I'd think that $50B would go a long way to making something more sensible than wind/solar (Which are still and will be a boondoggle with $50B poured into it (Where in the heck do you store energy so that it's sustained instead of feast/famine? Right now, you can't realistically replace coal with either- and without the storage tech to MAKE it so...it's a waste of time and money, bluntly put...)- which would be Thorium reactors.
> Narrowing what the Federal Circuit thinks is patentable, yes. Narrowing what the Supreme Court thinks is patentable, no.
The Supreme Court rarely narrows what it thinks. They look for ways to judge each case in a way that (they can claim) is consistent with prior rulings.
The Supreme Court had never ruled on the subject matter of Mayo or Myriad before. Until they rule on something, the patents are "valid" if the PTO grants them and if the courts uphold them. In those two cases, the Supreme Court's ruling means the PTO has to stop granting a certain category of patents, and the lower courts have to stop upholding them against product developers. That means patentable subject matter got narrowed.
> we can see pretty well which way they're leaning, based on Bilski and other cases.
If you check, you'll find that the last three subject matter cases taken by the Supreme Court have resulted in *narrowing* what is patentable.
The Mayo and Myriad cases narrowed subject matter very explicitly, and while I originally read Bilski was neutral, it did actually cause the CAFC to start rejecting certain types of previously-accepted patents, and Bilski is also the reason we're seeing this case today.
> You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.
Well, no. That's only the patent office's point of view. We don't know what the Supreme Court thinks about this, and that's what this case is going to decide.
> I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted
Wearing Google Glass isn't common. I've never seen anyone wearing it. If I saw someone wearing it in a bar, I think I'd ask the barman to ask them to put it away or leave.
P.S. In that last sentence I meant "person" in the general sense, not specifically the person mentioned in this particular article. What I'm criticising is that the article portrays the behaviour of filming people without their consent as being perfectly fine, and that people who object just "don't understand". (Don't understand what??)
I wouldn't be aggressive, but I also think it's unacceptable that people film me constantly when I'm trying to relax. Especially in bars and similar places where I have high expectations of being away from the scrutiny of everyone but the people I've chosen to socialise with.
Pointing cameras at people (and optionally saying "I swear it's not recording"), in the form of phones or Glass or whatever, is simply a really anti-social thing to do.
So is aggression and theft, but one wrong doesn't mean we should turn the other person into a white knight as this article tries to do.
Then, after you develop your app, there aren't any users to buy it.
We would get the fastest and most robust internet connections available on the planet. We would get TV and phone service bundled on one wire. We would get lower monthly bills.
And unicorns would fly out of your butt.
roads, water, electricity, bridges: all were started by government and that was the major funder.
Do you actually, really believe there were no roads and bridges before government built them? No-one anywhere thought 'hey, we could put some logs over that river and build a bridge and then we could get to the other side without wading through the water' until a government bureaucrat came along and suggested it to them?
You really believe that?
No wonder the world is in such a mess.
If netflix is providing content to comcast users, then why is netflix paying comcast?
Because, as I understand it, Netflix is on a different ISP, and traffic from that ISP into Comcast is overwhelminging in the Neftlix to Comcast direction, so the usual peering arrangements based on similar levels of traffic in both directions make no financial sense.
No-one wants to be forced to use Sinclair Microdrives
Besides which, there were far less classic games for the QL than the Spectrum.
No, the real problem was Greece lying its way into the Euro. Of course, everyone of clue knew they were lying at the time, but Germany and France were so desperate to make the Euro a 'success' that they had no interest in refusing anyone who wanted to join.
The average user sits down and in a few minutes is back to doing what they want on a Win8 system.
Sorry, you'll have to wait a moment while I get up off the floor, where that insanely stupid statement just put me.
The average Windows user I know has no freaking clue how to do anything in Window 8, and has to go ask the 'experts', who have no freaking clue either because they don't want anything to do with that abomination. Most average users couldn't even start Notepad in Window 8 within 'a few minutes', let alone do anything useful.
In the final analysis, the Microsoft era was a massive failure of free market capitalism that left us all driving Trabants while thinking they were the best that we could have.
Ah, yes. The government grants copyright monopolies to software companies, and that's a 'failure of free market capitalism'.
That totally makes total sense.