Nobody that resorts to such a cowardly and fear driven act as torture is a badass. A badass wouldn't be so scared of the consequences of not torturing someone that they would be willing to give up their humanity. Only fear, paranoia, and revenge can drive someone to torture another.
Dropbox has Condoleeza Rice on its board of directors. If anyone remembers, she was Secretary of State and also the president's National Security Advisor during the Bush administration. She basically allowed torture, and is responsible for Guantanamo. She had no problem with torturing people without even doing a basic check to see if the person being tortured was guilty of the crime he was being tortured for. And you want to talk about spying? She was part of the administration that developed the PATRIOT Act. The justification being "it's ok to spy on foreigners".. Oh and we can DECLARE you a foreigner without any due process by making you prove your Americanness. She was cool with torturing foreigners without giving them any sort of due process, so why would you assume that she wont torture citizens if she was scared into doing so? We already know she doesn't think people need privacy.
Everytime the LHC makes the news... I think congratulations to the EU and then I think about the Superconducting Super Collider being built in Texas which was cancelled in 1993. We should have had these breakthroughs come out 15 years ago. In the United States. Thanks Congress for slowing down the pace of physics. Much appreciated.. NOT.
Wow, the FBI is so awesome, they can predict exactly what a criminal is gonna do in advance. How about they actually solve a murder, rape, or kidnapping once in a while? 35% of murders don't get solved.. maybe when they get that number down to like 5% I'll start believing the feds when they say it's gonna rain tomorrow. Meanwhile anything to reduce the 30,000 highway deaths per year will be appreciated. If automated cars are illegal, only the federales will have automated cars with a dummy driver.
I agree with your comment. I remember when I posted right here on slashdot in 2005 that phone displays were too small and that we needed touchscreen and voice UIs.. of course I got response that phones didn't need to have a big screen because people have TVs --seriously?
But very soon smartwatches will require no charging at all. My guess is they will work off whole room chargers at first and in a few years they'll be so low power that they'll be automatic off movement kinetics -- this would require the display to be ultra low power OLED or e-ink or something like that.Still, at first they can work off whole room charger systems like the one produced by Ossia (google it). Ultimately of course we need new battery technology.
It would be trivial for a computer to realize something is being said mid-sentence by measuring the time between your previous word and when you say "computer, adjust the volume".. AS for a demo playing in the background.. yeah that is an issue but i try not to play demos of voice UI interaction in the car. If I did, I would make sure the trigger word to activate a voice command is not "computer" but some name that is rarely used like "Cthulu of the Netherworld".
Well we have known this for a long long time. Problem is how do we get the government to stop subsidizing fossil fuel? Voting against the tea party nutcases might be a good start. They are they ones forcing these subsidies: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/...
As an aside, I think I figured out why you never use the "quote parent" button. It's because you absolutely refuse to answer questions or admit when you're wrong. Accordingly, you're just wasting my time.
And again, I should point out that (i) you failed to use the 'quote parent' button or otherwise quote me; (ii) failed to answer any questions from me to you; and (iii) changed the topic yet again, once I pointed out you were wrong. This is just pathetic.
i) I did quote you (using " " rather than quote parent) in my response at http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ii) I did answer the ones worth answering. If you have specific ones ask them again I will answer. iii) I may have been wrong about 35 USC 135 or 35 USC 156 being abused. However my main point is that patent attorneys (probably ones more competent than you) know how to manipulate the patent system such that their patent applications get delayed for long periods. I admit I am very likely wrong about the details of the process in which that is achieved. I thought it was by getting the patent appeal to respond to various issues raised in the application. For example, after you respond to an RCE.. doesn't it throw the clock back onto the USPTO such that the delay extends the term (if it goes over 3 years)? I know that the USPTO delays are not random.. there is something about the patent application that causes it to get into delay hell.. and that's being manipulated. Why is it that the HDTV patents are still unissued? When they do get issued it means (for example) Sony will be able to continue to collect royalties for 17 years from that date. That means HDTV technology will not enter public domain for a very long time.
Without usable voice control, this thing is useless. And the only way to make voice control work non-annoyingly is if someone like Google open sources their Google Now speech to text stuff and put the needed patents into the public domain.
