ANSI used to have a policy that they would not accept standards which contained patented components. That changed in the 1980s, I think. (The link to ANSI's patent policy is currently returning the message "Cannot connect to the configuration database. For tips on troubleshooting this error, search for article 823287 in the Microsoft Knowledge Base at http://support.microsoft.com./")

The legal way to address this is to require that standards bodies, from IEEE to ANSI to MPEG-LA, lose their exemption to antitrust law if they promulgate standards which contain patented components. Without that exemption, when companies get together to agree on a standard, it's conspiracy in restraint of trade.

In general, most of the more annoying patent problems are really antitrust problems. Anyone can get a very narrow patent on a very specific way of doing something. Such a patent is not useful unless the very specific way is a de-facto standard enforced by market dominance. That's an antitrust issue.

The reason MPEG-LA gets away with this is that the Justice Department signed off on it in 1997. That's consistent with the FTC-DOJ 1995 guidelines in this area. Anyone can buy an MPEG-LA license under stated terms. So they meet the guidelines. The guidelines don't address the issue of the interaction of de-facto standards and market power. They should. That's what needs to be revised.

For background, here's a speech by an FTC commissioner of the Clinton era on this issue. He makes the point that antitrust lawyers and patent lawyers don't talk to each other much and don't understand each other's fields. Also see this Justice Department Antitrust Division talk from 2007. If you want to talk intelligently about this issue, you need to read these materials.

ISO Standard Video...

So, you can watch Video CD images, DVD images or folders (.vob files) and DivX video? If not, then he ipad is worse than a standalone DVD/DivX player for watching video...

Except you don't see the content of the video if it is encoded using a different codec.

Key word. "Seem" to. In reality, fucking Americans not converting their currency before visiting can go to hell. That actually goes for everyone from everywhere, but it happens most commonly with Americans.

And obviously you would be completely fine with having your property stolen by US citizens and having your wife assaulted by US citizens, right?

It really doesn't matter who does the deed - you'll be traumatized no matter what. It's just a lot easier to point at the "evil" "immigrants", who might just be citizens. Just like it's easier to point at the "evil middle eastern Muslim" for being a terrorist, than it is to point at Timmothy McVeigh, who just happens to look like you and me. Or how about Joseph Stack? 53, white (excuse me, Caucasian), software engineer, wore glasses, grew up in Philadelphia, even played bass in a band.

Should we stop every single white guy between 25 and 55, check their papers, ask for their intentions etc., just because they happen to fit that particular profile?

Okay, those are terrorist and unlikely to target regular people.

How about these people. How many of them look like regular white people? How many of them would be stopped for looking 'suspicious'?

>> Also I rather assume the actual design of the left lane is for those who have no intention of exiting any time soon,

Absolutely wrong. Wow finally a chance to rant at one of you morons.

>> The GPS is bearing down with 'keep left', 'keep left', 'keep left', and I do so.
Stay Left means don't exit right, it absolutely doesn't mean hog the fast lane. If your GPS told you to drive off a cliff, would you do that too?

On any road with multiple lanes, especially freeways, the leftmost lane is meant to be a fast passing lane. Proper behavior is to use it to overtake then return to a more rightward lane as soon as you reasonably can.

It irritates the hell out of me when people sit in the fast lane of a 75mph freeway doing 55 mph or less. The fact that they are ignoring all the "slower traffic keep right" signs and the big queue of traffic behind them can only mean that they are being pig-headed and selfish, as surely no one can be that stupid to not notice anything wrong. The irony is they probably think that by going stupidly slowly they're actually being safe drivers, regardless of the chaos and tailbacks they're causing all around them.

Aha! So that's why I usually end up with a really shitty connection....

I work at a University too. Forcing kids to attend class isn't the answer. You are effectively telling the students that they aren't capable of deciding how to best budget their own time. Imho that is morally wrong, and is a poor lesson for when they get out into the work force and constantly have more demands for their time than is available. If anything the University should be spending more time investigating why students are not attending class, and whether or not students who skip class are successful. This will help them build better curriculum.

Personally my grades in college went up when I started letting myself skip classes that weren't helping me. I used the extra time to study subjects that I was struggling in. In my early years in college I did almost drop out. It wasn't until I was able to start taking upper level and advanced classes that I actually found I *enjoyed* being in lecture.

Come on now. These are adults. If they choose to skip class because they feel their time is better spent elsewhere, that's their business.

You've obviously never dealt with helicopter parents who demand to know why the dean didn't send someone over to their child's dorm room to force them to get up and go to class.

If it were up to me, I'd have a high-resolution webcam (no sound needed) installed in every classroom, pointed at the students. Send Mom and Dad a copy of John or Jane's class schedule, along with the web addresses of the appropriate cameras. Then just let the parents log in and check on attendance. Far more effective, and far less hassle for the administration.

I should have said, pharmacologically significant levels of THC... The wiki article on hemp is fairly helpful

California's troubles were caused by botched partial deregulation that provided the opportunity for companies to manipulate the market. Texas, on the other hand, has had much more success deregulating their market, as have other places, such as Alberta. Texan electrical policy is the most successful in the country, particularly when it comes to encouraging wind power. That you would use California's convoluted, more regulated and historically disastrous system to argue against it is quite surprising, as is the fact that some people tagged your logic "insightful".
Further, there is no place in the world with tighter drilling regulations than the Gulf of Mexico, and the rig that exploded and sank was the most advanced you'll find anywhere. Consequently, you're not talking about "regulating" offshore oil, you're talking about banning it, because no amount of regulation would have prevented the current situation. That's an option that I'm sure will be explored going forward, but it does not really apply to your argument, since you're presumably not arguing for an outright banning of windpower anywhere.

The scientists don't write the press releases. They dont exercise editorial oversight, they don't choose the headline. That's the science press, and they are to blame.

Now, some scientists do get quoted for making statements that are too strong, but the press is like the National Enquirer: If they can't get you to make some ridiculous claim, they will find someone who is desperate enough to do so.

The solution: Don't read science press releases or newspaper articles - read the actual peer-reviewed articles. The kind of articles that nearly get rejected for being 'tempted to speculate'. (Oh, you mean that's too boring for you? You can't have it both ways.)

Easy. His lobbyists had already told him how to vote.

Nice ideal, but amongst the average person there is not the will. If there was, why haven't ... pretty much all cellphone companies been burned to the ground?

He's worked on open government. And he did seriously everything you could ask of him on the healthcare bill. He's done OK overall at making the change he promised happen. GITMO obviously isn't closed which sucks but he is still working on it at least, originally he got shot down by the senate when he tried to shut it down. Anyways, the options were Obama who has shown some progress in the right direction or McCain who promised to keep things the same or go in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how that would have been better... I know it is a a bit of "I voted for Kodos" moment. But you have a two party system in the States, what do you expect.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Sadly I bet you still cannot play 720p flash videos on your Ubuntu laptop, while someone running Windows on the same laptop can. That is why I hate Adobe (Macromedia)...