendants made (a) additional copies of the copyrighted works that defendants included or cited in their patent applications to the PTO, including those identified on Schedule A, and (b) copies of plaintiffs' copyrighted works that defendants considered in connection with those applications, but did not ultimately cite or provide to the PTO. Plaintiffs cannot know the full extent of defendants' copying without discovery. Apart from the copying of plaintiffs' works accompanying the patent filings described above, this internal copying infringes plaintiffs' copyrights.
Which asserts that the copies made for the USPTO are "unauthorized", which conflicts with the previous the USPTO memo clearly indicating it is fair use. It also says "perhaps others" and that they "cannot know the full extent of defendants' copying without discovery", indicating they have no actual evidence of other copying, only suspicion of other copying, and that this lawsuit is a fishing expedition. That alone may be sufficient for dismissal.
Further, the plaintiff's attorney states "The crux of what our case deals with is the internal copying by the law firms after they have one copy in their hand. . . . Those copies are not licensed, and the patent office didn't take a position on whether or not fair use would apply to those copies." Here they basically acknowledge that item 14 in the complaint is irrelevant.
Perhaps most important is the concept of "access to the information" vs keeping a copy with the filing (the copy sent to the USPTO and the copies the attys are certain to keep for themselves and/or the client). Since access to the information in this case is only by subscription, physical copies of the relevant portions of the documents should be made and kept with the filing (up to 3 copies, one for USPTO, atty copy, client copy). Without doing so, anyone referencing or challenging the filing at a later date will also need a rather expensive subscription to the database at the time they're reviewing the filing. According the the US Constitution, the purpose of granting patents and copyrights is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". To me, charging copyright fees for those filings or requiring a current subscription to a database of documents imposes an untenable and unconscionable requirement for someone accessing patent filings.
Additional copies created for the purpose of performing the research (e.g. by the client, in-house atty/intern/clerk, etc.) should be covered under fair use, after all, the attys do have a subscription to access the information for research purposes, so making a paper copy on which they can write notes would be fair use. Perhaps a ruling that any such additional copies (beyond the 3 I mentioned above) must be destroyed after use/filing of the patent. That's the "best" result I can see for the plaintiffs in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Adobe kills Flash for Linux. - "This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
I just purchased a Netgear WN2500RP at a Best Buy store because it was cheaper than NewEgg, and the same price as Amazon. It wasn't on sale, that was the regular price. Yes, I paid some sales tax (which you're supposed to pay directly to your state on mail order purchases), but I didn't have to wait 2-5 days for pay for express shipping to get it quickly.
Yes, but no one uses Safari on Windows.
Many of us Mac users are now avoiding newer versions of Safari on Mac OS X as well. Webkit is a good engine, but Safari has issues, and they're getting worse, not better.
Not arrested for filming, but officers were filmed arresting a guy after one of the officers assaulted him.
And we might do it again. The US Govt is worse now than the King was 235 years ago.
Apple's proposal is a smaller form factor, but it's electrically compatible with existing SIM (it can be inserted into a physical adapter containing no electronics and work with devices designed for micro, or mini SIM cards), making it backward compatible. It doesn't fragment the market any more than micro or mini SIM does.
The Nokia proprosal has changes to technical specs, it would actually create a new, (non-compatible???) standard.
IANAL, but I believe this may qualify.
No, it means 150M people thought it was worth the price. The GP said it was too expensive, I simply pointed out the 40M+ BUYERS disagree with him. I said NOTHING about quality (good/bad).
Comprehension fail? Or just a troll?
The GP said it wasn't worth the price, I simply pointed out that 40+M buyers disagree. I made no claims about how "good it is". Everything you responded with has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Apple refurb products have the same warranty as the original product, and for the iPad that also includes:
40M+ iPad 2 buyers disagree with you.
Where is the +1 "Pedantic, but funny" rating?
The hectare is a bad example because the "are", and consequently the hectare, was not accepted as an SI unit. It exists as a legacy measure unit "...whose use was limited to the measurement of land."