You said that USC 135 cannot be used to delay a patent in a manner that counts toward it being extended.
1. Have you ever filed a petition to institute a derivation proceeding? 2. How long did they take to even get back to you with a response?
As for 35 USC 156, do I need to handhold you through the million ways they can make a product subject to regulatory review? One way is to say is that it's going to be in a medical device or a medical device is going to use it.
AFTER I said "the patent issuance delays are not random.. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it." You said
"There are reasons we manipulate delays - for example, where the patent owner is unsure whether to proceed with the application or not, and wants to stall while they release their product or talk to investors - but to get increased patent term extension is not one of them. "
So you admit that the delays can be manipulated, yet patent term extensions aren't a reason. This strongly implies that an applicant has no interest in having a delayed issue date. The only reason they would have no interest in a delayed issue date is if it offered no gain.
1. A greatly delayed issue date can result in a term extension. 2. You state that applicants/their lawyer have ways to cause patent issuance delays. 3. You say that applicants have no interest in a term extension.
The only reason #3 would make sense is if there was no interest, financial or otherwise in a delay.
Also, your reasoning that applicants merely want to stall while they talk to investors or decide whether to proceed makes no sense. They've already paid the fees, why would they need to stall or not proceed with an application? Unless we are talking about a situation where they are concerned about trade secrets, there is no reason for someone to not want a patent. Going the trade secret route is very very risky. Also, since the application is already in process it would get revealed within 18 months anyway and if it gets abandoned.. there is zero protection.
OK, so now you admit that deliberately causing delays are possible and that you know of ways to do it. Since you seem to think that forcing patents into the RCE backlog doesn't help the application get delayed, and that USC 135 & 156 are useless.. why don't you tell us some of the ways you do use?
Also, you claim that a patent applicant has no gain or financial interest in a delayed patent issuance date.. that is ridiculous for many cases and you know it. Especially given how broad or widely used some patents can be.
Also, there is no why the law has to say that the USPTO must grant extended time. Let's say the patent office issues in 2015 a patent filed in 2000. The applicant can still sue infringers for back royalties. In fact this "sue for back royalties" has been the trend among patent trolls. The USPTO "realized it" (ie, got called on it) relatively recently and therefore started publishing most pending applications after 18 months so that people can at least check if they might get sued at a later date for using a patent pending idea. Anyway the fact that a patent owner can sue people for back royalties means that with delays patent owners can have monopolies on technology for extended periods of time far beyond 20 years. For example if you get your patent delayed 30 years (not unreasonable when you consider some HDTV patents from the 1990s have yet to issue) then you basically get to earn royalties on for 50 years. Furthermore you can demand huge sums in back royalties for the delay periods. How is that fair?
Yes they can. They can word their applications in such a manner that increases the delay likelihood substantially and whether it triggers RCEs etc. What can I say, you don't know the basics of getting the USPTO to delay while technically making it fall under the statutes I mentioned you obviously know absolutely nothing. Until I proved it, you didn't even know that some patents issue quickly whereas there are still patents in the queue from the 1990s and even the 80s (in fact, know of one from the 70s that is not yet acted on but the reason for that particular one is not the applicant's fault). Anyway, the patent issuance delays are not random.. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it.
What can I say, obviously I know a lot more than you. If you don't know the basics of getting the USPTO to delay while technically making it fall under the statutes I mentioned you obviously know absolutely nothing. I guess you didn't even know that some patents issue quickly whereas there are still patents in the queue from the 1990s and even the 80s (in fact, know of one from the 70s that is not yet acted on but the reason for that particular one is not the applicant's fault). Anyway, the patent issuance delays are not random.. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it.
There are many many patents with extensions... for example.. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many.. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages.. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."
Before you accuse me of cherry picking.. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.
Dude, my point is that there is no fixed 20 year time period, you can keep extending the patent issuance for as long as you like by using 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a). If you managed to delay it more than 3 years (very easy btw) then the clock of those 20 years starts after the issue date. SO for example, you if you filed a patent in 2000, you keep pushing for delays under 35 USC 135 (c) so that the patent gets issued in 2020.. then you have a monopoly on the invention until 2040. You can sue any infringers for back royalties on your invention if someone else built it (knowingly or unknowingly).
This is a very dark development. The patent system is being abused such that it is preventing product launches and stifling innovation/invention by anyone other than large entities. For example, let's look at what's happening with LTE. Currently corporations are submarining many of these patents so that it will be impossible to make a non-infringing LTE base station or smartphone even 30 years after most of the currently known LTE patents expire. Not all the patents on LTE are even known (this is deliberate so that lawsuit can be filed at a later date). Anyway, what do I mean by submarining? They filed some of these applications years ago and then saw to it that SOME the patents have not issued (while a few are issued)... after a 3 year delay.. a loophole in the law kicks in (basically they use 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a) ) and so they get 20 years from issuance date subtract 18 months until the patent expires. Their goal is to delay the patent issuance until the final quickly issued patent is about to expire.. then they will get the patent office to issue the new patents (the deliberately delayed ones). This allows them extended monopoly/royalties on LTE technology. This tactic is widely used. For example there are still patents from HDTV in the 1990s that have still not been issued. The patent law was changed in the early 90s to "prevent submarining".. but a loophole was placed in there intended for pharmaceutical companies (cause FDA drug approvals can take a decade so it's unfair that they only get 10 years of monopoly).. but the problem with the loophole is that everyone else (non-pharmaceuticals) can use it too.
I would trust facial recognition over humans or a mugshot IF and ONLY IF the recognition algorithm was known and scrutinized/peer reviewed.
A human can make mistakes whereas a facial recognition system can accurately verify individual characteristics and ratios of a face (distance between eyes, ratio of nose distance to mouth etc..
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody that resorts to such a cowardly and fear driven act as torture is a badass. A badass wouldn't be so scared of the consequences of not torturing someone that they would be willing to give up their humanity. Only fear, paranoia, and revenge can drive someone to torture another.
Dropbox has Condoleeza Rice on its board of directors. If anyone remembers, she was Secretary of State and also the president's National Security Advisor during the Bush administration. She basically allowed torture, and is responsible for Guantanamo. She had no problem with torturing people without even doing a basic check to see if the person being tortured was guilty of the crime he was being tortured for. And you want to talk about spying? She was part of the administration that developed the PATRIOT Act. The justification being "it's ok to spy on foreigners" .. Oh and we can DECLARE you a foreigner without any due process by making you prove your Americanness. She was cool with torturing foreigners without giving them any sort of due process, so why would you assume that she wont torture citizens if she was scared into doing so? We already know she doesn't think people need privacy.
Everytime the LHC makes the news ... I think congratulations to the EU and then I think about the Superconducting Super Collider being built in Texas which was cancelled in 1993. We should have had these breakthroughs come out 15 years ago. In the United States. Thanks Congress for slowing down the pace of physics. Much appreciated .. NOT.
Wow, the FBI is so awesome, they can predict exactly what a criminal is gonna do in advance. How about they actually solve a murder, rape, or kidnapping once in a while? 35% of murders don't get solved .. maybe when they get that number down to like 5% I'll start believing the feds when they say it's gonna rain tomorrow. Meanwhile anything to reduce the 30,000 highway deaths per year will be appreciated. If automated cars are illegal, only the federales will have automated cars with a dummy driver.
LOL +Insightful +Funny if I had the mod points
I agree with your comment. I remember when I posted right here on slashdot in 2005 that phone displays were too small and that we needed touchscreen and voice UIs .. of course I got response that phones didn't need to have a big screen because people have TVs --seriously?
Proof: http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
But very soon smartwatches will require no charging at all. My guess is they will work off whole room chargers at first and in a few years they'll be so low power that they'll be automatic off movement kinetics -- this would require the display to be ultra low power OLED or e-ink or something like that.Still, at first they can work off whole room charger systems like the one produced by Ossia (google it). Ultimately of course we need new battery technology.
And what about Hendrik Schön, where was he from?
Or maybe it's not just the Chinese, your brain locks onto fake patterns.
