What we can know about extra solar planets currently is rather limited by having to use multiple methods for each characteristic. Mass and orbit are estimated from orbital perturbation, size is estimated by occlusion, chemistry by several optical methods, none highly precise.
It seems likely that the quality of observation will not improve until better optical observation is possible, such as space based or multi site terrestrial installations. Currently we are making educated guesses.
The fact the IBM does publish a disclosure journal and invention disclosure publications just to establish them as prior art would indicate that this is valid, although there may be conditions applying which aren't obvious. However, I was contacted a few years ago by a patent attourney who was looking for prior art to invalidate a patent, and wanted to verify that I was the author of a usenet posting made in about 1989, describing a way to validate ROM. So clearly that constituted prior art (or maybe proved obviousness) in a useful way, since they needed a notarized statement that I did make the post in question.
Don't forget that this is a double saving since the saving A/C capacity must be added. Commercial A/C has an EGR of 6-12, so typically this would be at least one more watt saved in not having to get rid of the heat you didn't create.
For the forgetful, watt=3.4BTU/hr, so each drive saves ~35BTU/hr. Particularly in an office that could be significant.
Or course I expect to see flash replace disk in my lifetime, but then we thought that about bubble memory.
The recent work by Intel, getting 6Mbit over 100km
using standard WiFi
with a directional antenna and time division software, seems to indicate that this can be done, perhaps with tweaked software and existing hardware.
I think most people can understand "anyone can write applications for Android, free or commercial." The idea of getting features for free is not geek-speak any more, people actually know what Linux is.
In the book Waldo and Magic Inc the "Waldo" device was a set of gloves (more or less) linked to larger, smaller, or remote artificial hands. With full tactile feedback, the wearer could use huge hands to manipulate large items such as girders and the like, and small hands to do very tiny precise work. It sounds as if this capability will be possible in the near future, although possible is not a synonym for available.
This is likely to be one of the "disruptive technologies" if the cost is reduced.
I have mixed feelings on that. My first reaction is that you are right, regular patent law should apply. But in the sense that the government wants banks to use this technology, buying the rights sounds much like emminent domain in which the government does buy the rights to real property to be used for the "common good." I don't know if this maps to intellectual property in the legal or ethical sense.
Feedback on the legal or moral analogies welcome, I can see both sides.
After reading the news story on how this came about, I'm more upset with the idea of the bailout than the patent. The plaintif got a patent under the rules provided, showed it to people who might license it, and in spite of non-disclosure they just implemented the system. The patent was attacked on terms of prior art and revalidated.
The original inventor has now lost 98% of his company, and while I think that the patent is obvious and that business method patents should run for only a short time (five years?) from first implementation, the inventor played by the rules, and is entitled to collect under them.
Patent law should be changed, but one patent at a time isn't the way to do it.
I used earlier versions of this patch, with large buffers and "none" encoding over an internal GigE network. I did find that with even moderately modern CPUs, like 2.4GHz P4 w/o HT, that just switching to "blowfish" encryption made a world of difference in transfer speed, and needs no patches.
To sue because the player doesn't have 1.1 features is like suing because your b/w TV doesn't show color. But to sue because you can't see a 1.1 video using 1.0 features is more like not being able to view color shows on TV as b/w. The question becomes one of "who said you could display 1.1 videos?"
If the vendor promised that capability, the customer is right. If the 1.0 standard requires such capability, the customer is right. Bit if the 1.1 videos in question require features not in 1.0, or require hardware support not required for 1.0, it becomes a quality of implementation issue. I would suspect that optional 1.0 features were legally optional and lack of them does not qualify as a defect. If the units were sold with a stated or implied that the optional parts were present then the customer is right.
For the videos which don't work at all, it would be necessary to know why they fail, from a 1.1 feature not being ignored or a 1.0 feature not provided correctly. If this goes to trial the jury would have to be educated and charged very carefully, it sounds as if the legal issue is really splitting hairs. As customer relations, of course, just having the lawsuit huts, even if you win.
It depends on how valuable they are... I don't store my financial access passwords there, but if somneone stole my password to use a newspaper archive, I think I could survive. In many cases sites have user/pass requirements but knowing the password would get you nothing you don't have by creating a free account of your own.
