If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it. I most places around the US, the police video tape the public every time they stop a vehicle. The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them. When they're in public, you have the right to record their actions. If not, then you're already living in a police state.
I'm old enough that I was out of school before the Internet became available to most people, but I've always learned this way. I learn concepts, memorize the most important details and note the exceptions. All the other stuff, I'll learn if I use it regularly, and look it up if I don't.
As one of my high school teachers said, "Half the information in the world is knowing where to find the other half". That was before anyone had heard of a search engine and the internet didn't exist as such (it was ARPAnet and very few had heard of it).
Why don't we have the gov't stop collecting so much "sensitive" information? And, if they would stop breaking so many laws, a whole lot less info would need to be classified to protect those who would be embarrassed by the disclosure of such info. That would reduce the problem by a couple orders of magnitude. Then, maybe we could afford to pay people who actually understand something about security to keep the remaining information secure.
I know, that's far too logical for it to actually work in gov't. But, if you don't ask....
It rained 1 day of "heavy water" which killed the water dwellers, followed by 39 days of "light water" which drowned everything else. Then, about 99% of the heavy water miraculously disappeared (or changed into light water) leaving us with the current 3600:1 light/heavy ratio.
Rule in favor of the troll, and award $1 in damages. Since they won, they can't appeal the verdict, and the loser will gladly pay $1 to be done with it. Do that a few times, and the patent trolls will find it's not a viable business model anymore.
Snow density varies greatly. Typical snows in the CO Rocky Mountains have a density of 0.04 (0.04" precipitation per inch of snow). You're 10:1 ratio is completely unlikely for a high desert.
As I said in my original post, the applications date back to June 1994, so they *may* have the laptops beat. Applications take months to draft, so the original conception of the idea would almost certainly have been prior to May 16. Now, if there were earlier press releases regarding the PowerBooks, those might predate their conception, but it's uncertain.
And it's obvious to anyone who has worked in any kind of manufacturing, especially computer design and manufacturing, it takes more than a few months to design, build, test, and bring to market a functioning computer, even more so for a laptop. That the PowerBook 500 series was shipping on May 16th with such features means that the hardware and software to support those features had to be implemented many months earlier. And since Apple was designing and building their own chipsets, it was likely more than 1 year earlier that they were designing the chipset hardware (and software that could test it).
I'm right there with you, I love the combination mechanical (not really analog) face/hands, with an embedded digital display for date/alarm/etc. In fact, I've never owned a wristwatch with only a digital (LED/LCD) face, nor do I ever intent to. Douglas Adams said it best:
...utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea...
Look a little closer at "3-4 examples out of thousands isn't statistically significant". I've had more than 4 prescription medicines that weren't effective in my lifetime, and I'll bet many of you have as well. And that's with a highly tested, highly refined medication that was prescribed by a highly trained Dr. It doesn't mean that all prescriptions are ineffective, or even that the ones I took are ineffective, they just didn't work for my specific condition (or don't work for my body chemistry). That's the only valid conclusion you can draw from such a small sample.
Look a little closer at the well documented fact that most prescription medications originated from "folk remedies". When they found one that was statistically effective, they investigated why, identified the specific ingredient(s) that caused the effect, then developed purified, concentrated, and/or related chemicals that they could market."
Most homeopathic or "folk remedies" are less effective (and/or take longer to work) than their prescription counterparts, specifically because they're not as strong/concentrated. But for that reason (and a few others), they are likely to have less severe side effects. They're also likely to be less expensive and don't require a visit to a Dr to get a prescription. That doesn't mean they're all effective or harmless either, but condemning thousands of less expensive and/or more accessible treatments based upon personal experience with 3 or 4 examples is not science, it's foolish.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
I didn't say the applicant was the one who disclosed it. I said it was the original applicant's invention that was disclosed. An independent invention disclosed to the public prior to the original application is prior art, and the applicant must then demonstrate why it's not prior art. In fact, it doesn't even have to be publicly disclosed prior to the application for it to qualify as prior art, but public disclosure helps document that it was in fact prior and independent. For an attorney, you don't read very carefully.
P.S. Publicly calling people douchebags for no reason won't help your reputation any.
Speaking of being a douchebag, try reading your responses.
In United States patent law, "swearing back of a reference" is a process where an inventor, in certain circumstances, can get a US patent even though the invention became public before the inventor filed an original patent application.
That applies only if it was the original inventor's invention that was made public before the application, not if another person/company independently invents the same thing, which is the very description of prior art.
Which ones they are? In my whole life I have tried about 3-4 of them, one were some cold relief, which started working about a week of usage, and some travel sickness pills which worked for about 15 minutes in the car.
Because trying 3-4 out of many thousands is a statistically valid sample.
Still, even in that small sample, you experienced that some do work. So your point in attacking them in the first place was...?
Well, I don't remember if they all used fans for cooling, but every Mac laptop since the 500 series in 1994 used CPU clock throttling to manage heat and power consumption. If the patent goes back much prior to that, it will be expired. They're gonna have to come up with something really surprising to avoid getting that patent thrown out due to prior art.
Slashdot Mirror
If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it. I most places around the US, the police video tape the public every time they stop a vehicle. The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them. When they're in public, you have the right to record their actions. If not, then you're already living in a police state.
But it's not appropriate or necessary to kill ALL the lawyers.
That's what I do.
I'm old enough that I was out of school before the Internet became available to most people, but I've always learned this way. I learn concepts, memorize the most important details and note the exceptions. All the other stuff, I'll learn if I use it regularly, and look it up if I don't.
