Actually, a bigger problem with this is that there is plenty of prior art for this patent. Gotta wonder why it was accepted. I know that I've seen 'bonus points' awarded for giving an assist, even in a competitive game without teams.

Of course, that being said, this patent was focused towards competitive robotics, which is new enough that perfectly matching prior art is hard to find. However, it makes me wonder... Can I take an idea that is common knowledge and patent it in a new area? I can only see this making sense if the new application is especially novel.

However, in this case I don't see it as a novel idea (or at least not patent-worthy). All this is doing is limiting how people can score robot competitions, and setting himself up for litigation.

Does anyone know how much of a record Dean Kamen has as an aggressive litigant?

-T

It's not that people can't be fired at any time, it's that there are some reasons that are legally unacceptable for firing someone. Among these are disabilities, old age, marriage, pregnancy, race, etc. If you get fired for one of these reasons (and you can prove it) then the company did a no-no, and you're likely eligible for compensation. (Although proving it is hard).

In this case, the company is playing it safe in case someone wants to play the free-speech card. (e.g., "I was fired for using my right to free-speech. Give me money since you wrongfully fired me")

Or that's their goal. This EULA might be a bit too broad for something like that, and could introduce other issues. It depends on exactly what is said in it. The safest bet is to just not use your real name when blogging, and not let the company find out.

That's less of an enforceable EULA, and more of an excuse to fire. This way the company will have a (more) legitimate excuse if they fire you for something said about the company. They'd fire you anyways, but this just gives them more 'grounds' in case you go back and try to sue them.

It depends....

Do you care what OS it runs on? (It'll be harder if he wants to keep using windows 95..) For reliability, I'd suggest windows 2000, since it will also work with most recent drivers. The trick will be getting his old software working on it. However once you get the whole setup working, it will be reliable.

How much effort do you want to put into it? You could make this quite reliable by mirroring some 4gb drives, and telling your dad to replace broken ones with spares set aside. Since 4gb drives are pretty cheap, this is a relatively simple solution. (Since 15 years from 1 hard drive is pretty unlikely, use cheap replacements, since space doesn't matter)

Do you care about the speed of the machine? If the only need is to make it keep working, (no real compatibility with existing technologies) this could pretty easily be done with anything in the area of a P3 or P4. These can be pretty cheaply picked up at a lot of used computer stores.

Although, no matter what you do, you're not gonna be able to just buy an off the shelf machine and get this kinda reliability.

... but I am going to tell you that remaining at the same university you got your undergrad in is a mistake....

I have to disagree with you on this in some cases (specifically applied technical areas like engineering). If you went to a specific school for undergrad and intend to continue for graduate school, the people you have met and made connections with in undergraduate will help immensely. If you personally know professors that are working in areas you are interested in, picking them as your advisor is one of the fastest ways to get on the road to publication. Also, by actually being at the school you can talk to people who have specific advisors and determine which professors are best for what. (Some professors will support every decision you make, regardless how bad it is. Other professors will disregard every suggestion you make, regardless of how smart it is. You want either the middleground, or two professors (one to make ideas with, the other to shoot them down).

Finally, the best part: If you went there for undergrad, you know where the funding is, (or can easily find out) as well as which faculty actively don't get along. Believe me, this is a relief.

I lived in a city where the yellow light time was 3 seconds for years, and I *never* had a problem stopping for red lights, no matter how late it changed on me. It's because slowing down changes the distance traveled. Now, while you say it takes 4 or 5 seconds to come to a complete stop from 35MPH, the distance I will travel during those 4 or 5 seconds is *vastly* different from the distance traveled if I weren't slowing down. I could always stop before the intersection, even though it wasn't strange for me to still be stopping after the light turns red.

Now, I live in a city with a yellow delay of 5 seconds, and there are *many* more people running red lights because they are trying to squeeze through during the extra long yellow. It is much more dangerous than the previous city with a delay of 3 seconds. (where the yellow basically means: if you can stop, stop. If you can't, get out of the intersection)

Its worth it to note: The 3 second city didn't have red-light cameras, so it can't be claimed that they were shortened to make money. Also, I don't know from where you're quoting some 'legal minimum of 5 seconds', but I doubt that's the case. That would be a state-determined number anyways, and we have quite a few of those, if you remember.