For information with no value I have no problem using the password storage, although I don't use IE or Firefox (or Windows) so I'm safe from the pros who target the mass market.;-)
I certainly don't want to have to type in the password for my mail client every ten minutes when it checks mail, updates my RSS feeds, etc. I don't even want to type it once a day, so it's a trade-off between productivity and security. It's possible to be so secure that you get nothing done, or to be so obsessed with going through the motions that you waste the time without getting the security benefit.
I love suggestions like "don't visit sites you don't trust," it sounds so much better than "don't ever go anywhere new to get information on the Internet."
I must have missed it, where is the site which lists all the other sites I can trust? Oh, I can't go there, I don't trust it. Advice like that doesn't even work in a business environment, going to sites to get vendor information, standards, and documentation is a vital part of specifying, ordering, installing, and maintaining vendor supplied hardware and software. Disabling javascript is about as practical. if you can't use a site you can't do anything useful with it.
The exploit no longer works, but then neither does vmsplice.
Given that this assumes an attacker has, or can compile, evil code already on the machine, the cure may be worse than the disease, depending on how much you rely on vmsplice in your applications.
No, NO! Note the word exclusively there. That is a tiny part of the Mars project, all the work on propulsion, long term health problems in space, etc, apply to all extra-lunar trips and are not banned. I suspect that even picking interesting landing points on Mars would slip by, since they would be interesting for robotic exploration as well.
It looks as if this clause bans only a small part of the final preparations, which will not be done for years anyway.
In this story the FCC is moving to cap the size of cable companies, while in this one the FCC is moving to allow ownership of multiple media outlets in a single market.
Are they confused, or are they theying to confuse the public?
I agree on your reading, the summary of the original link was either done by someone who didn't understand the technology or was making a lame attempt at humor.
You base your comment on the assumptions that what was said by an employee is really company policy (it's not, I have Verizon, I have used 911, no sound). In addition Verizon has opened their network, you can use any phone you want to buy, subject to being technically suitable, and run any software you want. Yes, the ad says explicitly you can, I'm not drawing a conclusion on my own.
I would hope to be able to use a Linux powered "gPhone" at some time in the near future.
I recently purchased a new Sony TV, and in with all the versions of the User's Guide was packed a copy of the GPL, LGPL, and list of all the open source software used in the set. I look forward to mentioning this over the holidays when my brainwashed friends comment that "free software can't be as good as written by professional programmers" and "you get what you pay for."
LG is getting too much free publicity lately, when shopping for a new TV I was reading the customer reviews on the Circuit City site, and multiple people reported that their LG TVs burst into flames. Not the kind of press a vendor wants.
Note that CNN just reported that phone which exploded "may have had an off-brand replacement battery."
What's the big deal about this? Verizon FIOS ads (fiber to the premises) have been advertizing "true quam" for their fiber connections for over a year. The idea that this is new and exciting technology is hogwash, it's been used in delivery of data to the end consumer for several years at least, I have friends who have had it installed at their homes for at least that long.
Knowing that it's old tech takes the gee whiz factor out of it.
I want the government watching you just in case you're one of the bad guys. I'll gladly give up a bit of my own privacy to make sure they don't have any.
I have no problem with you giving up your privacy, I have a big problem with you giving up my privacy!
Eraser programs are legitimate business tools, used to protect corporate IP. Both file erasers, such as the shred program included in many Linux distributions, and disk erasers like DBAN are well within "best practices."
Note: the laws on keeping private information confidential is generally interpreted as exposing you to legal liability if you don't use encryption. Face it, if the government wants to frame you they have the technology, using honest facts there's no problem with business privacy tools.
In the 1990s Dell was offering SysV-R4 on Dell hardware (I have a copy). Unfortunately they dropped the program because people were buying the software and not running it on Dell hardware. Had they sold it installed the results might have been more pleasing.
Other than a higher priority on not breaking existing systems with kernel upgrades, I'm pretty happy with the way it works now. People have an option to delay upgrades if new features are not needed, but new security issues need to be addressed, and removal of drivers and kernel options prevents booting the new kernel for testing without breaking booting of the old kernel. Not in every case, obviously.
