Even simpler: != software engineers

By using a Firefox plug-in called NoScript (there are others). Pretty interesting being able to view and manually kick adware to the curb. By globally revoking permission to scripts from domains like atdt, it's possible to greatly clean up your browser experience. And you always have a half-decent idea what's going on. I think this is a great idea on Mozilla's part, although it would certainly be appropriate to make this an opt-in feature.

And with some brands, even if the phone itself has free will, the people who buy it may not.

I'd normally assert that my time is too fkn valuable to waste on this silly, manufactured debate. But this time, the referenced article is so idiotic that I just had to post. Good frigggin' grief! If you RTFA, it reveals that this code is NOT part of the displayed terms of the site. It's from a block of text embedded as a comment into the site HTML, apparently inadvertently left in the code when an author cut-and-pasted code from another site.

.If anyone tries to tell you that this a legally relevant "hidden terms of service," just walk away.

From the article:

"It is unclear why these sentences appear in the code at all since they are not displayed, although the code may simply have been copied from another website that does use the full warning. In this case, the unwanted portion of the warning was rendered inert with HTML coding tags ("") usually used by programmers for inserting comments to explain the purpose of a section of code. However, the code can be rendered "live" again by simply removing those tags, in which case the full text would appear on the screen to users. However, it is unclear why the paragraph containing "no reasonable expectation of privacy" would ever have even been considered appropriate in this context."

It's articles like this one that give Obama-haters a bad name.

What am I missing? How is this different than what my 2010 Prius has been doing for me for the last three years. When I come up on a parking area, the Prius highlights candidate spaces on the touch screen and I select one. It then steers itself into the space. The driver keeps a foot on the brake in case of an event like a kid running behind the car, but otherwise, the Prius takes care of everything. Yes, this Ford system has a few greater degrees of automation, but I think those are just bells & whistles. I'm not so sure it's really a great idea that the driver doesn't have to be in the car, if only for the aforementioned safety reasons.

.

So I don't get it. Why is this news??

1. Applicant files overly broad patent application. Applicant is usually large tech outfit w/resources to gamble prosecuting an overly broad app that discloses subject matter that can be used to overcome expected rejection by narrowing claims during prosecution. This is a common (and common-sense -- you don't start a negotiation with your final offer) strategy for optimizing scope of an issued patent, but may appear to I-ANALs as a serious attempt to patent the overly broad claims.

.

2. Application publishes and is spotted by I-ANAL geek Web site which, not understanding what it's reading, pumps out a hack piece citing the application as further proof that the patent system (or intellectual property in general) is "broke."

3. Equally ignorant and/or confused I-ANAL Slashdotter posts story on /. with ironic comment. In some cases, there's no link to the actual application, making it difficult even for an IAAL figure out what the applicant was actually trying to patent.

4. Equally ignorant I-ANAL Slashdotters post comments that comprise: i) a terse pun; ii) "See, I told you the patent system (or IP in general) is broke!"; iii) A detailed, carefully reasoned analysis of an irrelevant detail of the patent; iv) A strange, off-topic, or unintentionally funny authoritative statement. (My favorite: "A design patent is basically a trademark.")

5. In many cases, a few IP or patent attorneys attempt to correct another poster's sillier misconceptions. Generally, the attorney's remark ends the conversation or, worst case, provokes an "anybody who knows what they're talking about is not to be trusted" kick-to-the-curb.

Just sayin'.

I've seen this episode before.

Was this the result of how he used his brain, or was this structure the reason why his thought process worked the way it did. Not clear, and there's plenty of evidence to support either conclusion.

You're thinking of the Plasmatronics product line, which, I believe, debuted in the late 1970s. Heard a pair once in NYC way back when & the high-end was pretty remarkable. Suitable mainly for tweeters & supertweeters. They don't use an extraordinary amount of electricity and produce only a tiny amount of ozone. But they require a supply of halogen gas, which I recall makes an annoying hissing noise.

What do you think this is, France??

.

Given that most people in this country can't divide 100 by 8 in their heads, I mock the thought that anybody would take this story seriously.