It would be trivial for a computer to realize something is being said mid-sentence by measuring the time between your previous word and when you say "computer, adjust the volume".. AS for a demo playing in the background .. yeah that is an issue but i try not to play demos of voice UI interaction in the car. If I did, I would make sure the trigger word to activate a voice command is not "computer" but some name that is rarely used like "Cthulu of the Netherworld".
Well we have known this for a long long time. Problem is how do we get the government to stop subsidizing fossil fuel?
Voting against the tea party nutcases might be a good start. They are they ones forcing these subsidies: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/...
Land Area that is needed to power the whole world with solar panels using existing technology: http://www.gembapantarei.com/s...
As an aside, I think I figured out why you never use the "quote parent" button. It's because you absolutely refuse to answer questions or admit when you're wrong. Accordingly, you're just wasting my time.
And again, I should point out that (i) you failed to use the 'quote parent' button or otherwise quote me; (ii) failed to answer any questions from me to you; and (iii) changed the topic yet again, once I pointed out you were wrong. This is just pathetic.
i) I did quote you (using " " rather than quote parent) in my response at http://slashdot.org/comments.p... .. doesn't it throw the clock back onto the USPTO such that the delay extends the term (if it goes over 3 years)? I know that the USPTO delays are not random .. there is something about the patent application that causes it to get into delay hell .. and that's being manipulated. Why is it that the HDTV patents are still unissued? When they do get issued it means (for example) Sony will be able to continue to collect royalties for 17 years from that date. That means HDTV technology will not enter public domain for a very long time.
ii) I did answer the ones worth answering. If you have specific ones ask them again I will answer.
iii) I may have been wrong about 35 USC 135 or 35 USC 156 being abused. However my main point is that patent attorneys (probably ones more competent than you) know how to manipulate the patent system such that their patent applications get delayed for long periods. I admit I am very likely wrong about the details of the process in which that is achieved. I thought it was by getting the patent appeal to respond to various issues raised in the application. For example, after you respond to an RCE
Without usable voice control, this thing is useless. And the only way to make voice control work non-annoyingly is if someone like Google open sources their Google Now speech to text stuff and put the needed patents into the public domain.
You said that USC 135 cannot be used to delay a patent in a manner that counts toward it being extended.
1. Have you ever filed a petition to institute a derivation proceeding?
2. How long did they take to even get back to you with a response?
As for 35 USC 156, do I need to handhold you through the million ways they can make a product subject to regulatory review? One way is to say is that it's going to be in a medical device or a medical device is going to use it.
AFTER I said "the patent issuance delays are not random .. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it." You said
"There are reasons we manipulate delays - for example, where the patent owner is unsure whether to proceed with the application or not, and wants to stall while they release their product or talk to investors - but to get increased patent term extension is not one of them. "
So you admit that the delays can be manipulated, yet patent term extensions aren't a reason. This strongly implies that an applicant has no interest in having a delayed issue date. The only reason they would have no interest in a delayed issue date is if it offered no gain.
1. A greatly delayed issue date can result in a term extension.
2. You state that applicants/their lawyer have ways to cause patent issuance delays.
3. You say that applicants have no interest in a term extension.
The only reason #3 would make sense is if there was no interest, financial or otherwise in a delay.
Also, your reasoning that applicants merely want to stall while they talk to investors or decide whether to proceed makes no sense. They've already paid the fees, why would they need to stall or not proceed with an application? Unless we are talking about a situation where they are concerned about trade secrets, there is no reason for someone to not want a patent. Going the trade secret route is very very risky. Also, since the application is already in process it would get revealed within 18 months anyway and if it gets abandoned .. there is zero protection.
OK, so now you admit that deliberately causing delays are possible and that you know of ways to do it. Since you seem to think that forcing patents into the RCE backlog doesn't help the application get delayed, and that USC 135 & 156 are useless .. why don't you tell us some of the ways you do use?
Also, you claim that a patent applicant has no gain or financial interest in a delayed patent issuance date .. that is ridiculous for many cases and you know it. Especially given how broad or widely used some patents can be.
