How will you feel when someone uploads a carefully edited clip that makes it look like you are a bad driver, when in fact you were avoiding an accident with someone else?
As ever, the problem with vigilante justice is the lack of due process and fairness.
*Gasp* Complaints might be false and evidence might be incomplete or false? Why, no court system anywhere at anytime has had to deal with such insurmountable problems!
*Double gasp* Traffic court is run by vigilantes, and lack due process and fairness? Damn... and here I thought that they were run by appointed judges that were supposed to at least pay lip service to such concepts.
Time to set up my own traffic court. With a guillotine. Because I can.
Did you even think about what you wrote before you clicked "submit"?
The UK continuing in its steady descent toward a police state.
Well, we can't have that. You must allow a minority of citizens to engage in any sort of dangerous driving so long as they are wise enough to avoid doing it in front of marked police. You also must ban other citizens from collecting evidence that might be used to punish an offender. Because police state...
Police State: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures.
Yep. Other citizens = secret police, traffic enforcement = arbitrary exercise of power, traffic court = star chamber acting in place of judicial organs exercising publicly known legal procedures.
It totally matches, by which I mean that you're simply butthurt that other users of the road can collect and now submit objective evidence of your asshattery so that you just might have to drive in a civilized manner.
I'm saying BTC isn't really down on any timescale that counts.
It's odd how timescales of up to 6 months suddenly don't count, and BTC speculators have suddenly become buy-and-hold investors praising Saint Warren Buffett. It's especially odd considering BTC is touted as a currency, and thus should have a relatively stable value.
2018 counts, oh great pumper of snake oil. It counts bigly.
It all depends on what the definition of "Makes" is.
Hardly. You'll notice all Apple's products say "Designed by Apple in California," not "Made by Apple." While you may be willing to stretch the definition of "make" beyond reason, most others are not, including Apple.
Does AMD make CPUs and GPUs?
No.
But those Ax SoCs and those MacBooks, iMacs, iPhones iPads, Apple TVs, etc, simply wouldn't exist without Apple, no more than those ThreadRippers, Radeons and Vegas would exist without AMD.
No, they simply wouldn't exist if the manufacturers didn't make them. A design, no matter how involved, remains a design until made. Hence the pejorative "exists only on paper."
The difference is, in this scenario, as in life, Foxconn and TSMC as well as whoever AMD uses as its fab are utterly replaceable Contractors; but Apple and AMD are not.
By that measure Apple is utterly replaceable (computer, laptop, cell phone, tablet, and TV box hardware all exists without Apple, after all). Meanwhile, I defy you to replace Samsung's OLED screens -- Google tried with LG and is universally deemed to have failed. LTE modems are only slightly more replaceable (Apple will buy Intel, but not exclusively, and must cripple the Qualcomm product to make them equal), and fabs... haha... you think that mobile device fabs are utterly replaceable. That is why you are TheFakeTimCook, and not the actual Tim Cook.
So, none of it? You're just upset because it had my name at the top? Since you didn't provide an explanation, I'm free to seek my own, and that's most plausible.
All of it.
I'm hardly upset, but you fail to realize: (a) nobody here works for you, so don't expect people to heave to your assignments. (b) "Kids;" this exemplar of your usual attitude explains why "They said they really wanted to hire me, then they just stopped returning my emails" -- not your self proclaimed "morals and standards" -- and (c) whining about moderation screams just "insecurity."
Finally, if people dare provide an explanation with facts you simply run away to the next topic, peppering posters with questions and more self-beneficial, self-created rules for discussion. So why bother replying substantively to your contradictory gobbeldygook? Doctor shortage -- despite having more doctors per capita than the UK and Canada -- CNPs providing poorer care than doctors -- because only a doctor can evaluate sugars and strep.
You're an expert in everything, so figure this one out for youself too. You'll be wrong, but you're obviously comfortable with that.
They ignored the fact that Tesla had managed to release software for a critical subsystem of their cars, the brakes, into production which had bugs which significantly impaired it's performance. Seemingly, a fairly trivial bug as they managed to test and apply the patch in a couple of days.
This is pure speculation.
Hardly. The performance impairment was well documented by CR and admitted by Tesla. Therefore this is not "pure" speculation.
You don't know there was a bug.
He knows that there was a "fix", which means there was error.
The difference could be explained entirely by tuning.
Unintentional bug or intentional defect is really beside the point. It was a bug/error that had to be fixed.
They made the stopping distance longer because sometimes when it was shorter, the car would shudder (or similar) during panic stops and they felt that would affect customer confidence.
Label something as "pure" speculation, then engage in even more speculative speculation. Hypocrite with a bullshit excuse -- the customer's confidence will be affected by slamming into another object at speed. Forget shuddering, you stop AS QUICKLY IN AS LITTLE DISTANCE AS POSSIBLE DURING PANIC STOPS.
Or, you know, maybe there was a bug. But you're going to have to provide a citation for that.
Screw you. The real world is not limited by Wikipedia rules. CR documented it, Musk admitted it, a fix was deployed, and no amount of Wikirules-lawyering can change the fact that any legacy automaker's testing facility would catch the fact that engaging in more than one panic stop in a session would cause braking distance to increase by 20+%. You don't run non-destructive tests "just once."
Especially considering the PowerPC and SPARC part. They had register windows and register renaming, I would bet $100 they had speculative execution as well, because register renaming makes not much sense without it.
You'd be wrong about PowerPC (not until 1994) and SPARC (not until 1995), but you can rest easy in that you're merely reckless and untrustworthy rather than lying and untrustworthy.
and if you look back 1 year (6 months, whatever). It's UP MASSIVELY! Like insanely up. BItcoin even at $2k is up beyond imagination. It's a good thing and you would have to be stupid not to take advantage while you can.
I would have to be stupid not to go back 1 year in time and buy bitcoin. But I wasn't stupid 6 months ago to refuse to buy into bitcoin, and I'm reasonably certain that I'm not stupid in continuing to refuse to do so.
Hindsight investing is not investing. Speculation is not investing. So many things about bitcoin scream "not investing."
What about WordPerfect? It was excellent word processing software (better than Word), did not have the same re-write issue, yet it died as well.
You must be on crack. As someone who used WP 5.1 on DOS and tried WP for Windows, then gave up and migrated to Word, I can confidently say that WP had major re-write issues. The tales of WPfW 5.1 and 5.2 are legendary, and easily Google-able.
I'm a long ways from a germophobe but a very significant part of their job is working with people with all sorts of infections and diseases, there could be anything on those things... I'd rather not get a staff infection because a nurse brushed up against me while I was waiting in line for a sandwich at lunch time.
Why worry about that when you can worry about every fourth person around you? Your staff has staph, their staff has staph, the lunch staff has staph...
I know but if scrubs were able to "prevent bugs being passed around" I'd feel a little better standing by these people.
Yes, because "everything must be sterile" has worked so well for public health so far.
Kaby Lake mobile "U" series processors launched January 2017.
Your reality has oddly long months, and appears to omit February, March, April, and May.
Now kindly FOAD.
Now kindly remind yourself that it is now the end of June 2018, and that 1.5 years is far closer to 2 years than one, however oddly long, month. Plan to see a 6 core Macbook Pro anytime soon? Thought not.
Anyway, I regret to inform you that the word "hack" is now bad, and should be avoided.
The unwashed 'you' listened so well when the community dictated that 'hacking' was to be reserved for productive uses of technology rather than malicious 'cracking.'
The unwashed 'you' listened so well when the community dictated that 'hacking' was to be reserved for uses that required technical skill rather than script kiddies' ignorant throw-it-at-the-wall uses of others' prepackaged tools.
But now, now the unwashed 'you' will listen to advice to avoid calling everything 'hacking' and the results a 'hack.'
As Hitler famously said, if you repeat a lie loudly and frequently, then people will eventually believe it.
That's funny, because Hitler never said those words.
Oh no, a paraphrase!
