Google Voice has been doing this for at least five years... Skype has been doing it for a year or two.
Hopefully it will work better than their initial maps implementation.
Much better to just stop eating beef. It's really not very healthy to eat (cardiovascular disease and cancer) and it's bad for the environment. Some people are also upset by the way cows are treated.
The amount of greenhouse gas from the production of the beef you eat is greater than that from driving your car. Would you rather drive your car or eat beef?
They are making their gallium circuits in the same fabs as silicon... these are highly refined... one might say they are very upper crust.
Usually the settlement documents specifically state that if the patent/etc. is declared invalid that they get to keep the money anyway.
So... $45 million is not a bad run for this troll. It will probably encourage them to keep the extortion ring going with another worthless patent.
I really don't see any need for any plugs or ports on a smartphone. I haven't plugged my phone into anything for at least a year.
It charges wirelessly, backs itself up wirelessly and communicates (WiFi, cellular data, NFC, Bluetooth) with everything.
Why would I ever want to fiddle with a plug?
If they are summaries of cases, they probably could be considered creative works and eligible for copyright. However, if they are being used by the courts to decide cases, we would have the odd situation where a private party was writing law... and if they were then considered "law" then probably not eligible for copyright.
Are the annotations creative works of a third party? If so, why are they being used to decide cases?
If they are "indexes" they are not eligible for copyright.
I was wondering... What are these "annotations"?
Are they creative interpretations of the law written by a third party? (probably copyright eligible but odd to have a third party creatively interpreting the law and having that used by the courts)
- Are they "indexes" (as some have stated)? (probably not copyright eligible since no "creative" work done)
- Are they "case law examples"? (probably not copyright eligible since these cases would be a product of the court system and therefore not copyright eligible)
They don't include refining costs for fossil fuel... major flaw.
Extraction and distribution of coal and oil are probably about equal. However, refining oil takes about as much energy as cars get out of the gas or diesel. In fact, if you took the electricity that oil refineries use and put that into an electric car, it would drive the car as far as the gas and diesel that the refinery produces (without all that nasty pollution).
Either way, its a major flaw in the study when they don't include major costs of fossil fuel but do include those costs for electricity. Flagrant bias.
You are right. The study did not take the costs of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels into account. Major flaw.
The NBER is a right wing think tank (climate change deniers) and this is a biased hit piece against electric cars.
The NBER is a conservative think tank with an climate change denier agenda and this "study" is deeply flawed and intended to disseminate misinformation about electric cars which are a threat to the fossil fuel industry.
My electric car is solar powered and costs about $0.04/mile for electricity so much better for the environment (and my wallet) than any fossil fuel or hybrid vehicle.
The NBER is a conservative funded "think tank". It gets most of its money from large corporations and people with an interest in the oil and gas industries.
This "study" is just a hit piece against electric cars funded by the oil and gas industries... it's worthless.
One example of its bias: It uses a "well to wheels" analysis of electric car energy use but for fossil fueled vehicles, it only uses the "pump to wheels" emissions, leaving out all of the energy impacts of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels.