Photoblocker paint is a scam.

http://www.amazon.com/PhantomPlate-Inc-Photo-Blocker-Spray/dp/B000EQUFHS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338691883&sr=8-1

Oh Pooh.

From http://www.jphs.org/people/2005/4/14/james-michael-curley-and-the-5-license-plate.html

âoeFather of the American License Plateâ is probably not how Henry Lee Higginson would choose to be remembered. âoeFounder of the Boston Symphony Orchestra,â perhaps, or âoeCivil War heroâ would be more to his liking. But in fact it was Major Higginson, the prominent banker and philanthropist, who first recommended that the state put a numbered plaque on each motor vehicle.

Higginson hated the automobile. As the twentieth century dawned in Boston he was in a state of high complaint about the rudeness of the unlicensed âoeautomobilistsâ whizzing past his front door at 190 Commonwealth Ave. (in both directions on both sides of the avenue). At his summer home in Manchester, Massachusetts He even arranged to set up an elaborate network of timing devices in order to prove that over half of that townâ(TM)s motor traffic was routinely exceeding the speed limit of 15 miles per hour. But how to determine the identity of the offending motorists?

It was to address this question that Major Higginson submitted a petition to the Massachusetts legislature in January of 1903 âoeRelative to licensing Automobiles and Those operating the Same.â Since Higginson was perhaps the most influential private citizen in the Commonwealth at the time, his petition was sure to get prompt attention.

The story goes on from there and gets tied up in the politics of Boston of the time (Famously Corrupt).

So the intent of ANPR is little different indeed from the motivations that first led to license plates.

Really like static compile time type checking which means a lot of client side programming pisses me off.

I really like Apache Click. For someone who is really happy working in Java it's a good tool.

Of course. It's always blame Canada.

Much more likely you would just disappear. Charges are too much bother.

Licensing to others is nice BUT there are still big problems with allowing a non-practicing entity to sue.

1. A non-practicing entity cannot be counter-sued. This distorts the legal system in favor of the party doing the suing. This is the primary evil associated with patent trolling.

Even worse is the case where it is a governmental entity that is doing the suing. If I were the host nation for such a suit I'd be pissed at the country engaging in such extraterritorial behavior by the government of another nation. If the US were going around and suing people for violating patents on the internet you can bet we'd be hearing screams of bloody murder about it.

2. How can you award damages to a party that doesn't practice the invention? It seems to me any reasonable logic would dictate such damages to be $0.00. This is one of the legal issues that makes it difficult for non practicing entities to get injunctive relief. The fiction of large monetary damages awarded to a non-practicing entity is a distortion of justice.

It is these two points that patent trolls depend on to make their money. You may argue whether organizations like CSIRO should be called patent trolls, but the fact is that they are using the same legal inequities that enable patent trolls to generate questionable profits.

Perhaps if it walks like a duck we should consider calling it a duck.

So make less money and enjoy your life.

> I take that to mean the theorum assumes that the questions asked are worded in a neutral manner, correct?

Hahahaha please define this "neutral" you speak of. I suspect you will have better success nailing jello to a tree.

Your thinking lacks clarity if it entertains such concepts.

The results from ANY questions asked to a random sample of citizens follow the same mathematical law. The law doesn't predict what the result will be nor give a FF whether the question is "neutral", whatever THAT might be, only that it will follow certain trends with sample size, population size, etc.

The results from two different questions, biased differently are likely to be different, as anyone with more than a 5% working brain might expect. However the results for both WILL follow the law of large numbers.

It would be a poor law indeed if it depended on "neutral".

Well, it's not a poor law.

"He stood before the very Gates of Hell girt only in the Central Limit Theorem and the Laws of Large Numbers, casted order upon the chaos and humbled The Lord of Light and all his Minions"

-the eric conspiracy

I know of scarcely anything so apt to impress the imagination as the wonderful form of cosmic order expressed by the "Law of Frequency of Error". The law would have been personified by the Greeks and deified, if they had known of it. It reigns with serenity and in complete self-effacement, amidst the wildest confusion. The huger the mob, and the greater the apparent anarchy, the more perfect is its sway. It is the supreme law of Unreason. Whenever a large sample of chaotic elements are taken in hand and marshaled in the order of their magnitude, an unsuspected and most beautiful form of regularity proves to have been latent all along.

-Sir Francis Galton 1889

ps. Galton is speaking of a different law, however very closely related to the laws of large numbers.

It's called a hypothesis. The same kind that guides the search for dark matter, another possible explanation for a mystery we have no direct evidence for.

One of the consequences of the law of large numbers is that the sample result is independent of the population size if the population is large compared to the sample size.

Your opinion was known to be wrong some 400 years ago.

You can see the results of this in the following calculator.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm