That's not true of patents filed prior to mid-1995. They get a seventeen-year term from issue no matter how long it takes to be granted.
Article seems to be talking about patent application 05/302771, and the status of the case is miles away from the way it's described in the article. This patent has been through several levels of non-final and final rejections, appeals, and court actions. Through the USPTO's public PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, you can access hundreds of pages of information and history on the case, including what are now several hundred pending claims. Even if the application itself hasn't been published, the file history is ripe with lots of information. You can see the patent examiners' rejections and there's a 494-page appeal brief filed on behalf of the Applicant, from which you can see many of the pending claims. The patent office rejections appear mainly under section 112 on the basis that the claims aren't adequately supported by the patent disclosure. It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.
In addition, there appear to be about 150 additional patent cases filed as continuations on dates between 1977 and 1995 - some still pending and some abandoned. Most of them aren't accessible under the public PAIR system because of the pre-1995 filing dates. Presumably there's no continuations filed after 1995 because under the post-1995 rules, the application would expire 20 years from the earliest filing date, so they'd expire before granting. If many of these continuations have hundreds of claims like the parent case, there could be tens of thousands of claims that he's trying to get granted.
Yes, I understand that when you "deposit" bitcoin to a ledger account, you're not going to get back your original bitcoin on a "withdrawal," but that's not the point. When Mt Gox attempted to send a bitcoin from a Mt Gox wallet, then was told it didn't work, they should have re-sent that same bitcoin that they sent the first time.
It's like if someone told you to hand them a dollar, and you reached into your pocket, grabbed a dollar and hand it to them, then when they say they didn't get it, you don't just reach deeper into your pocket and grab a different dollar - you look at your palm and hand them the dollar that still sticking to your fingers. If it's not in sticking to your fingers, you'd better figure out where the dollar went!
What I fail to understand is how MtGox managed to lose all this money with "transaction malleabiliity." My question is simple and stupid, but I haven't been able to discover the answer from articles discussing this fiasco.
Depositors initiate a transfer of bitcoin, then complain that it didn't go through, then MtGox transfers additional bitcoin.
Why didn't they simply send the original bitcoin again?
The 1/4" jack is embedded in the bottom of the guitar, along with the power button, USB port, and pick connector.
There are no pickups because the strings don't even get tuned - the thing on the end, I think, senses the amplitude of the string vibrations so you can play it with your fingers. This means no note bending, etc. The implication is that it figures out what note you've played by sensing which if the segmented frets are connected to which strings.
That what's I've gleaned from the website information. What I don't get it why the frets are segmented, as it should be easy to demultiplex the frets and strings by scanning either of them sequentially, perhaps that would degrade the note timing a little bit, though you can scan which frets are touching which strings in advance so when the string vibration is sensed you know which note to play.
There is NO pickup. The strings are not tuned. (Yes, I was surprised to read this too.)
That's the purpose of the extension of the helmet forward over the forehead.
Please sed -e 's/helment/helmet/g' to the above.
I think you have to read between the lines carefully to find the real value in the article. I think it can be equally valid to build a bicycle helmet from corrugated or expanded cardboard as is is with styrofoam + shell. (OK, styrofoam is a trademart for Expanded Polystyrene.) As others have commented, cardboard is suseptible to damage from moisture, so it has to be sealed against it. In addition, I'm not convinced that the cardboard design is cheaper to manufacture than the styrofoam designs.
To me, the relevant signal is the reduction in maximum G force. The article suggests that the design limit is 300G, and conventional helmets achieve 225G - while his design gets to 70G. Presumably, the mechanism for doing that is to absorb the impact energy over a significant period of time before transmitting the forces to the wearer. Given the velocity of the collision, this means that the helment has to be built with a greater distance between the outside and inside of the helment than existing designs. If people are willing to wear thicker helmets (appropriately designed), such helmets could be reasonably expected to perform better - I'd think comparable designs could be easily built from the styrofoam + shell technology that's commonly in use.
Finally, the inventor says he was inspired by observing that his helmet was broken in the collision. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE MEANT TO DO. In absorbing the forces of the collision, the helmet is permanently deformed. If your head is saved from destruction by a helment - buy a new helment to replace it.
Rent control is already forcing landlords to share profits with the renter. The renter gets below-market rent.
GTX650 or better: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-650/specifications
Few cards have multiple HDMI ports, so you'd probably want DisplayPort to HDMI converters.
Nonsense. It doesn't even have displayport. You're thinking of something else. It's HDMI 1.4, 3180x2160x30Hz, one interface, one panel.
30 Hz update rate. 120 Hz refresh rate.
Sadly, while keeping the electric blue and black color scheme, they failed to keep the physical form factor, so my box of ten wall-mounts (Linksys SM01) that I've been meaning to use to put the WRT-54GL routers on the wall is now obsolete. For me, the color scheme was not the reason for buying these routers - I'd rather have them in white boxes with white antennae so they could more quietly sit on the wall or ceiling. In fact, my wireless needs have drifted away from these all-in-one boxes - the latest house I provisioned used Engenius access points, powered by an ethernet switch with POE - the router only really needs to have one port to the switch, and one port to the cable/DSL modem and no wireless at all.
When I was at the 1964 World's Fair, AT&T was showing off their "picturephone" which did everything he described for his 2014 prediction: "Communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone. The screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books." So how is that even a precient prediction when it was already at the Fair? Further, it hardly is a prediction of smartphones - there's nothing in this prediction that suggests the pervasive use of a wireless, portable, battery-powered device that performs computation and gaming along with communication - let alone the rounded corners that others joked about here.
The next sentence, predicting synchronous satellites, is also hardly precient given that "Unisphere," the symbol of the 1964 World's Fair, was a 12-story stainless steel globe with satellites circling it. I also note that the "Unisphere," a twelve-story stainless steel globe, was produced by and celebrated the glory days of U.S. Steel, which began in the 1960's to dramatically change its focus and after several reorganizations, now produces substantially less steel than it did in 1964. For me, the most glaring part of his mis-predictions were the heavy reliance on I.B.M., General Motors, and General Electric, presenting the assumption that these lumbering giants of the 1960's were going to be the vanguard of corporations in 2014.
Really, I see the first part of his essay as describing what the World's Fair itself was predicting about the future. The exhibits were presenting the view that these futuristic ideas were safely in the hands of large corporations, who were well-positioned to serve all the consumer's needs. The second part, starting with the Equitable Life sign projecting the future population growth, is his attempt to show that all will not be so rosy. However, while his total may have been about right, he missed that growth in the US will have slowed down, so we don't have the solid city from DC to Boston that he projected. His estimate of the pervasiveness of automation is surely off-the-mark as there's still plenty of physical drudgery being performed by humanity rather than robots, and so forth. His estimates of industrial and food production are similar to the "Club of Rome" predictions and don't really match up with where we are in 2014. The second part of his essay more accurately predicts his own science-fiction stories than today's reality, though we may be all the poorer for not having lived up to his stories.