Anyways, even though you quote a minimum 4.2 second stop time at 35mph, do you always slam on the breaks at EVERY intersection? What if you're going faster than 35?. I usually end up taking probably 6-10 seconds to stop, depending on the speed, other traffic, and road conditions. I still don't have any problems stopping before the intersection. (Plus my tires and brakes last longer).

The problem this topic is dealing with is that some intersections in a city have different yellow-light lengths than others, which messes up an individual's gauging of timing and distances. This practice itself is the issue. (not the implementation of the cameras) If the city were to shorten the length of EVERY yellow light, there would be no problem, since people would quickly get used to it.

Where do you get the idea of a 'sudden' maneuver? The cameras are just enforcing existing traffic flow. (ie, stop lights) If you are going to be 'stopping cold' to avoid a RLC, that means you were intending on running the red light in the first place. This so called 'sudden' change, can be fixed easily: plan on stopping when you see the light change to yellow! The yellow light is there to warn you that it will turn red soon. It's not a "quick... floor it" warning.

What you didn't mention about those studies was that the increased accidents were people rear-ending the stopping cars. (Who knows, maybe tailgating is also a problem?)

However, when you think about it, the *least* dangerous accident you can be in is someone bumping the back of your car when you're slowing down. And the *most* dangerous accident is when someone slams into the side of your car when they floor it through a red light. (well, other than a head-on collision on a highway) While there were still deaths in some cases of rear-end collisions, it is a much greatly reduced percentage of the fatalities in a T-bone (especially since people SPEED UP when they run red lights).

The point of these cameras (well, other than to make money) is to police places where cops never bother. I have personally never seen someone get pulled over for running a red light. I have seen a LOT of people run red lights. I have seen an inordinate amount of people pulled over for speeding. Why this difference? It's because the officer can sit on a busy street and watch all the cars that go past, and they all have the possibility of speeding. In the case of a red light, the occurence of 'running a red light' can only happen during a short period every few minutes. To break it into percentages, a cop watching a fast street can catch speeders 100% of the time (or maybe less, depending on traffic flow), whereas at a light, the cop can catch infractions 1% of the time (or less, depending on the intersection). If you were a cop with a quota, where would you camp out?

Personally, even if the red light cameras don't reduce accidents, there needs to be some sort of visual deterrent preventing people from thinking that running red lights is ok. (Yes, there *are* people that think it is ok) Since the cops won't pull you over unless they just happen to be at the intersection when it happens (and on-duty), these cameras provide at least a small punishment for breaking the law. (Ignoring the contested situations). Honestly, if I ever do get into the situation where I get caught with an automatic camera running a red light or with a speeder camera, my first response would be along the lines: "I'm glad it wasn't a cop". (Cop means moving violation, which means higher insurance, which costs a *lot* more)

Thats fixing a problem in *entirely* the wrong way. That 'solution' is basically assuming the problem is with the cameras, and not the officials who modify the lights.

Look at it by changing the actions: Lets say I want to take out the garbage by foot. When I take out the garbage, I might get shot/mugged/something unpleasant. Because this bad thing might happen, I should not take out the garbage.

As you can see from the above, not all the questions are answered. Do I live in a dangerous area? Is my next door neighbor a crazy with a shotgun? Do I have to walk 20 minutes to drop off the trash? (Lets hope not). If so, then I should find some other solution than just carrying the trash by foot. (ie, agree with the banning). If not, then I'm being unnecessarily paranoid, and we just need to watch out for the occasional mugger. (ie, don't ban cameras, just watch the lights to make sure they aren't abused)

Now, I'm sure some of you can find problems with this comparison, but I believe the gist remains. Just because some bad symptom occurs because of a change doesn't mean that this original change is bad as well.

That's less a fault of the light and more a fault of the idiots tailgating the drivers stopping.

Wow. Who would've thought that something that we've been using for so long had such a secret?
I mean... isn't that one of the few truths of the internet?
That if children get anywhere near a computer,
sexual predators spy on them through the webcams...

I also enjoy how the attorney general publicly refuted the results when he didn't like them.
I wish I could do that with things I don't want to be true.
Recession? nahh... War? No way.. thats just an exaggeration by liberal media.