Also, there is no why the law has to say that the USPTO must grant extended time. Let's say the patent office issues in 2015 a patent filed in 2000. The applicant can still sue infringers for back royalties. In fact this "sue for back royalties" has been the trend among patent trolls. The USPTO "realized it" (ie, got called on it) relatively recently and therefore started publishing most pending applications after 18 months so that people can at least check if they might get sued at a later date for using a patent pending idea. Anyway the fact that a patent owner can sue people for back royalties means that with delays patent owners can have monopolies on technology for extended periods of time far beyond 20 years. For example if you get your patent delayed 30 years (not unreasonable when you consider some HDTV patents from the 1990s have yet to issue) then you basically get to earn royalties on for 50 years. Furthermore you can demand huge sums in back royalties for the delay periods. How is that fair?
Yes they can. They can word their applications in such a manner that increases the delay likelihood substantially and whether it triggers RCEs etc. What can I say, you don't know the basics of getting the USPTO to delay while technically making it fall under the statutes I mentioned you obviously know absolutely nothing. Until I proved it, you didn't even know that some patents issue quickly whereas there are still patents in the queue from the 1990s and even the 80s (in fact, know of one from the 70s that is not yet acted on but the reason for that particular one is not the applicant's fault). Anyway, the patent issuance delays are not random .. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it.
What can I say, obviously I know a lot more than you. If you don't know the basics of getting the USPTO to delay while technically making it fall under the statutes I mentioned you obviously know absolutely nothing. I guess you didn't even know that some patents issue quickly whereas there are still patents in the queue from the 1990s and even the 80s (in fact, know of one from the 70s that is not yet acted on but the reason for that particular one is not the applicant's fault). Anyway, the patent issuance delays are not random .. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it.
BS.
There are many many patents with extensions ... for example .. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many .. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages .. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...
Before you accuse me of cherry picking .. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.
I also want to add that 35 USC 154(b) is also very relevant here (and should be unconstitutional in my opinion).
Dude, my point is that there is no fixed 20 year time period, you can keep extending the patent issuance for as long as you like by using 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a). If you managed to delay it more than 3 years (very easy btw) then the clock of those 20 years starts after the issue date. SO for example, you if you filed a patent in 2000, you keep pushing for delays under 35 USC 135 (c) so that the patent gets issued in 2020 .. then you have a monopoly on the invention until 2040. You can sue any infringers for back royalties on your invention if someone else built it (knowingly or unknowingly).
In my opinion USC 135 (c) and USC 156 (a) are unconstitutional due to the limited times requirement specified in the constitution.
This is a very dark development. ... after a 3 year delay .. a loophole in the law kicks in (basically they use 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a) ) and so they get 20 years from issuance date subtract 18 months until the patent expires. Their goal is to delay the patent issuance until the final quickly issued patent is about to expire .. then they will get the patent office to issue the new patents (the deliberately delayed ones). This allows them extended monopoly/royalties on LTE technology. This tactic is widely used. For example there are still patents from HDTV in the 1990s that have still not been issued. The patent law was changed in the early 90s to "prevent submarining" .. but a loophole was placed in there intended for pharmaceutical companies (cause FDA drug approvals can take a decade so it's unfair that they only get 10 years of monopoly).. but the problem with the loophole is that everyone else (non-pharmaceuticals) can use it too.
The patent system is being abused such that it is preventing product launches and stifling innovation/invention by anyone other than large entities. For example, let's look at what's happening with LTE. Currently corporations are submarining many of these patents so that it will be impossible to make a non-infringing LTE base station or smartphone even 30 years after most of the currently known LTE patents expire. Not all the patents on LTE are even known (this is deliberate so that lawsuit can be filed at a later date). Anyway, what do I mean by submarining? They filed some of these applications years ago and then saw to it that SOME the patents have not issued (while a few are issued)
This appointment needs to be protested properly.
Fools! They should be doing this with OpenBTS. WiFi range sucks.Yes the fight would be harder but WTF, the EFF has gotten wussy.
I would trust facial recognition over humans or a mugshot IF and ONLY IF the recognition algorithm was known and scrutinized/peer reviewed.
A human can make mistakes whereas a facial recognition system can accurately verify individual characteristics and ratios of a face (distance between eyes, ratio of nose distance to mouth etc..