The local paper (timesunion.com) carried the story and a quote from another scientist saying it didn't matter because nanotubes were too expensive. Clearly he forgot that only the tip of the Washington Monument is covered in aluminum, because it once cost more than gold. The big advantage is that this may really get rid of the limited number of recharges issue, or move it out enough to make it a non-issue. In which case batteries could cost 2-3 times current ion models and still be cost effective.
Based on today's other news, it would be nice if the batteries didn't burst into flame, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
What we can know about extra solar planets currently is rather limited by having to use multiple methods for each characteristic. Mass and orbit are estimated from orbital perturbation, size is estimated by occlusion, chemistry by several optical methods, none highly precise.
It seems likely that the quality of observation will not improve until better optical observation is possible, such as space based or multi site terrestrial installations. Currently we are making educated guesses.
The fact the IBM does publish a disclosure journal and invention disclosure publications just to establish them as prior art would indicate that this is valid, although there may be conditions applying which aren't obvious. However, I was contacted a few years ago by a patent attourney who was looking for prior art to invalidate a patent, and wanted to verify that I was the author of a usenet posting made in about 1989, describing a way to validate ROM. So clearly that constituted prior art (or maybe proved obviousness) in a useful way, since they needed a notarized statement that I did make the post in question.
Don't forget that this is a double saving since the saving A/C capacity must be added. Commercial A/C has an EGR of 6-12, so typically this would be at least one more watt saved in not having to get rid of the heat you didn't create.
For the forgetful, watt=3.4BTU/hr, so each drive saves ~35BTU/hr. Particularly in an office that could be significant.
Or course I expect to see flash replace disk in my lifetime, but then we thought that about bubble memory.
The recent work by Intel, getting 6Mbit over 100km using standard WiFi with a directional antenna and time division software, seems to indicate that this can be done, perhaps with tweaked software and existing hardware.
I think most people can understand "anyone can write applications for Android, free or commercial." The idea of getting features for free is not geek-speak any more, people actually know what Linux is.
This is likely to be one of the "disruptive technologies" if the cost is reduced.
I have mixed feelings on that. My first reaction is that you are right, regular patent law should apply. But in the sense that the government wants banks to use this technology, buying the rights sounds much like emminent domain in which the government does buy the rights to real property to be used for the "common good." I don't know if this maps to intellectual property in the legal or ethical sense.
Feedback on the legal or moral analogies welcome, I can see both sides.
After reading the news story on how this came about, I'm more upset with the idea of the bailout than the patent. The plaintif got a patent under the rules provided, showed it to people who might license it, and in spite of non-disclosure they just implemented the system. The patent was attacked on terms of prior art and revalidated.
The original inventor has now lost 98% of his company, and while I think that the patent is obvious and that business method patents should run for only a short time (five years?) from first implementation, the inventor played by the rules, and is entitled to collect under them.
Patent law should be changed, but one patent at a time isn't the way to do it.
I used earlier versions of this patch, with large buffers and "none" encoding over an internal GigE network. I did find that with even moderately modern CPUs, like 2.4GHz P4 w/o HT, that just switching to "blowfish" encryption made a world of difference in transfer speed, and needs no patches.
scp -c blowfish myfile other.invalid:incoming/
To sue because the player doesn't have 1.1 features is like suing because your b/w TV doesn't show color. But to sue because you can't see a 1.1 video using 1.0 features is more like not being able to view color shows on TV as b/w. The question becomes one of "who said you could display 1.1 videos?"
If the vendor promised that capability, the customer is right. If the 1.0 standard requires such capability, the customer is right. Bit if the 1.1 videos in question require features not in 1.0, or require hardware support not required for 1.0, it becomes a quality of implementation issue. I would suspect that optional 1.0 features were legally optional and lack of them does not qualify as a defect. If the units were sold with a stated or implied that the optional parts were present then the customer is right.
For the videos which don't work at all, it would be necessary to know why they fail, from a 1.1 feature not being ignored or a 1.0 feature not provided correctly. If this goes to trial the jury would have to be educated and charged very carefully, it sounds as if the legal issue is really splitting hairs. As customer relations, of course, just having the lawsuit huts, even if you win.
It depends on how valuable they are... I don't store my financial access passwords there, but if somneone stole my password to use a newspaper archive, I think I could survive. In many cases sites have user/pass requirements but knowing the password would get you nothing you don't have by creating a free account of your own.
