Consider the doctrine: Death is actual beginning. "Life" we have now, is like life of the foetus in the womb. Wanting to live forever is as vain a wish - and non-sensical - as wishing eternal gestation.
I meant like XX for Beer, XXX for whiskey.
A: Ex-Wife's Bedroom
The range issue can be solved by using drones only for the last mile. Take a truck full of packages and some drones, park it in the middle of a delivery area and let the drones drop off all packages in that area.
Sure, that's what I was talking about when the story came up the first time. At least, I think it was the first time, you never really know around here. However, that's not really necessary, at least not in the first generation. Amazon can cover a significant percentage of the customers who would use a service like this simply by placing centers intelligently. Safeway still offers grocery delivery in counties where they only cover a tiny postage stamp of the total area if it will be profitable given the location of the store, and by the same token, Amazon may reasonably offer drone delivery only in subsets of certain regions.
According to the Guardian article you linked, and that I have up there, it was a publicity stunt.
False. According to that article, it is probably a publicity stunt, and some people have said that they think so, but there is no actual proof. They in fact do not unequivocally state that it is such in the article (though quoted sources say that they are sure that it is such) which I presume is why you didn't copy and paste anything where that actually happens, instead choosing to employ prevarication by calling attention to Amazon's odious business practices. I agree that they are odious, but that does not reflect upon the validity of the drone delivery model, nor Amazon's intent (or lack thereof) to employ it.
I think you're likely correct, but the linked article does not prove that you are, and it is therefore bullshit to continue pounding on it as if it contained the facts you're looking for. It doesn't. It contains speculation.
But if you really believe their is a chance that drones are going to be dropping packages off at you doorstep in under 10 - 15 years, you neither understand the logistics and you are both delusional and naive.
I'm pretty sure I do understand the logistics. Quadcopters are already capable of doing this job right now, the infrastructure needed is simply not there. The infrastructure required is broad in extent, but a straightforward and simple extension of existing systems already in place at Amazon, such as robots now performing picking jobs in some of their distribution centers.
Set down the Adderal and the Code Red.
Congratulations, you're an asshole! Your prize is getting to live with yourself!
I can't believe you got modded up...
I still just can't believe it's not butter.
His argument is paramount to "Scientists shouldn't publish in these journals because they're too highly regarded."
Perhaps those trees are overwatered, and some others could use a little love.
No competition from Amazon. Have we already forgotten it was a hoax?
Your link doesn't even prove that it was a publicity stunt, and here's why: its conclusions are based on false premises and it's full of fud. It's also clear why you didn't bother to link to the full article; it doesn't say what you want it to say either.
First FUD: "The practical issues are manifold". Yes, welcome to the real world. FUD, not a specific objection. The specific objections are then made, and they are stupid. "[...]how does it [the drone] then find the package's intended recipient?" Probably it homes in on the mobile device used to make the order, and you'll probably have to use one. How is the transfer of the package enacted? Depicted in the video. It knows where it's being delivered. What stops someone else stealing the package along the way? You mean, by shooting it down? Ah yes, this line item was expanded into two, for filler purposes. And what happens when next door's kid decides to shoot the drone with his BB rifle? The same thing as when next door's kid (the house has a child?) shoots anything else that doesn't belong to them. Except in this case, it's recorded by high-resolution camera.
Then we have an outright lie: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates this area, intends to make commercial drones legally viable and workable by 2015, but this deadline is all-but impossible No, no it isn't. It probably won't happen anyway due to lobbying from entrenched interests. But there's no reason why existing regulations can't be applied to commercial drones. The area below 500 feet is already available due to existing restrictions on civilian air traffic.
Meanwhile, Wired claims that Amazon's delivery model makes the drones unworkable, but that is just fucking stupid. It's stupid because Amazon has already changed their model partially to add more services, and there's no particular reason they can't do it again. Sort of like how Wired changed their magazine from having purple text on black backgrounds to having black text on neon green backgrounds to having black text on white backgrounds. Two changes, see? The drones won't be able to deliver everything in Amazon's catalog. It'll be small, high-value items often ordered by themselves by people willing to pay extra for rapid delivery.
In short, while it might well have been a hoax, nothing you have presented (nor any other evidence) proves it to be so.
From the USPTO PAIR database, "By this preliminary Amendment, claims 1-154 have been canceled..."
154 claims canceled?!? Typical patents have around 21 claims. USPTO charges per-claim over 21 total claims. JP Morgan's application had 170 claims — way beyond even a 3-sigma deviation for all patent applications. That is, it's amateurish. But, somehow they managed to avoid paying the $80/each for the excess claims.
