You meant to say "maximum amount of work" is needed.
I'm not sure whether a "broken hash" which e.g. maps blocks of 512 bits to 256 bits isn't better than a bijective hash which maps a 256 bit space to a 256 bit space, because bijectiveness is a property which can probably be exploited just as well as non-bijectiveness (= hash collisions).
It is easy for companies to work around this - just invent a combined concoction of unpatented medicine A with patented medicine B and show that it is effective in trials, then distribute it being under protection.
You forgot to add that any of the usual commercial licenses is a minefield as well.
With proprietary code licensed from big companies B and C you can as well end up in a situation where you violate one of the licenses.
This is why the creation of the GPL/3 is dangerous because it can result in split code bases unless people unifiedly accept that the GPL/3 is an improvement of GPL/2 or the opposite.
Well, Kasparov runs for the russian elections, on no other virtue than being known as a chess champion, so if Deep Fritz beats all human players, then Deep Fritz for president!
The summary is not inaccurate. A doubly-linked list is a specialized example of the method patented. This also means it is indeed prior art.
Moreover, imagine an object which is then outfitted with the programmer with a singly linked list to represent some ordering. Next it is outfitted with a different singly-linked list to represent some other ordering. We now have an infringing case but we did do nothing but apply the well known concept of singly-linked lists twice.
Btw., even if something is new as in first to patent office it does not mean that it should receive a patent because it might be obvious enough. If first to patent office was the only criterium, I suggest next time your country changes tax laws, that you apply for a patent for correctly filling out tax forms.
Negative. Assuming 100% effiency in converting electricity to kinetic energy, it takes ~4KWhrs to accelerate a kg to orbital velocity. If you have to take your fuel with you, you have to accellerate the fuel as well leading to an exponentially increasing ammount of fuel required to move the final mass. Using the space elevator and electromechanical "lifters" you don't take any fuel and electric motors are ~85% efficient.
I don't believe that energy needed rises exponentially(with height). I'd rather bet on the 3rd power of the height.
I liked Popolous 1 and Magic Carpet - very simple games that gave what you expected them to give - fast-paced and simple action. Later on, expectations on a game were much higher and were often failed.
I understand my comments are laughable from some perspective. I still stand by the line that Web2.0 is a mistake - maybe one that needs to be made so there is progress.
You need a lot of javascript include dependencies, and it is prototype.js(or whatever yahoo calls it) which makes javascript work the same in all browsers.
Web 2.0 is a mistake, because it replaces HTML standards with non-standardized javascript glue code. Example for bad effects: pages will in general no longer be bookmarkable, much like it was when frames came up.
It is a sophisticated joke when a simple layout that could have been done by a using a table(OMG tables!?) somehow requires using a layout manager and javascript (Of course, I agree it is cool in a sick way, and you get the panes for free).
The criterium of a high "degree of inventive ingenuity" is meant to prevent an obvious patent to be passed; however since this criterium cannot be measured (except if you kept the invention secret), the patent examiner has a hard time applying it and it has been replaced by the concept of "first to uspto".
Actually, a corporation itself also can't be sued for murder or criminal negligence, and can't be fined based on their daily income (although in the U.S. sometime damages are that high anyway.)
As for OSS, if an OSS project puts out a novel idea, that idea instantly becomes prior art and nobody can patent it. There is no way for them to be "locked out" of that field. But if somebody else thought of it first, why should OSS be allowed to get a free ride?
Suppose for example OSS came out with a demo of a new way to lay out menus.
Suppose Microsoft one week later applies for a patent for a way and method for the user to choose between the standard menu layout and the improved layout.
It is an obvious feature and the research into an implementation of the choice needs less than two weeks. Moreover, MS would not need a working demo to apply for a patent even if FOSS already had a demo. I would love to be able admit that this was a contrived example, but it is pretty close to the mess that patents actually are.
Of course some software and some gadgets should be patentable, but where do you draw the line. There's just no algorithm for that.