As one of my high school teachers said, "Half the information in the world is knowing where to find the other half". That was before anyone had heard of a search engine and the internet didn't exist as such (it was ARPAnet and very few had heard of it).
It's a separate install, not a separate download (although it will be with 10.7 Lion)
No developer account necessary, just install it.
Or really big cans, aka kegs.
Why don't we have the gov't stop collecting so much "sensitive" information? And, if they would stop breaking so many laws, a whole lot less info would need to be classified to protect those who would be embarrassed by the disclosure of such info. That would reduce the problem by a couple orders of magnitude. Then, maybe we could afford to pay people who actually understand something about security to keep the remaining information secure.
I know, that's far too logical for it to actually work in gov't. But, if you don't ask....
Did you miss the part about "us British viewers"? Jelly in Britain isn't what we American's call jelly.
Exploits and crashes are now up to 80% faster.
These are not the facts you're looking for.
(These are not the facts we're looking for.)
Move along.
(Move along.)
It rained 1 day of "heavy water" which killed the water dwellers, followed by 39 days of "light water" which drowned everything else. Then, about 99% of the heavy water miraculously disappeared (or changed into light water) leaving us with the current 3600:1 light/heavy ratio.
+1, Sorry, no mod points today.
Rule in favor of the troll, and award $1 in damages. Since they won, they can't appeal the verdict, and the loser will gladly pay $1 to be done with it. Do that a few times, and the patent trolls will find it's not a viable business model anymore.
Snow density varies greatly. Typical snows in the CO Rocky Mountains have a density of 0.04 (0.04" precipitation per inch of snow). You're 10:1 ratio is completely unlikely for a high desert.
As I said in my original post, the applications date back to June 1994, so they *may* have the laptops beat. Applications take months to draft, so the original conception of the idea would almost certainly have been prior to May 16. Now, if there were earlier press releases regarding the PowerBooks, those might predate their conception, but it's uncertain.
And it's obvious to anyone who has worked in any kind of manufacturing, especially computer design and manufacturing, it takes more than a few months to design, build, test, and bring to market a functioning computer, even more so for a laptop. That the PowerBook 500 series was shipping on May 16th with such features means that the hardware and software to support those features had to be implemented many months earlier. And since Apple was designing and building their own chipsets, it was likely more than 1 year earlier that they were designing the chipset hardware (and software that could test it).
People who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't be allowed to post on /.
I'm right there with you, I love the combination mechanical (not really analog) face/hands, with an embedded digital display for date/alarm/etc. In fact, I've never owned a wristwatch with only a digital (LED/LCD) face, nor do I ever intent to. Douglas Adams said it best:
...utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea...
Look a little closer at "3-4 examples out of thousands isn't statistically significant". I've had more than 4 prescription medicines that weren't effective in my lifetime, and I'll bet many of you have as well. And that's with a highly tested, highly refined medication that was prescribed by a highly trained Dr. It doesn't mean that all prescriptions are ineffective, or even that the ones I took are ineffective, they just didn't work for my specific condition (or don't work for my body chemistry). That's the only valid conclusion you can draw from such a small sample.
Look a little closer at the well documented fact that most prescription medications originated from "folk remedies". When they found one that was statistically effective, they investigated why, identified the specific ingredient(s) that caused the effect, then developed purified, concentrated, and/or related chemicals that they could market."
Most homeopathic or "folk remedies" are less effective (and/or take longer to work) than their prescription counterparts, specifically because they're not as strong/concentrated. But for that reason (and a few others), they are likely to have less severe side effects. They're also likely to be less expensive and don't require a visit to a Dr to get a prescription. That doesn't mean they're all effective or harmless either, but condemning thousands of less expensive and/or more accessible treatments based upon personal experience with 3 or 4 examples is not science, it's foolish.
No, Coors light doesn't have much flavor, so a filter is almost certainly necessary.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
I didn't say the applicant was the one who disclosed it. I said it was the original applicant's invention that was disclosed. An independent invention disclosed to the public prior to the original application is prior art, and the applicant must then demonstrate why it's not prior art. In fact, it doesn't even have to be publicly disclosed prior to the application for it to qualify as prior art, but public disclosure helps document that it was in fact prior and independent. For an attorney, you don't read very carefully.
P.S. Publicly calling people douchebags for no reason won't help your reputation any.
In United States patent law, "swearing back of a reference" is a process where an inventor, in certain circumstances, can get a US patent even though the invention became public before the inventor filed an original patent application.
That applies only if it was the original inventor's invention that was made public before the application, not if another person/company independently invents the same thing, which is the very description of prior art.
Which ones they are? In my whole life I have tried about 3-4 of them, one were some cold relief, which started working about a week of usage, and some travel sickness pills which worked for about 15 minutes in the car.
Because trying 3-4 out of many thousands is a statistically valid sample.
Still, even in that small sample, you experienced that some do work. So your point in attacking them in the first place was...?
The applications date back to June 1994, so they may have the Mac laptops beat.
Try doing a quick search for facts before making such statements. From Wikipedia
That took all of 5 seconds to find.
Well, I don't remember if they all used fans for cooling, but every Mac laptop since the 500 series in 1994 used CPU clock throttling to manage heat and power consumption. If the patent goes back much prior to that, it will be expired. They're gonna have to come up with something really surprising to avoid getting that patent thrown out due to prior art.