I'm sure he's genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms....
I can provide hosting. I am not a big host like some others, but am located in USA and I do not cave to threats.
The last guy, Robert Smolely, who threatened me with a libel claim for posting my lawsuit accusing him of illegal spamming spent 40 months in prison. I had an ex employer threaten me with a libel claim which when we went to court, they wrote me a 6 figure check.
Contact me through my web site.
IOS 8.0.1 will disrupt cellular communications on an iPhone without the need to root the phone.
It's not a bug, it is a feature.
Something worth considering is a Celestron Firstscope though. It's pretty cheap and gives nice views of the moon. You'll be able to see Jupiter's moons and just-just make out Saturn's rings with the provided eyepieces. Many of the slightly brighter star-clusters will be within view as well. Some models of it come with finder-scopes, if it doesn't a simple red-dot is cheap enough. I have one and I was quite impressed, I thought it was going to be rubbish bit I was pleasantly surprised. It's nowhere near as good as my 4.5" Orion reflector, but it's not bad.
I'm currently in the process of grinding a mirror for an 8" reflector, similar to a friend's. The endeavour is costing me the equivalent of around $150 (spread over whenever I need bits and pieces) but I'll end up with a scope of similar quality to what you can buy from $350 - $500.
What's to stop you from connecting to it as a "hotspot" to do your torrenting and then back to "normal" for the rest of your traffic?
Don't you wish you could...
But if CMU wins outright, it will be a clear sign to corporations that using academia as it's main R&D "arm" is bad for business...
This is only the case where corprorations try to cheat academia. Marvell had the option ~10 years ago to license the tech from CMU. They said no and used it anyway.
You should really just read the whole FAQ.
Basically Marvell desperately need the invention after trying and failing to come up with something that could do the same thing. CMU offered to license it to them. They declined, and then used it anyway. It completely turned around their drive business. So, only 25% of the profits for willful infringement of critical technology that they could have licensed for much less if they'd played fair back in the day doesn't really seem too bad to me.
The size of the award was based on an analysis by Catharine M. Lawton, an intellectual property damages expert who testified on behalf of CMU during the trial along with CMU's technical and industry experts. Ms. Lawton applied several commonly used and court approved methods of determining an appropriate royalty for Marvell's infringement in patent cases. Ms. Lawton's analysis rested on a comparison of Marvell's business and economic circumstances both before and after it started to infringe. Her opinion and application of these accepted methods were based on a detailed analysis of the facts and financial records in the case, as well as the testimony of Dr. Steven McLaughlin, CMU's digital signal processing expert, and Dr. Chris Bajorek, CMU's expert in the hard disk drive industry.
Marvell earned an average revenue of $4.42 per chip and made an average operating profit of $2.16 for each of the more than 2 billion chips sold over more than a decade. Based upon her analysis of all the facts, Ms. Lawton determined that the proper value of the CMU invention was $.50 per chip.
From CMU's FAQ on the case:
"Their work was done under the auspices of CMU's Data Storage Systems Center, which was formed as a partnership between CMU and certain members of the information storage industry and through which CMU has worked closely with industry partners for decades. The DSSC was formed to and has played a critical role in preserving research and development efforts and jobs in the hard disk drive industry in the United States."
You are correct that the specific breakdown of that 50% is entirely dependent on the percentages agreed upon when the internal invention disclosure was made, and that the assignation of those percentages between the various inventors is not dictated in any particular way by the IP Policy. What is clear, however is that 50% (minus 1/2 of the legal fees) will be distributed amongst to the two inventors.
That said, at CMU, any faculty member who tries to cut his or her grad students out of their invention disclosures will likely soon find him or herself running short on grad students, not to mention liable to be hauled into court for fraud. So there is strong self-interested impetus to make those percentages as correct as possible.
In fact, they will. CMU's IP Policy is quite clear on this matter. The inventors will get 50% of the proceeds.
And I'm sure they'll find something to do with it.
Senator Dianne Feinstein acknowledged Wednesday the existence of the probe, which highlights a rare public clash between lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee she chairs and the US espionage community it oversees."
Link to Original Source