No. But someone could sue vs the trademark and patent office and claim that the registrant of the word mark acted "in bad faith" ("bösgläubig") that is, claimed a word mark for which he had no own use, i. e. he registered it only to blackmail the distributor(s) of a popular program. Chances are good to win IMHO IANAL, since VirtualDub(intl.) has a German localization.
Garbage collection in the brain means parts of the network get low input and therefore also low output, after which their function slowly deteriorates towards noise, which simplifies their reprogramming. In general, its not good if reconnection happens to large areas of the brain. IANAN
Yes they would 'feel' bound by them. But I very much suspect the idea that they would actually enforce them.
The courts(and the executive branch) will enforce them as requested by the citizens. The EU process effectivelee bypasses the ratification process that would be necessary for international treaties. Even if there is a vote of parliament needed, members will often say "I disagree, but we have to make it pass to keep the European unification process going."
If the EPO and European courts rule in favor of a patent, most member countries will feel bound to apply the European laws and not many politicians will still fight against software patents.
I would not even be opposed to software patents myself if new patent applications didn't tend to be like their worst predecessors, in terms of conciseness, effective scope and later on taking responsibility for bad patents (instead of interpreting them in court).
My distrust arises because the move towards the lowest common denominator is hastened by standardization across countries and nations, and because the next move might be standardization with the practice of US patents. If the USA reviewed all of their patents or the moon is made of green cheese, then there would be less to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the algorithm he really wants to talk about is the one Highlander names "peer ranking system" on his page at Everything2.com: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=152171 2
I somehow believe that Google is quite aware of this algorithm and has already implemented it.
Meanwhile, in Russia, light makes physicists dance.
You meant to say "maximum amount of work" is needed.
I'm not sure whether a "broken hash" which e.g. maps blocks of 512 bits to 256 bits isn't better than a bijective hash which maps a 256 bit space to a 256 bit space, because bijectiveness is a property which can probably be exploited just as well as non-bijectiveness (= hash collisions).
I completely non-understand the controls of SC II/uqm,
but I second xcom as best game - in the form of ufo2000.
Other good games are Glest (singleplayer) and Anacreon 2 is a decent game too, although a bit on the unplayable side after you worked it out.
Anti-Missile-Defenses for "US Commercial Jets"
t ed+with+countermeasures
http://www.google.com/search?q=israeli+planes+fit
It is easy for companies to work around this - just invent a combined concoction of unpatented medicine A with patented medicine B and show that it is effective in trials, then distribute it being under protection.
You forgot to add that any of the usual commercial licenses is a minefield as well.
With proprietary code licensed from big companies B and C you can as well end up in a situation where you violate one of the licenses.
This is why the creation of the GPL/3 is dangerous because it can result in split code bases unless people unifiedly accept that the GPL/3 is an improvement of GPL/2 or the opposite.
When Yellowstone is about to blow up, you'll all come running with your great economy for refuge in Europe.
Well, Kasparov runs for the russian elections, on no other virtue than being known as a chess champion, so if Deep Fritz beats all human players, then Deep Fritz for president!
The summary is not inaccurate. A doubly-linked list is a specialized example of the method patented. This also means it is indeed prior art.
Moreover, imagine an object which is then outfitted with the programmer with a singly linked list to represent some ordering. Next it is outfitted with a different singly-linked list to represent some other ordering. We now have an infringing case but we did do nothing but apply the well known concept of singly-linked lists twice.
Btw., even if something is new as in first to patent office it does not mean that it should receive a patent because it might be obvious enough. If first to patent office was the only criterium, I suggest next time your country changes tax laws, that you apply for a patent for correctly filling out tax forms.
Thank you, the handwaving makes sense to me.
Negative. Assuming 100% effiency in converting electricity to kinetic energy, it takes ~4KWhrs to accelerate a kg to orbital velocity. If you have to take your fuel with you, you have to accellerate the fuel as well leading to an exponentially increasing ammount of fuel required to move the final mass. Using the space elevator and electromechanical "lifters" you don't take any fuel and electric motors are ~85% efficient.
