...for audio recording equipment. How odd.

Does anyone have a good reason for such a law, other than to protect important people (the ones who can cause laws to be written) who want to be able to deny saying something?

-Todd

After reading through the '761 patent, any operating system which initiates a user working-space at login, e.g., a shell, will fall under the main claim of this patent.

I do not understand why Facebook's legal team has not been able to invalidate this patent via the presentation of prior art.

This patent should have never been issued and should not be defensible.

-Todd

I accidentally moderated this incorrectly (troll when I meant informative. So, this note should negate my moderation.

If I remember correctly, "use it or lose it" has been suggested as a solution before and I agree with it. Patents are meant to protect the inventor who wants to recover research costs. If someone is not using a patent, they are not recovering any costs, so what is the point? Note that one way to use a patent is to allow someone else to purchase rights to it, which solves the problem of not having the money to "use" it. If you cannot find any buyers--perhaps because your price is too high--you will lose it and it will become public domain.

I believe some countries have a use it or lose it policy already. Does anyone know?

-Todd

p.s. I have already applied for a patent covering the use of a post as a way to undo Slashdot moderation mistakes. This is an example of using the patent so I don't lose it.

At the Hot Chips symposium last month, Rich Hilleman, Creative Director for Electronic Arts, commented on the 100ms delay inherent in the Wii remote (Wiimote). I assumed there was an issue in the delay involved in sensing the accelerometers, but this article shows 100ms is not any different from other consoles.

I wonder what Rich Hilleman was really getting at? Maybe people are more sensitive to delays when they are a result of a full-body-type movements rather than a button-press.

This is interesting stuff, and it would be a good thing if some graduate student did a thesis on it. (Free Ph.D. here--no thinking required!)

-Todd

After you have cured your cancer, you can use leftover nanobees to cool your Cray-2 supercomputer.

The Cray-2 was immersed in perfluorocarbon to improve heat dissipation.

-Todd

If Steve Cook's track record is what it takes to get a cushy "executive position," where do I sign up? I can probably lead several failed engineering projects in a row, if I am willing to ignore ethics and I try hard enough.

-Todd

I used the Google translator to translate "bank" to Swedish. It returned this list of nouns:

1. STRAND 2. VALL 3. DRIVA 4. MOLNBANK 5. BANKNING 6. BRINK 7. BANK 8. SPARBÃ-SSA 9. GRUND 10. DOSERING

Probably not all of these refer to a financial institution, but if the Swedish government is trying to protect the Swedish people, they probably need to address something other than just "bank". So, they probably have another agenda.

-Todd

Yes, there were many media. But, I expect the focus was on term papers as that is what academics care about. I might be incorrect.

Inquiring minds want to know.

-Todd

Awesome! But, are you sure my grammar was correct? :-) -Todd

Excellent point!

-Todd

The Internet facilitates easy plagiarism. I assume papers for sale on the 'net generally have good grammar. Is it possible an increase in Internet plagiarism caused the increase in literary quality?

We certainly know no-child-left-behind did not help the early stages of the pipeline.

Just a thought...

-Todd

I agree. I said $10 million (US) or more. I did not want to over-estimate. And, as you say, the machining of the parts was certainly expensive.

-Todd

Good point. You are correct. Thank you for your comment.

-Todd

I was at the talk which Nathan Myhrvold gave (he paid for it) at the opening ceremony for the exhibit. He did not give a figure, but my impression was $10 million (US) or more. Nathan did make a comment about the ridiculous cost of shipping it via air from the UK to the US. :-)

-Todd

The caption on one of the photos (Image 30) reads:

This is not a replica of an original. The machine in the British museum was built by a team using Babbage's note. No original was ever built, as Babbage could not get funding for the project. The machine at the Computer History Museum (as pictured) is the second built by the same British Museum team who built the first.

If you want to see it, it will be at the CHM until December 2010, at which time it will be moved to the home of Nathan Myhrvold, the person who paid for its construction.

-Todd