Patents should be restricted to the implementation of physical mechanisms - machines, circuits and widgets. Not pseudo code - like the one you linked. What you linked is an idea - an abstract concept of how to solve a problem. The specific implementation could be subject to copyright protection (for the code) and trademark protection (if the slide style became a hallmark of the product) but a patent? No way.
But patent law is offensively fucked up. Basically, it's a war of money. Both sides line up patent lawyers (one of a very few formally recognized specializations for attorneys in the U.S.) and burn money until someone gives up. This case will almost certainly wind up before the Supreme Court eventually - unless Samsung folds and pays to make apple go away. Fortunately, Samsung is sufficiently profitable that it can saturate the process with more money than required and write it off as a margin cost for continuing to compete in the smartphone market.
Apple's patents are offensively bad. There *is* enough there to require a jury verdict to nullify them rather than a summary ruling by the Court (preferably one where the foreman doesn't lie about having a personal stake in proving that software patents are nearly always valid - like the last trial between these two) but in a sane system of patents there would be no question that "slide to unlock" is a variation of long established design concepts - i.e. a latch.
Alternatively, print to hard copy and prepare for histrionics when Defendants find out there are eight warehouses filled with nothing but stored paper copies.
There might be use for this thing, for example in a mechanically simple heat engine, but it doesn't even remotely compete with hydraulics.
In those applications where hydraulics / winches and cables work - sure - but what about where they're a poor substitute for something that acts like natural muscle - like say - robotics?
Collaborator Professor Geoff Spinks says it is a much-sought breakthrough that could open the door to the use of artificial muscles in clothing and prosthetic manufacture, robotics, and as a green energy source.
- from TFA.
Notably - the article claims that the reaction is nearly as fast as human muscle - which could be interesting. Also, most of the practical applications listed in the article take advantage of the fact that the fiber responds to heat - which can include ambient temperatures, to automate the opening and closing of vents and other heat control systems without spending energy on control systems or motors.
America rejected the Republican party - if you cannot accept the numbers then all the analytics in the world are going to be worthless to you.
IsItDownRightNow is filling up with users reporting it is down for a wide geographic area: http://www.isitdownrightnow.co...
So far Google's status page is still showing "Green": http://www.google.com/appsstat...
Anyone else seeing this?"
Link to Original Source
BHO has all but snubbed his nose at this and said it is unconstitutional.
The war in Korea used the same gimmick as was used in Vietnam.
No it didn't. Korea was authorized (or not, you're welcome to your opinion on this untried argument) under the U.N. Treaty after a declaration by the U.N. Security Counsel authorizing intervention in Korea. Vietnam was authorized by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (See Wikipedia) which was an act of congress authorizing the President to use military force. Check out this helpful article by the Atlantic for more information on the history of U.S. wars and interventions: