Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up for me, makes a lot more sense now.
The logic the majority used in ruling on this case seems pretty simple (unless I'm totally off): the patent troll had a patent that was still legally valid because there had been no court challenge to declare it invalid. Because the patent was still legally valid, the infringement of the patent is still a valid cause of action in a lawsuit.
Scalia's logic is that you can bypass a legal challenge over a patent that might be ruled invalid in court because it was never valid in the first place. The question is, though, how would you know whether the patent is valid without the court saying so?
I've seen plenty of college courses where the professor makes a powerpoint and teaches to the powerpoint, to the point where the person in front of the room could be any person off the street with zero knowledge in the subject they're teaching. The worst example of this I've seen was a physics class in which the professor was not only teaching to the powerpoint, he was teaching to a powerpoint made by the publisher of the textbook. That particular class got so bad that a bunch of the students dropped it because they realized they could just download the powerpoint themselves and get the same "education" for free.
I think the fear is more that kids will see this stuff while doing research for school (especially in earlier grades where they don't necessarily know better) and take it for granted. I had a professor in college who showed me a site that popped up when searching for information about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. that was actually run by a racist group, which contained blatantly false information. As I recall, it appeared near the top of Google results at the time, but this was five or six years ago.
I think this kind of stuff should remain up, though. There's the free speech issue, but I think it's a really good way to teach kids how to find proper sources of information.
What I'm wondering is what would have happened had this iPad crash occurred during the flight post-takeoff. Why do they not carry the paper manuals as a backup in case this sort of thing happens?
I think this case should absolutely be used as precedent when and if they sentence Edward Snowden. I think a two year suspended sentence, followed by a Congressional Medal of Freedom would be an appropriate sentence.
I don't know how viable these devices are for mass production or what it takes to keep them running, but you could potentially use them in places (building roofs, taller light fixtures in parking lots) where there isn't enough space or it isn't viable to plant trees.
I do recall, however, someone pointing out to me that industrial hemp is more efficient at removing co2 than even some trees.
I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?
I wouldn't be surprised if it's because they thought the iPad is the "best tablet" due to its branding. I used to carry a Nexus 7 to work and half the people there thought it was a phone.
According to the article, the person who died was a British multimillionaire who was the head of the company that purchased Segway.
I think the real story here is that a Georgian man's cellphone became sentient and was using him as a proxy to enter chess tournaments. The phone is the real grandmaster here.
The sheriff in this case sounds like he read a Judge Dredd comic and assumed it was supposed to be a manual for how the justice system should work.
Most news analysts had a guilty verdict as a foregone conclusion, with the real question being whether the bomber would face the death penalty. It's strange that it took 11 and a half hours to reach the verdict.
So okay, here's what I don't get.
With illegal immigration, the argument is the immigrants are taking jobs no one here wants to do. I can buy that - they're not claiming that illegal immigrants create jobs.
With H1-B visas, Zuckerburg and Ballmer are claiming that more visas will somehow create more jobs. The only way I can see this happening is if companies start paying job applicants to go away so they can apply for more visas.
Can ANYONE make sense of this idea that H1-Bs create jobs?
I think the "dick pics" line actually really works well. If you think about it from the perspective of the average person, a lot of people buy the NSA's statements that they don't care about the communications of most Americans and that PRISM is necessary to maintain security. After all, a lot of people post everything they do on Facebook or Twitter where anyone can see it.
One of the articles I read on this mentioned that even people who support or don't care about the NSA suddenly cared when they realized that the NSA can see the things they don't post on Facebook (nude pics, sexting, etc).
If framing the NSA's data collection programs as "dick pics" makes more people understand, then I'm all for it.