He's not joking.

Open emacs.
Type the command "xdoctor".

Best part: no copay.

The reason why it's so cheap:
We all pay a shitload of taxes to fund wars to conquer lands where we're extracting the stuff.
We don't pay for destroyed habitats, and climate change (yet) from waste, spills, and other pollution. (basically, we're borrowing from the future generations who will suffer directly from these problems).

When compared, as an energy source, with something like solar pv, factoring these hidden costs in, gasoline is astronomically expensive.

With the galaxy gear 2, it's just a speakerphone (bluetooth). So it doesn't really matter how you hold it. If it's a situation where I can't speakerphone, I just pull out my actual phone.

Yes.

At it's root, the problem is that the product manager is not familiar with real engineering practices, and does not have the ability to plan a project lifecycle beyond; 1. code features, and 2. get paid. Too bad it's the industry standard.

In general, economists are not well known for recusing, or otherwise following ethical practices which are standard in other fields. The least ethical, are the ones at the top, and those are the people who run our economy. And this is why we can't have nice things.

I mostly stopped wearing a watch because my phone does that now. I only need a watch in secure areas where phones (and smart watches) aren't allowed.

Pocket watches went out of style when miniaturized and rugged wristwatches became cost effective. Now pocket watches are "back" in the form of a small computer in a pouch - aka a smart phone. A wristwatch can't have enough of a display area to be useful as "the" mobile computer a person carries around. And there's no real reason someone would want to carry two. So except perhaps as a style thing, the wristwatch isn't coming back.

You'd have better luck with a fallout-style pip boy -- a band covering the forearm with a screen a good 8 inches long.

That's how the raw milk people do it. You buy a share of the cow and get milk from that cow.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?...

Why don't you tell us what you really think.

Seriously though, this is how patents work. Law isn't math and it pays math no more heed than it pays any other point of view. If you learn nothing else today, understand that from a legal perspective math is just another point of view.

If you ask a mathematician, all the universe is math. Folks who practice law have a different point of view. Unsurprisingly, the legal point of view prevails in court.

lol. Also the same wonderful people who brought us Zyklon B.

Just develop a pill that "cures" female aversion to bald (or balding) men.

Problem solved.

Because a "data compression algorithm" is more than a mathematical equation. Indeed, outside the material scope of a computer it has no existence, except perhaps as a thought problem.

The idea of mechanically separating grain is not patentable but a machine which actually does so is. And that patent will cover any machine which works substantially the same way, which is to say follows the same process or algorithm. Do you follow the difference?

What SCOTUS said yesterday was that merely adding a computer to something already practiced in the public domain does not remove it from the public domain. It is not patentable. Not new. That should come as a big "duh" moment for anyone who thought otherwise. But the invention of something that didn't exist in a non-computer form and for which a computer is an essential component, well that is patentable. And the patent will cover any computer or other device running it.