Comment Re:Ads on a paid service... (Score 1) 318
I disagree. If it's for your own stuff, it's more of a trailer.
A trailer is simply and ad for some other movie/show than what I'm currently watching.
I disagree. If it's for your own stuff, it's more of a trailer.
A trailer is simply and ad for some other movie/show than what I'm currently watching.
32MB is a lot of data for a sensor.
Not if you're a spy agency.
I've never seen where lack of justification ever stopped the government.
Or due process...
An example of what?
Dude, seriously!?
If a patent is declared "invalid", then why was it a "patent" to begin with!? And why do companies have to pay, out of their own pocket, to "fix" these invalid patents?? (Please, do provide *detailded* reasons why the companies should be burdened with the costs of cleaning up the USPTO's messes).
Either the USPTO didn't do their job right (incompetence gets you fired in the real world, but not if you're a bureaucrat apparently), or they're purposely gaming the system (I smell collusion). It's clear that, because they can't get in trouble (that BS immunity stuff & all), they can just rubber-stamp everything and let someone else do their work (read: clean up their mess).
And of course there's the USPTO pretending it's never their fault ("oh, we're so overworked!"), and those that make excuses for them, that all are part of the problem and instead of rectifying the situation, by whatever means will get us there (have Congress & the Government do it? Don't make me puke!)
Sure, some will say 'that's how the system works', but I don't see why companies should have to pay to clean up a government agency's screwups.
Also, it might make the USPTO think twice (read: actually do their job) before approving bogus "patents".
On my hatchback one of the turn signal lights burnt out - the manual said to bring it to a dealer for replacement. Ya, like I'll pay $60 for a friggin' light bulb. (The non-hatchback version doesn't have this 'requirement').
HOLY MACRO!