At what age should kids be taught to read patent-claim language?

At what age should kids be taught to replace head gaskets?

At what age should kids be taught how to cull facts from political rhetoric, rather than just repeat what they hear on the radio?

I think it would be worth a cheer to see pre-teens get excited about writing little BASIC programs on their iPads, but in the real world, school teachers I know would be happy enough to be able to teach the majority of their grade-schoolers how to balance a checkbook, or how to understand a short piece of classical music.

>The First Amendment has no real part in this. The First Amendment is between you and the government, only. It does not come into play in contracts between you and a web site operator, unless the operator is a government entity itself. That might involve the First Amendment, but I doubt it will be a significant issue.

.
FWIW, the 1st Am. can become relevant if the government forces an entity to restrict speech, regardless of whether that speech is a term of a K. If I contract w/Facebook to give Facebook the right to publish and republish any text that I post, the 1st is implicated if the Federal govt. attempts to bar Facebook from enforcing that term. The 14th Am. extends this issue to state govt.'s. And then, there's also the contract clause of the Constitution, although freedom of speech generally trumps financial protections.

>So my point stands: When it was that warm in Greenland, it was certainly warm in Canada and Alaska. So where did the polar bears live, if warmer water is lethal to them?

.

.No, I don't have anything constructive to contribute here, but I just wanted to be sure that everybody saw this comment. It really brightened my day. Who needs SNL?

--
Who says enabling technology is a good thing?

Easy answer -- you've got to compare apples to apples. (Sorry, couldn't avoid that one.) People here are discussing sales over an atypical time period -- the weekend after a major launch. Compare that number to a weekend after another, comparable, launch. Say, the iP 4, SIII, SIV, etc. An alternative is to, average out the brief post-announcement peak and compare sales over the first 60 days after each launch. If you want to mitigate the distorting effect of pre-announcement delayed sales, compare 60-day periods starting 30 days before each launch. Whatever. The point is that simply citing a single set of numbers, based on sales during a small, atypical period of time, without direct comparison to even nominally similar periods, as evidence of success or a failure of a product is not enough to support either proposition -- much less to support allegations of a longer-term trend.

>You make it sound like they hire a salesperson to go around and market their patent to potential customers. Or maybe you think the customers search for useful patents to license and then contact the inventor. Neither of these scenarios is common.

Not true. Variations of the first scenario are quite common. Your argument is circular. If you define "NPE" as an entity that engages exclusively in trolling abuses, then the only conclusion is that NPEs are abusers. It is certainly possible for a small inventor to create something new and valuable, but not have the resources to manufacture it. Here, the patent system allows the inventor to attempt to license the idea to a larger entity who is able to develop, market, manufacture, and distribute the resulting product. The fellow working in the office next to mine, e.g., is presently doing just that with a clever consumer product he recently patented. How is such a partnership an abuse of anything? And doesn't such a system promote innovation by encouraging an inventor to create a new technology despite the fact that she's just an average person with a dollar & a dream?

And how would humans survive there? No source of energy other than gravity. Solar is not an option. Also, what about the radiation? Remember that Jupiter is essentially an unlit star with both an enormous magnetic field and powerful radiation belts (a million times more powerful, in fact, than the Van Allen Belt) that extend beyond Europa's orbit. Humans couldn't get near Jupiter without extraordinary (and likely, at today's level of technology, impractical) shielding. See, e.g., http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3010/hiding-from-jupiters-radiation. Yes, I know I'm a buzzkill & that these types of things are fun to talk about while you sit around the bong with the dudes. Sorry.

Better stick to something you have a clue about. Maybe cigars? This issue has long been a real concern re:biometric identification on inherently insecure platforms. The point of vulnerability is actually the encoded data, not an image of a fingerprint, stored or not. This is one reason why you don't see biometrics used casually in consumer applications. When implemented, a real-world biometric scanner is usually part of a system that incorporates significant physical means of isolation. Using a biometric marker in a device as ubiquitous and insecure as a cell phone is idiotic. And it doesn't take a "privacy expert" (wtf that is) to understand that.