It's actually pretty standard in many instances - i.e. there's nothing amateurish about it. Specifically, if someone comes up with a half dozen related-but-different inventions, it may be more efficient to write one giant application than a half dozen applications that repeat parts of each other. That one giant application may then have [drumroll] 170 claims. And when you file it, you actually file one and cancel claims 21-170 in a preliminary amendment on the filing date, "somehow managing to avoid paying the excess claims fees". And then later (or at the same time), you file a divisional application and cancel claims 1-20 and claims 41-170. And another canceling claims 1-40 and 61-170. Etc.
Let me guess... in spite of your description of this standard practice as "amateurish", you're not a professional in the field?
So, anyways, from the USPTO PAIR database — JP Morgan are claiming that their filing is under pre-AIA conditions. That is, that they are first to invent, and are not subject to the current first to file rules. Big difference. The inventor filed an "oath" regarding the invention date. Uh huh.
Well, yeah. This was first filed in 1999, long before the first to file rules. Of course it's subject to the first to invent rules. 1999 vs. 2013? Big difference. Uh huh.
USPTO also says, "Claims 155-175 are allowed over the prior art of record based on the earliest priority of the parent applications." I couldn't find the priority date that they are claiming, or whether it is before their filing date, but one might guess they are trying to get a pre-BitCoin patent priority date. Jerks.
You apparently couldn't find paragraph 1 of the application:
 This application is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 09/497,307 filed Feb. 3, 2000 and is based on and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Applications Nos. 60/132,305, filed May 3, 1999; 60/150,725, filed Aug. 25, 1999; 60/161,300, filed Oct. 26, 1999; 60/163,828, filed Nov. 5, 1999; and 60/173,044, filed Dec. 23, 1999, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Gosh, being really clear about the priority dates? What a bunch of jerks.
If only someone knew of some actual prior art, and that this person also knew the name and contact information for the patent examiner. Hmmn...
Ah, here we are: From their non-final rejection, "Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAGDISH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6748." I'm sure he has an email address as well.
Yeah, go ahead and call the Examiner, in spite of the fact that it's explicitly illegal without a letter of authorization from the patent applicant:
[T]he Office prohibits third parties from submitting any protests under 37 CFR 1.291 or initiating any public use proceedings under 37 CFR 1.292 (without the express written consent of the applicant) after publication of an application... Office personnel (including the Patent Examining Corps) are instructed to: (1) not reply to any third-party inquiry or other submission in a published pending application; (2) not act upon any third-party inquiry or other submission in a published application, except for written submissions that are provided for in 37 CFR 1.99 and written submissions in applications in which the applicant has provided an express written consent to protest or pre-issuance opposition; and (3) decline to accept oral or telephone comments or submissions about published applications from third parties. When refusing third-party telephone or oral discussions, examiners may call the party’s attention to the statutory prohibition on initiating protests, or 37 CFR 1.2 (all Office business should be transacted in writing), as appropriate.
It would be far better to submit publications under 37 CFR 1.99. But maybe you think that's too amateurish, and that the professional response is to give the Examiner's phone number to 4chan. I'm sure that will never, ever backfire on you.
It doesn't matter. If the people behind Bitcoin never bothered to file for a patent, JP Morgan is now going to get it first--meaning Bitcoin will then be in violation of said patent (as unfair as that is).
That's not how first-to-file works. If the people behind Bitcoin kept Bitcoin secret, never published anything, never used it publicly, etc., and then (i) JP Morgan filed a patent application on it, and (ii) subsequently the people behind Bitcoin filed a patent application on it, then JP Morgan would win and get the patent - because, given two applications by two different inventors on the same invention, the first-to-file wins (hence the name). This is as opposed to the first-to-invent system, where in the above scenario, Bitcoin would win if they could show lab notebooks and internal documents showing that they actually invented it prior to JP Morgan and were working on reducing it to practice the whole time. Those proceedings were called interferences, and they occurred, on average, about 20 times a year. Out of half a million applications. That's literally all the change to "first to file" means, and those
You need permanent magnets for that. The whole discussion was about induction generators.
You don't need permanent magnets for that at all. You do need brushes or something else to let coils do the same job. Those go at the hub, where they can benefit from the reduced speeds.
A kid growing up in Detroit in the 90s wouldn't be caught dead in a foreign car.
A kid growing up in Detroit in the 90s would have had the opportunity to get a domestic car cheaply, since the auto workers could buy a car at cost every year back in the day. Growing up in California in the 90s, the supply of four bangers was more plentiful.
uh, you meant on a clear SUMMER night, right?
Of course not, Murder is a minor crime and not even a crime if done to a poor person. but oh dead god, share a mp3 and deprive a rich person of their royalties? The police should be killing whole families as a message to other down loaders.
I preferred him in the Ghostbusters movies.