;-)
For information with no value I have no problem using the password storage, although I don't use IE or Firefox (or Windows) so I'm safe from the pros who target the mass market.
I certainly don't want to have to type in the password for my mail client every ten minutes when it checks mail, updates my RSS feeds, etc. I don't even want to type it once a day, so it's a trade-off between productivity and security. It's possible to be so secure that you get nothing done, or to be so obsessed with going through the motions that you waste the time without getting the security benefit.
I love suggestions like "don't visit sites you don't trust," it sounds so much better than "don't ever go anywhere new to get information on the Internet."
I must have missed it, where is the site which lists all the other sites I can trust? Oh, I can't go there, I don't trust it. Advice like that doesn't even work in a business environment, going to sites to get vendor information, standards, and documentation is a vital part of specifying, ordering, installing, and maintaining vendor supplied hardware and software. Disabling javascript is about as practical. if you can't use a site you can't do anything useful with it.
The exploit no longer works, but then neither does vmsplice.
Given that this assumes an attacker has, or can compile, evil code already on the machine, the cure may be worse than the disease, depending on how much you rely on vmsplice in your applications.
No, NO! Note the word exclusively there. That is a tiny part of the Mars project, all the work on propulsion, long term health problems in space, etc, apply to all extra-lunar trips and are not banned. I suspect that even picking interesting landing points on Mars would slip by, since they would be interesting for robotic exploration as well.
It looks as if this clause bans only a small part of the final preparations, which will not be done for years anyway.
In this story the FCC is moving to cap the size of cable companies, while in this one the FCC is moving to allow ownership of multiple media outlets in a single market.
Are they confused, or are they theying to confuse the public?
I agree on your reading, the summary of the original link was either done by someone who didn't understand the technology or was making a lame attempt at humor.
You base your comment on the assumptions that what was said by an employee is really company policy (it's not, I have Verizon, I have used 911, no sound). In addition Verizon has opened their network, you can use any phone you want to buy, subject to being technically suitable, and run any software you want. Yes, the ad says explicitly you can, I'm not drawing a conclusion on my own.
I would hope to be able to use a Linux powered "gPhone" at some time in the near future.
I recently purchased a new Sony TV, and in with all the versions of the User's Guide was packed a copy of the GPL, LGPL, and list of all the open source software used in the set. I look forward to mentioning this over the holidays when my brainwashed friends comment that "free software can't be as good as written by professional programmers" and "you get what you pay for."
LG is getting too much free publicity lately, when shopping for a new TV I was reading the customer reviews on the Circuit City site, and multiple people reported that their LG TVs burst into flames. Not the kind of press a vendor wants.
Note that CNN just reported that phone which exploded "may have had an off-brand replacement battery."
What's the big deal about this? Verizon FIOS ads (fiber to the premises) have been advertizing "true quam" for their fiber connections for over a year. The idea that this is new and exciting technology is hogwash, it's been used in delivery of data to the end consumer for several years at least, I have friends who have had it installed at their homes for at least that long.
Knowing that it's old tech takes the gee whiz factor out of it.
I want the government watching you just in case you're one of the bad guys. I'll gladly give up a bit of my own privacy to make sure they don't have any.
I have no problem with you giving up your privacy, I have a big problem with you giving up my privacy!
Eraser programs are legitimate business tools, used to protect corporate IP. Both file erasers, such as the shred program included in many Linux distributions, and disk erasers like DBAN are well within "best practices."
Note: the laws on keeping private information confidential is generally interpreted as exposing you to legal liability if you don't use encryption. Face it, if the government wants to frame you they have the technology, using honest facts there's no problem with business privacy tools.
In the 1990s Dell was offering SysV-R4 on Dell hardware (I have a copy). Unfortunately they dropped the program because people were buying the software and not running it on Dell hardware. Had they sold it installed the results might have been more pleasing.
Other than a higher priority on not breaking existing systems with kernel upgrades, I'm pretty happy with the way it works now. People have an option to delay upgrades if new features are not needed, but new security issues need to be addressed, and removal of drivers and kernel options prevents booting the new kernel for testing without breaking booting of the old kernel. Not in every case, obviously.
Based on today's other news, it would be nice if the batteries didn't burst into flame, as well.