|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
in possession of a rubber knife. - Script by Milligan and Sellers.
I s'pose
the plods were walking on those Tour de France carpet tacks.
Guardian
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
Newspick link: I hate linking to tripe.
According to the worst
patent lawyers in Europe,
you cannot patent software per se. Their excuse for
that
diversion is that you can only buy an invalid
software patent in Europe
if you call it a
"computer implemented invention".
These are the exact words
used in Europe to justify
granting software patents despite the law being
abundantly clear that software is not patentable.
I agree that the
debate should not be about
whether software should be patentable
(Every
programmer has already said no, go away).
There are a couple of excellent areas
for debate:
- Why have we not already obliterated the
entire patent
system as it no longer serves any
constructive purpose at all?
- Why
have patent trolls not been sent
to prison for racketeering?
If
American pantent lawyers follow the example of
Europe, you can expect and
emergency directive
legalising software patents to be put before the
department of fish and voted on without discussion.
I mean it - that is
exactly what happened here. The
article says that it is a forgon
conclusion that software patents per
se
softwareware patent per computer implemented invention
would be
legalised. With hindsight we know that
programmers all over Europe wrote
complaints to their
MEPs. So many alterations were proposed and voted on
that
most MEPs could not tell if the revised directive
was for or against software
patents. The directive
was not passed, and a new directive on
software
patents
computer implemented inventions is being discussed in
secret
in the hope that an agreement can be reached and
signed off without the voters
hearing about it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT |
Fly through the Largest-Ever 3D Map of the Universe at 1,262,304,000,000,000
times the speed of light.
The top comment on YouTube gives a "VERY rough" estimation of the
relative speed of the camera's point of view.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 1,262,304,000,000,000 times the speed of light - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- 1,262,304,000,000,000 times the speed of light - Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT
|
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Several years ago, while browsing through the CD-ROM section of a book store, I
came across a CD full of software from NASA, right on the same shelf as Linux
distros etc. So, this is nothing new, other than an easier method to access
it.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
From the article on Nathan Myhrvold and
Intellectual Ventures:
My gripe with
this kind of so-called philanthropy is that
the choice of what to put our
effort into concentrates in
the hands of the few. If those with all that money
had
started out with a more basic "Global Good" of treating
their fellow man
fairly, then they would not have needed to
amass that kind of wealth, and we
wouldn't be talking about
this.
Spreading philanthropy out would even out
the choices of
what gets spent and what gets funded. Overall, there would
be a
slight drop in giving percentage from multi-
billionaires to middle-class. But
that might be offset by
the fact that the middle class would have more money
to
give, also.
Billion dollar philanthropy requires first that a robber
baron strip wealth from the common man.
--- Userfriendly on WGA server
outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, August 11 2012 @ 08:44 PM EDT |
If you were to read Apple sought $30 per smartphone,
$40 per tablet in royalties from Samsung, follow the link to the
original AllThingsD story ( Apple Offered to
License its Patents to Samsung for $30 Per Smartphone, $40 Per
Tablet), read the evidence item available on Sc
ribd you'd find something interesting missing from the presentation.
Specificity, as in a list of patents comprising the patent portfolio being
offered for license.
Two things come to mind. The first that Apple hasn't
placed Samsung on notice of infringement, at least by this item of evidence.
Second, the lack of specificity is so reminiscent of Microsoft it's eerie.
Also notice on Page 4, the slide entitled "...but Advanced Mobile Computing
Devices are different" where in the first bullet
point:
-
Software creates the largest share of product
value
and fourth bullet point:
-
Software has always been at
the heart of Apple's business and intellectual property
portfolio
And contrast this with the meme 'software per se isn't
patent eligible' being parroted on both sides of the Atlantic currently.
I'm
so reminded of a quote from a movie inspired by an L. Frank Baum novel, " Pay no attention to that man
behind the curtain".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|