I don't believe that energy needed rises exponentially(with height). I'd rather bet on the 3rd power of the height.I liked Popolous 1 and Magic Carpet - very simple games that gave what you expected them to give - fast-paced and simple action. Later on, expectations on a game were much higher and were often failed.
I understand my comments are laughable from some perspective.
I still stand by the line that Web2.0 is a mistake - maybe one that needs to be made so there is progress.
You need a lot of javascript include dependencies, and it is prototype.js(or whatever yahoo calls it) which makes javascript work the same in all browsers.
Web 2.0 is a mistake, because it replaces HTML standards with non-standardized javascript glue code. Example for bad effects: pages will in general no longer be bookmarkable, much like it was when frames came up.
c ross-browser-web-20-layouts-with-yahoo-ui/
It is a bit like "the revenge of the Java programmers": Somehow Java didn't take over web programming, so now the minds are working on converting HTML into Java. For example,http://www.jackslocum.com/yui/2006/10/19/
It is a sophisticated joke when a simple layout that could have been done by a using a table(OMG tables!?) somehow requires using a layout manager and javascript (Of course, I agree it is cool in a sick way, and you get the panes for free).
The criterium of a high "degree of inventive ingenuity" is meant to prevent an obvious patent to be passed; however since this criterium cannot be measured (except if you kept the invention secret), the patent examiner has a hard time applying it and it has been replaced by the concept of "first to uspto".
Actually, a corporation itself also can't be sued for murder or criminal negligence, and can't be fined based on their daily income (although in the U.S. sometime damages are that high anyway.)
Even if dark matter exists, there is no reason why it all would add up to (nearly) zero.
2 0Gravity would stand a chance.
For example, if dark matter exists, what if there is just a little more of it than expected? Then the theory of "pushing gravity" http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Pushing%
As for OSS, if an OSS project puts out a novel idea, that idea instantly becomes prior art and nobody can patent it. There is no way for them to be "locked out" of that field. But if somebody else thought of it first, why should OSS be allowed to get a free ride?
Suppose for example OSS came out with a demo of a new way to lay out menus. Suppose Microsoft one week later applies for a patent for a way and method for the user to choose between the standard menu layout and the improved layout.It is an obvious feature and the research into an implementation of the choice needs less than two weeks. Moreover, MS would not need a working demo to apply for a patent even if FOSS already had a demo. I would love to be able admit that this was a contrived example, but it is pretty close to the mess that patents actually are.
Of course some software and some gadgets should be patentable, but where do you draw the line. There's just no algorithm for that.
My guess is it is simply leeching power from the emissions of mobile phone, radio and TV beams. This is forbidden to do in most countries.
The registrant would need to be sued, not the the trademark and patent office.
Example: http://lexetius.com/2002,3142
No. But someone could sue vs the trademark and patent office and claim that the registrant of the word mark acted "in bad faith" ("bösgläubig") that is, claimed a word mark for which he had no own use, i. e. he registered it only to blackmail the distributor(s) of a popular program. Chances are good to win IMHO IANAL, since VirtualDub(intl.) has a German localization.
Garbage collection in the brain means parts of the network get low input and therefore also low output, after which their function slowly deteriorates towards noise, which simplifies their reprogramming. In general, its not good if reconnection happens to large areas of the brain. IANAN
Yes they would 'feel' bound by them. But I very much suspect the idea that they would actually enforce them.
The courts(and the executive branch) will enforce them as requested by the citizens. The EU process effectivelee bypasses the ratification process that would be necessary for international treaties. Even if there is a vote of parliament needed, members will often say "I disagree, but we have to make it pass to keep the European unification process going."If the EPO and European courts rule in favor of a patent, most member countries will feel bound to apply the European laws and not many politicians will still fight against software patents.
I would not even be opposed to software patents myself if new patent applications didn't tend to be like their worst predecessors, in terms of conciseness, effective scope and later on taking responsibility for bad patents (instead of interpreting them in court).
My distrust arises because the move towards the lowest common denominator is hastened by standardization across countries and nations, and because the next move might be standardization with the practice of US patents. If the USA reviewed all of their patents or the moon is made of green cheese, then there would be less to worry about.