"[A]ll effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward." Mein Kampf
Adobe Systems v. Southern Software explicitly found that the selection of control points and curves was copyrighted expression. The copyright is not limited to the hinting, even assuming that someone would attempt to remove the hinting from the font file in order to use it.
Depending upon your jurisdiction, both. In the U.S., you're free to copy the visible design of the font, but the computer program that produces that design -- the "font file" -- is copyrighted.
Surely you were more interested in the former than the latter...
I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.
[First,] You can't patent things
The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed)."). You can, in fact, patent things.
"[Second,] You can't patent ideas
Good thing that I didn't mention patenting ideas. I mentioned patenting a genetically modified plant. Which, again, you can, in fact, do.
"And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious.
Merely calling something obvious does not make it so. How do you propose to do it? With what gene, inserted where within the genome, using what promoter, via what vector or editing process?
"A general incentive does not make obvious a particular result, nor does the existence of techniques by which those efforts can be carried out." In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995). Trying "each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful" is not a disqualifying sort of "obviousness," and neither is "explor[ing] a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
It might be possible to patent the specific process of copying the genes from one organism to another (if it's novel enough), but not the result and not the idea of doing so.
No it's still illegal because it circumvents the FOIA laws. That was the reason Clinton set that server up in the first place - so she could decide which emails would be preserved.
How so? The email sent from his FBI account, to his Gmail account circumvented the FOIA laws because magically the sent email was not retained and preserved?
That you can't tell the difference between people who want to destroy rights and people who want to preserve them suggests that you really, REALLY should do anything dangerous to other people, like, say, voting.
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you....
I'm damn dangerous. And there's nothing that you can do about that.
....
I'm not sure what you're saying, here. Why should I care if you're "dangerous?" Are you threatening me, or somebody else? If you're not, then - so what? EVERYBODY is dangerous, and have at their disposal virtually unlimited ways to kill lots of people, without even getting around to using firearms. Are you boasting about martial arts skills or something?
Clip out the part of the conversation where you claim that I "really, REALLY should[n't] do anything dangerous to other people, like, say, voting," then innocently act confused about what I mean and ask if I'm threatening you... classy.
EVERYBODY is dangerous, and have at their disposal virtually unlimited ways to kill lots of people, without even getting around to using firearms. Are you boasting about martial arts skills or something?
Wrong way around. Thats like saying the pencil should be patented while the design you draw with it is not.
No, he defined "copy-pasted genetic sequences" as including the combination of the marine gene with a plant. The combination of the marine gene with the plant is the design, not the pencil. The patentability of genetically modified organisms was settled 30 years ago, if not even earlier when considering bacteria (1980) and conventionally bred crop plants (1930).
You shouldn't be able to patent the gene but if you do something and make a different product with it, such as a omega 3 grape, then that is what you patent
A grapeseed or canola plant that incorporates a marine gene to produce omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) is the different product, and is exactly what I said would be patentable.
That you can't tell the difference between people who want to destroy rights and people who want to preserve them suggests that you really, REALLY should do anything dangerous to other people, like, say, voting.
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you. Magazine size limits - a.o.k. Requiring someone to be 21 to purchase a semiautomatic weapon - a.o.k. Requiring trigger locks - a.o.k.
I'm damn dangerous. And there's nothing that you can do about that.
May as well point out that the parent is highly abbreviated: canola produces a minor amount of ALA, but no EPA or DHA, which are the marine omega-3s that are being referenced in TFA.
If they wrote the code themselves without looking at naturally occuring sequences, maybe. But if they spliced it from something else then its just copy-paste.
Fine. Then copy-pasted genetic sequence as you're defining them are and should be patentable. A grapeseed or canola plant that produces omega-3 fatty acids does not exist in nature. It will have been created by people. Which negates your base question "How can you patent something you didn't create?"
Slashdot Mirror
*Gasp* Complaints might be false and evidence might be incomplete or false? Why, no court system anywhere at anytime has had to deal with such insurmountable problems!
