In principle, yes, a patent should contain all information necessary to reproduce the process, so that anyone could visit the patent office, read the "Stradivarius" patent and then start making Strads.
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
Not one word in the secret service announcement about how accurate these counterfeit-sniffing dogs are, or whether anyone has actually tried a controlled test of their abilities.
This sounds an awful lot like the racket some U.S. police forces were running years ago, where they'd seize cash if a drug-sniffing dog "responded" to it -- or if they simply claimed that it had.
It's a little more nuanced than that. When a messed-up teenager sees that shooting up a school gets you instant nationwide attention, and shoots up a school, it's the guns' fault. When a messed-up teenager sets off a bomb at a time and place where there will be lots and lots of video cameras-- we need more cameras.
It's more than that. They chose the finish line of the Marathon because they knew there would be hundreds of cameras there. They wanted a big audience-- why else choose that street on that day? They weren't indifferent to camera coverage, they wanted it. To suggest that more cameras could have deterred them is idiotic, even for surveillance maximalists.
"Anyone leaving their home WI-FI unsecured needs to be thoroughly chastised here."
Why?
"I cannot think of any reason that anyone would want to leave their [wireless] networks open beyond negligence." [oxymoron deleted]
I can think of a few, starting with a wish to help others as others have helped me. Bruce Schneier, one of the world's premier computer security experts, leaves his open.
"Surely, you only want people in your home to access your network?"
Why? As long as my computer is secure enough to use other networks (e.g. at the coffee shop), I really don't mind if other people use my network from time to time.
"[Google] has been fined €145,000 in Germany. Since that's pocket change to Google, insatiable parasites are calling for bigger bites out that enormous cow."
"[E]ngineers at many of these companies... think the CFAA is ridiculous, turning ordinary everyday activity into a possible felony. But some of the execs at these companies see a weapon to be used against people who make off with digital information..."
This shortsightedness supports the theory that the only real talent executives have is the ability to get themselves promoted.
The trouble with keeping a dinosaur on life support is that it becomes a habit, especially when the dinosaur lobby is strong. And feeding money to a failed business so that people can keep working there doesn't solve the problem of unemployment, it just hides it-- and prolongs it.
If the idea is to stagger the bankruptcies, so that they do less damage, then 1) I'd like to see some clear evidence that that can really bring a net benefit, and 2) if there is a net benefit, I'd like to know why those who enjoy that benefit won't chip in voluntarily to keep the company alive for the correct amount of time.
"[W]ere Apple to stick to their "it's illegal" reason for taking the app down, then they need to come out and explain the other examples of takedowns above, since those are not illegal."
To be fair, Apple can have more than one criterion for rejecting an app. They can refuse one because it allows locally illegal subject matter, and another because it allows material Apple considers too strong for children.
Hey, if they want to reduce their own market share arbitrarily, that's their prerogative.
This journalist has a machine that sifts through lots of raw data and writes a story -- using a style tuned to his specifications -- which I then read. I can keep reading his stuff or look elsewhere, but if that feedback reaches him at all, it must reach through several layers.
What if I had a machine like that, which sifted through the same data and wrote stories suited to my taste. I could make minute adjustments whenever I pleased, or read articles by multiple "journalists" on the same subject, give my scores and let them fight it out and evolve. The human journalists could still do the research, but I'd be subscribing to the pool of their findings, not to the condensate articles. And I could gin up as much of this bespoke news as I wanted, on any topic I wanted...
What if there were a complementary engine that could read a story (with a certain date), extract the constituent facts, and deduce the settings the robo-journalist should have in order to produce something similar given the facts known at the time. Then one could reverse the editorial bias settings and read an opposing view. Or study a large body of articles to make a robo-journalist mimic of any human journalist, living or dead. (Maybe not a very convincing one, but the technology can only improve.) Ah, to read Hitchens again...
Such robo-journalists could have blogs, singly or in groups, and evolve to...
I wonder if they'd agree to a proviso that all chocolate manufactured in Belgium must be clearly marked "Belgian chocolate". After all, if their standard is high enough to shut out the rest of the world, surely they won't mind standing behind it.
Suddenly I feel a desire to become a Wikipedia editor. I feel a particularly strong urge to contribute to the articles concerning ICD and Mark Donfried. Maybe I should get out my German-English dictionary and tackle de.wikipedia.org at the same time.
I believe that Rep. Gohmert knew -- on some level -- that what he was saying was factually incorrect, he just didn't care. He had his prepared questions, and when the lawyer began to point out that he was flat wrong, klaxons sounded in Gohmert's head and he simply started talking over the objections and making full speed for the segue into asking the room for legislation (pausing mid-sentence to throw one last dart, "protecting your employer", that he still had in his hand). He conspicuously did not allow further explanation.
What's most interesting about this the Representative's keen instinct for knowing what he can get away with. Someone less polite than that lawyer could have demolished the whole argument with a loud and well-timed "You don't know what you're talking about!" But Rep. Gohmert made that psychologically impossible.
It's like watching a good mentalism act, only less entertaining. And far, far more expensive.