Similarly, hectopascal is a modern adaptation of the legacy pressure measurement "millibar". It allows them to continuing using the customary unit of millibar by redefining 1mbar = 1 hPa. In effect, they're still using millibars, they just use a different name now.
As for your other examples, the fact that you had to find very specific examples in specific countries and cultures demonstrates my point quite effectively. Ever heard the phrase "the exception proves the rule"? This is a great example of that.
Yeah, no one uses dm, or any unit that isn't a multiple/factor of 1000 other than cm and occasionally cl. Deci, deca, and hecto are defined, but almost never used, so most people who know the metric system won't recognize or understand them.
But your experience is with science where the models are well tested. You experience does not directly translate to this situation. Of course it's good to question the measurements, double check the equipment and calibration, etc. But it's pure arrogance to assume your unproven models are correct and that the measurements must be wrong.
Is there some part of "it could be measurement error" that is unclear to you?
As for the FTL neutrons, etc. it all depends upon the strength of the evidence for the model. The evidence for "c" being a limit is very strong, so measurements that conflict with it are likely to be measurement error. But the evidence for geomodeling isn't nearly as solid, so measurements that conflict with the model are more likely to imply a flaw in the model.
"Our geochemistry colleagues kept sending us back to the showers saying 'Your gravity field can't be right because none of the internal structure models are fitting.' But we do now know that we got the gravity field right. It was very difficult."
If the measurements don't fit your models, it doesn't mean the measurements are wrong. It could be measurement error, but it's more likely that your models are wrong. And they call themselves scientists.
But I don't wish to be weighed in a vacuum chamber, it hurts too much.
That's correct. Time's passage is altered by gravity, much like an arrow.
And it auto-magically changed from "Market" to "Play Store" (along with an icon change) on my Samsung/Sprint Conquer Android phone overnight. I don't like it when user facing changes happen silently without user intervention or notification, it's not a good way to keep users happy or productive.
Thank you. I can't decide what's worse, not having mod points when you want them, or having them when you also want to comment on an article. All these choices.... ;)
Two issues with that. First, the actual complaint states:
Which asserts that the copies made for the USPTO are "unauthorized", which conflicts with the previous the USPTO memo clearly indicating it is fair use. It also says "perhaps others" and that they "cannot know the full extent of defendants' copying without discovery", indicating they have no actual evidence of other copying, only suspicion of other copying, and that this lawsuit is a fishing expedition. That alone may be sufficient for dismissal.
Further, the plaintiff's attorney states "The crux of what our case deals with is the internal copying by the law firms after they have one copy in their hand. . . . Those copies are not licensed, and the patent office didn't take a position on whether or not fair use would apply to those copies." Here they basically acknowledge that item 14 in the complaint is irrelevant.
Perhaps most important is the concept of "access to the information" vs keeping a copy with the filing (the copy sent to the USPTO and the copies the attys are certain to keep for themselves and/or the client). Since access to the information in this case is only by subscription, physical copies of the relevant portions of the documents should be made and kept with the filing (up to 3 copies, one for USPTO, atty copy, client copy). Without doing so, anyone referencing or challenging the filing at a later date will also need a rather expensive subscription to the database at the time they're reviewing the filing. According the the US Constitution, the purpose of granting patents and copyrights is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". To me, charging copyright fees for those filings or requiring a current subscription to a database of documents imposes an untenable and unconscionable requirement for someone accessing patent filings.
Additional copies created for the purpose of performing the research (e.g. by the client, in-house atty/intern/clerk, etc.) should be covered under fair use, after all, the attys do have a subscription to access the information for research purposes, so making a paper copy on which they can write notes would be fair use. Perhaps a ruling that any such additional copies (beyond the 3 I mentioned above) must be destroyed after use/filing of the patent. That's the "best" result I can see for the plaintiffs in this case.
They did, but due to relativity, the signal hasn't reached you yet.
by our choice.
Or, as I like to phrase it.
If all your data is in the Cloud, what happens when it rains?