*Double gasp* Traffic court is run by vigilantes, and lack due process and fairness? Damn... and here I thought that they were run by appointed judges that were supposed to at least pay lip service to such concepts.
Time to set up my own traffic court. With a guillotine. Because I can.
Did you even think about what you wrote before you clicked "submit"?
Well, we can't have that. You must allow a minority of citizens to engage in any sort of dangerous driving so long as they are wise enough to avoid doing it in front of marked police. You also must ban other citizens from collecting evidence that might be used to punish an offender. Because police state...
Yep. Other citizens = secret police, traffic enforcement = arbitrary exercise of power, traffic court = star chamber acting in place of judicial organs exercising publicly known legal procedures.
It totally matches, by which I mean that you're simply butthurt that other users of the road can collect and now submit objective evidence of your asshattery so that you just might have to drive in a civilized manner.
It's odd how timescales of up to 6 months suddenly don't count, and BTC speculators have suddenly become buy-and-hold investors praising Saint Warren Buffett. It's especially odd considering BTC is touted as a currency, and thus should have a relatively stable value.
2018 counts, oh great pumper of snake oil. It counts bigly.
Hardly. You'll notice all Apple's products say "Designed by Apple in California," not "Made by Apple." While you may be willing to stretch the definition of "make" beyond reason, most others are not, including Apple.
No.
No, they simply wouldn't exist if the manufacturers didn't make them. A design, no matter how involved, remains a design until made. Hence the pejorative "exists only on paper."
By that measure Apple is utterly replaceable (computer, laptop, cell phone, tablet, and TV box hardware all exists without Apple, after all). Meanwhile, I defy you to replace Samsung's OLED screens -- Google tried with LG and is universally deemed to have failed. LTE modems are only slightly more replaceable (Apple will buy Intel, but not exclusively, and must cripple the Qualcomm product to make them equal), and fabs... haha... you think that mobile device fabs are utterly replaceable. That is why you are TheFakeTimCook, and not the actual Tim Cook.
All of it.
I'm hardly upset, but you fail to realize: (a) nobody here works for you, so don't expect people to heave to your assignments. (b) "Kids;" this exemplar of your usual attitude explains why "They said they really wanted to hire me, then they just stopped returning my emails" -- not your self proclaimed "morals and standards" -- and (c) whining about moderation screams just "insecurity."
Finally, if people dare provide an explanation with facts you simply run away to the next topic, peppering posters with questions and more self-beneficial, self-created rules for discussion. So why bother replying substantively to your contradictory gobbeldygook? Doctor shortage -- despite having more doctors per capita than the UK and Canada -- CNPs providing poorer care than doctors -- because only a doctor can evaluate sugars and strep.
You're an expert in everything, so figure this one out for youself too. You'll be wrong, but you're obviously comfortable with that.
No, geezer, figure it out for yourself. All of it.
Hardly. The performance impairment was well documented by CR and admitted by Tesla. Therefore this is not "pure" speculation.
He knows that there was a "fix", which means there was error.
Unintentional bug or intentional defect is really beside the point. It was a bug/error that had to be fixed.
Label something as "pure" speculation, then engage in even more speculative speculation. Hypocrite with a bullshit excuse -- the customer's confidence will be affected by slamming into another object at speed. Forget shuddering, you stop AS QUICKLY IN AS LITTLE DISTANCE AS POSSIBLE DURING PANIC STOPS.
Screw you. The real world is not limited by Wikipedia rules. CR documented it, Musk admitted it, a fix was deployed, and no amount of Wikirules-lawyering can change the fact that any legacy automaker's testing facility would catch the fact that engaging in more than one panic stop in a session would cause braking distance to increase by 20+%. You don't run non-destructive tests "just once."
You'd be wrong about PowerPC (not until 1994) and SPARC (not until 1995), but you can rest easy in that you're merely reckless and untrustworthy rather than lying and untrustworthy.
I expect my $100 now.
I would have to be stupid not to go back 1 year in time and buy bitcoin. But I wasn't stupid 6 months ago to refuse to buy into bitcoin, and I'm reasonably certain that I'm not stupid in continuing to refuse to do so.