I think the lawyers train for the typical jurors. They don't know how to pitch to a juror who actually understands probability or can evaluate situations dispassionately. You're a wild card.
So why don't the lawyers who expect to lose want to throw in a wild card to improve their chances? I think it's because they don't understand probability and can't evaluate situations dispassionately.
It seems like bad planning to complete the film before acquiring the rights to the material. If they had discovered this problem before the editing, they'd be in a much better position to decide whether to include the 2% at all.
On the post: Doctors Call Out Novartis For Insane Pricing On Cancer Drug
Re: Re: Re: yet another bad idea
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
On the post: DailyDirt: Funny Money
sounds familiar
This sounds an awful lot like the racket some U.S. police forces were running years ago, where they'd seize cash if a drug-sniffing dog "responded" to it -- or if they simply claimed that it had.
On the post: IP Attorney Responds To Patent Application Rejection By Filing Ranting, Ad Hom 'Remarks'
remarks
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re: Think of the children!
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re: smile
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re:
Why?
"I cannot think of any reason that anyone would want to leave their [wireless] networks open beyond negligence." [oxymoron deleted]
I can think of a few, starting with a wish to help others as others have helped me. Bruce Schneier, one of the world's premier computer security experts, leaves his open.
"Surely, you only want people in your home to access your network?"
Why? As long as my computer is secure enough to use other networks (e.g. at the coffee shop), I really don't mind if other people use my network from time to time.
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
imperfect translation
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
smile
Bloomberg thinks that these guys wouldn't have planted a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon if they'd known there might be cameras around?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Clicked submit too soon
Now what if someone kills dozens of people with, say, a battle axe, and you were accused. Would you want due process?
On the post: Shameful: Tech Companies Fighting Against Necessary CFAA Reform And CISPA Fixes
basic economics, again
This shortsightedness supports the theory that the only real talent executives have is the ability to get themselves promoted.
On the post: French Politician Wants To Limit How Cheaply Companies Can Sell Goods Online Compared to Physical Shop Prices
Re: Re:
If the idea is to stagger the bankruptcies, so that they do less damage, then 1) I'd like to see some clear evidence that that can really bring a net benefit, and 2) if there is a net benefit, I'd like to know why those who enjoy that benefit won't chip in voluntarily to keep the company alive for the correct amount of time.
On the post: French Politician Wants To Limit How Cheaply Companies Can Sell Goods Online Compared to Physical Shop Prices
monotony
On the post: Apple Bows To Chinese Censorship Demands
fair's fair
To be fair, Apple can have more than one criterion for rejecting an app. They can refuse one because it allows locally illegal subject matter, and another because it allows material Apple considers too strong for children.
Hey, if they want to reduce their own market share arbitrarily, that's their prerogative.
On the post: Programming The News: The Future Of Reporting Is Algorithms
graph theory
This journalist has a machine that sifts through lots of raw data and writes a story -- using a style tuned to his specifications -- which I then read. I can keep reading his stuff or look elsewhere, but if that feedback reaches him at all, it must reach through several layers.
What if I had a machine like that, which sifted through the same data and wrote stories suited to my taste. I could make minute adjustments whenever I pleased, or read articles by multiple "journalists" on the same subject, give my scores and let them fight it out and evolve. The human journalists could still do the research, but I'd be subscribing to the pool of their findings, not to the condensate articles. And I could gin up as much of this bespoke news as I wanted, on any topic I wanted...
What if there were a complementary engine that could read a story (with a certain date), extract the constituent facts, and deduce the settings the robo-journalist should have in order to produce something similar given the facts known at the time. Then one could reverse the editorial bias settings and read an opposing view. Or study a large body of articles to make a robo-journalist mimic of any human journalist, living or dead. (Maybe not a very convincing one, but the technology can only improve.) Ah, to read Hitchens again...
Such robo-journalists could have blogs, singly or in groups, and evolve to...
Yeah, this has potential.
On the post: Belgium: We Want To Be The Champagne Of Chocolate
nail their colors to the mast
On the post: Wikipedia Editor Threatened With Lawsuit For Participating In Discussion Leading To Deletion Of Entry
die Streisandeffekt
On the post: Wal-Mart Wants Store Customers To Deliver Packages To Online Shoppers
Re: Raises a number of privacy issues
On the post: Rep. Gohmert's Record For Stunning Technological Ignorance Is Broken By... Rep. Gohmert
clueless like a fox
What's most interesting about this the Representative's keen instinct for knowing what he can get away with. Someone less polite than that lawyer could have demolished the whole argument with a loud and well-timed "You don't know what you're talking about!" But Rep. Gohmert made that psychologically impossible.
It's like watching a good mentalism act, only less entertaining. And far, far more expensive.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re: Re: Re:
So why don't the lawyers who expect to lose want to throw in a wild card to improve their chances? I think it's because they don't understand probability and can't evaluate situations dispassionately.
On the post: Comic Strip Documentary Filmmakers Return To Kickstarter Because They're Scared Fair Use Won't Protect Them
bargaining positions
Next >>