You from Aus?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
It's great you mentioned the Serval Project. It is a pity they are restricted by spectrum licences to using wifi.
I wonder if the LTE Direct people had seen the Serval Project.
"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."
The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.
The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.
For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.
You've done me a favor, I didn't even know Antarctica had volcanic areas. I've now looked it up and there are subglacial volcanoes!!!
"This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures."
What will be interesting is the relative ratios of each affect (which I don't see yet quantified).
"In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat."
"In fact" and "probably" don't mix.
The paper doesn't support your assertion. If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that almost the entire glacier has twice the average geothermal flow at 100mW/m^2 or greater (with hot spots up to 200mW/m^2).
Proof from either of you?
Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.
The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.
It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.
It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.
"In the biomedical research field, everybody fabricates results."
A nice anecdote. Do you have any data to back that up?
It does seem very similar to the shape a badly twisted slinky can make.
"That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago."
Is that this one: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/e... ?
Thanks. I do like your line of reasoning.
Thanks. That does make things clearer in that regard for US law.
The wiki well may be valid as a generalised international version though - would you think so? (a lot of us on
Is the Federal Circuit jurisdiction nationwide in the US?
"it would be good if you'd inform me first."
Noted, but it worked after the fact as well.
"But trivial and obvious have little to do with each other. E=MC^2 is trivial, but not obvious."
They often have a lot to do with each other - just not always - I'm pretty sure I expressed that. (note: e=mc^2 is by itself simple but part of a fairly complex system of equations).
"You can make an FPGA as complicated as you want and its reconfiguration can be a "higher level program". In fact, forget even field programmable arrays - from a purely theoretical basis, you can make a fixed (albeit huge) circuit that will execute a specified program, even a "higher level one". You could hard code Diablo III, if you had enough transistors and an infinite amount of patience. Are circuits patent eligible?"
FPGAs are not a common CPU and only make a tiny proportion of the CPU market. It's reconfiguration could be executed by a higher level program, but it will still happen at a low level. Further to what I wrote in regards to the FPGA - I would only allow code to be patented as part of the CPU - i.e it would have to form part of the circuit itself in some special way. The code sent to it from a higher level would not be protected. I don't know the exact mechanism for reconfiguring FPGAs though - so this is a little guess work. Basically - if it's just software (which is abstracted maths) it wouldn't be protected.
Yes you could implement in hardware a lot of software (think ASICs). I wouldn't accept a patent on that - except if it was from an amazing technique in actually making the circuit - i.e. some novel way of implementing it in hardware. Further abstracting a piece of software won't make it anything but what it is - still just that - software.
My boundary was expressed as anything other than something that might alter a FPGAs logic. Basically all software. It doesn't matter how you store it or what language you code it in - no software patents. I don't know of Bilski's hedging algorithm so can't comment on it (but if it's a piece of maths - which all software is - then I don't care for it).
"typo" - I should have guessed as much.
You're a patent lawyer, where would your boundary be?