Hindsight investing is not investing. Speculation is not investing. So many things about bitcoin scream "not investing."
You must be on crack. As someone who used WP 5.1 on DOS and tried WP for Windows, then gave up and migrated to Word, I can confidently say that WP had major re-write issues. The tales of WPfW 5.1 and 5.2 are legendary, and easily Google-able.
Name one Apple factory. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Why worry about that when you can worry about every fourth person around you? Your staff has staph, their staff has staph, the lunch staff has staph...
Yes, because "everything must be sterile" has worked so well for public health so far.
2017 MacBook Pro released June 2017.
Kaby Lake mobile "U" series processors launched January 2017.
Your reality has oddly long months, and appears to omit February, March, April, and May.
Now kindly remind yourself that it is now the end of June 2018, and that 1.5 years is far closer to 2 years than one, however oddly long, month. Plan to see a 6 core Macbook Pro anytime soon? Thought not.
The unwashed 'you' listened so well when the community dictated that 'hacking' was to be reserved for productive uses of technology rather than malicious 'cracking.'
The unwashed 'you' listened so well when the community dictated that 'hacking' was to be reserved for uses that required technical skill rather than script kiddies' ignorant throw-it-at-the-wall uses of others' prepackaged tools.
But now, now the unwashed 'you' will listen to advice to avoid calling everything 'hacking' and the results a 'hack.'
Bwahahaha... keep dreaming.
Oh no, a paraphrase!
"[A]ll effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward." Mein Kampf
A distinction without a difference.
Adobe Systems v. Southern Software explicitly found that the selection of control points and curves was copyrighted expression. The copyright is not limited to the hinting, even assuming that someone would attempt to remove the hinting from the font file in order to use it.
Depending upon your jurisdiction, both. In the U.S., you're free to copy the visible design of the font, but the computer program that produces that design -- the "font file" -- is copyrighted.
Surely you were more interested in the former than the latter...
I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.
The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed)."). You can, in fact, patent things.
Good thing that I didn't mention patenting ideas. I mentioned patenting a genetically modified plant. Which, again, you can, in fact, do.
Merely calling something obvious does not make it so. How do you propose to do it? With what gene, inserted where within the genome, using what promoter, via what vector or editing process?
"A general incentive does not make obvious a particular result, nor does the existence of techniques by which those efforts can be carried out." In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995). Trying "each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful" is not a disqualifying sort of "obviousness," and neither is "explor[ing] a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Yes you can (see claim 24). And the Supreme Court of the U.S. will even let you enforce the patent.
How so? The email sent from his FBI account, to his Gmail account circumvented the FOIA laws because magically the sent email was not retained and preserved?
Really?
Clip out the part of the conversation where you claim that I "really, REALLY should[n't] do anything dangerous to other people, like, say, voting," then innocently act confused about what I mean and ask if I'm threatening you... classy.
Killer ninja voting. Tool...
No, he defined "copy-pasted genetic sequences" as including the combination of the marine gene with a plant. The combination of the marine gene with the plant is the design, not the pencil. The patentability of genetically modified organisms was settled 30 years ago, if not even earlier when considering bacteria (1980) and conventionally bred crop plants (1930).
A grapeseed or canola plant that incorporates a marine gene to produce omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) is the different product, and is exactly what I said would be patentable.
I vote to preserve my right to live, thank you. Magazine size limits - a.o.k. Requiring someone to be 21 to purchase a semiautomatic weapon - a.o.k. Requiring trigger locks - a.o.k.
I'm damn dangerous. And there's nothing that you can do about that.
It's not plagiarism when you cite your sources.
May as well point out that the parent is highly abbreviated: canola produces a minor amount of ALA, but no EPA or DHA, which are the marine omega-3s that are being referenced in TFA.
Fine. Then copy-pasted genetic sequence as you're defining them are and should be patentable. A grapeseed or canola plant that produces omega-3 fatty acids does not exist in nature. It will have been created by people. Which negates your base question "How can you patent something you didn't create?"