Comment Re:Hard to believe (Score 1) 845
I had a moment of doubt when i had to remember which axis was vertically oriented when dealing with an x/y plot. I've been playing too many video games where x, y are compass axes, z is vertical.
I had a moment of doubt when i had to remember which axis was vertically oriented when dealing with an x/y plot. I've been playing too many video games where x, y are compass axes, z is vertical.
The SCOTUS did no such thing. In People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of a cellphone was consistent with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the CA State constitution. In other words, they interpreted a Police Procedure in light of State and Federal Constitutions. There was no statute involved.
In saying the SCOTUS 'let stand' that decision, this merely means that they chose not to grant certiorari. This is not affirming the decision, this is not striking down something similar, this is merely REFUSING to consider the question to begin with. There are numerous reasons the Court might do this: First, the issue involved a matter of State constitutional interpretation - a matter best left to individual states. This is because the California State Constitution recognizes more privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution. Second, the SCOTUS may be waiting for more opinions from other courts before they take on the issue. The search of cellphones is still relatively immature across the states and circuits. Third, alternately, the facts of Diaz may be unambiguous under federal protections, rendering intervention unnecessary.
OP is correct that Gov. Brown has this exactly backwards. A bill requiring heightened protections for cell phones does nothing to "overturn" the Cal. Sup. court's decision, as it does not change the way the court applies and interprets Constitutional protections. It instead, by legislative powers, creates a circumstance under which the State may provide more protections than the Constitution requires. This is explicitly and unambiguously allowed under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A State may ALWAYS choose to provide more protections than the Constitution requires, it simply may not provide less.
I don't know how you did it, but you seem to have forgotten about this device called the iPod. Yeah, it brought PMPs to the mainstream. Apple sold a metric butt-load of them and made a mint in the process. Oh yeah, they also created an iTunes store, sold over 10,000,000,000 songs and other related media, and now sells more music than anyone else on the planet, including Walmart.
iOS and iPhone didn't save Apple, it catapulted them from ludicrously successful to can't-talk-I'm-having-too-many-orgasms-all-the-time successful.
It's not Carly Fiorina coming in and fucking up HP for a few years and leaving - Steve Jobs started the company, worked there ~10 years, left for a few, then came back and was CEO for 14 more. No other CEO on the planet is so closely associated with their company. As a pillar of the tech industry, his input drove the state of the art forward. It is a loss for the tech world when any big name leaves for good. By the way, this website is called Slashdot, and its a place for "News for Nerds," you know, people who generally care about technology.
Good thing that's not the standard for obviousness.
The standard is that the patent would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art (here, the art is product design of some kind).
Even if you could prove your "one out of any 10 geeks" assertion, which you absolutely can't, it would be of no weight in determining obviousness.
You do realize that Apple reduced the price of the upgrade by 75% while moving to App Store distribution, right? I'm not crazy about distributing a new OS over the App Store, but keep in mind Apple could have *EASILY* charged $129 for Lion and people would have paid for it.
Also, pressing one DVD may cost pennies, but the screen printing costs several times that. Add in mastering costs, packaging, manufacturing, distribution, retail, suddenly you have half a dozen vertical chains to organize. That doesn't cost pennies.
The display capabilities, strain, and technology for consumer-grade LCDs still provides for a vastly inferior reading experience than ordinary quality print media. I can read paper faster, annotate faster, and save my eyes strain and effort, and save myself time by simply printing documents out. I read thousands of pages of documents for a grad school, and I will print out anything around 10,000 words, and anything I need for personal research because I'll be reading it 3-5x. I can't imagine why you'd think current LCD technology solves these issues.
The statute language is inclusive of any "communication," so you do not need to re-package as an image. Your post is sufficient under the text of the law.
He needs to describe with sufficient detail how one of ordinary skill in the art can practice godly powers.
But what is "one of ordinary skill", and what "art" is this? Is it the art of being godly? One must be practiced in the art to say that it is not enabled.
Personally I would have gone with non-patentable subject matter under Chakrabarty, since "godly powers" are by definition not "made by man."
His "impressive" intelligence is more than negated by his actions.
The drivel he spews on Fox News makes him a party-line hack, nothing more. The smartest guy in the room needs to lead by reason and logic, not repeat tired, inflammatory lies. When I saw a clip of him discussing the Citizens United case, I thought, "ok, your legal analysis is crap. I can excuse that because you are not a lawyer (despite being a legislator), but please stop repeating tired lies."
Anyrate, as smart as Newt may be, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that he's more intelligent than Obama. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. What matters is how good of a politician you are. George W, Regan, both idiots who were extremely successful at playing the political game.
Team Newt is driving hard to brand Newt as the "intellectual" candidate. I heard a GOP analyst discussing candidates on the radio when an obvious shill called in, repeating the analysts talking points on Newt verbatim. It was shameless...
The GOPs recent and continuing anti-science, anti-education stance is beyond appalling. Coming from the Party of Ignorance, he needs to tend to his own garden before he gets cred for recommending Feynman on Amazon.
It looks like this is the Declaration the court considered in evaluating the original machines and the proposed replacements:
Judge Ware is actually a well respected judge of the N.Dist. CA for good reasons. I don't know if he just "doesn't get the tech", but having also resided over San Jose, his docket has been filled with technology-related cases for years. I really dislike this ruling, and I'd like to research into the subject more (can't right now due to finals), but my experience based on direct knowledge is that Ware is a good judge. Nothing will happen to him due to judicial immunity, and his track record being better than most.
My gut feeling is that the remedy became framed in a way that made possible settlements really limited, or possibly plaintiff's counsel threw the class under the bus.
It's about both. Class action as a mechanism is designed for mass tort cases where the individual award would be too small to make individual litigation practicable. There are plenty of examples of class action making individuals whole, particularly in state courts where additional rules often apply in terms of acceptable remedies. Sometimes class action settlements do come out horribly shit. However, your ignorance and cynicism doesn't change reality, or the policy lying behind class action.
Here's a better analogy, actually a straight-up example. DRAM manufacturers collude to raise the price of DIMMs for several years, resulting in raised consumer prices. This violates antitrust and unfair business practices in the U.S. Lawyers get together and file a class action suit on behalf of all individuals who purchased DRAM during the time of the price-fixing. The settlement is a check for some nominal fee, $7-15. This amount, on average, compensates individuals for what they paid at retail over what RAM prices likely would have been without the price fixing.
But the degree of toxicity of water, with for example, cyanide, are entirely different matters. With water, it's your body's failure to maintain ionic balance in the presence of too much water, causing ionic functions within the body to fail. And, yes, that gets circular, but I feel like there is a distinction that is rather significant. Consider, by comparison cyanide, which interferes with the functioning of hemoglobin in cells, to prevent oxygenation of cells. Cyanide does it's thing under all cases. A little bit of cyanide will inhibit a little bit of cells, kills a little bit of tissue. A lot of cyanide inhibits a lot of cells, kills a lot of tissue. There's no natural bodily function that uses cyanide. It's always toxic.
Now, consider water. It's in every cell of your body. It's used in many metabolic processes, carries ions and materials around, it's used to excrete waste. It's tied to nearly every bodily function (every one I can think of). We're designed to drink it, and we're designed to tolerate a certain balance of water at all times. Too much water will kill you, but too little water is also fatal. I know that hyponatremia is called "water intoxication" and all, but referring to water as toxic does more to destroy the meaning of "toxic" than it does to shed light on the nature of "water."
It's like saying kissing someone on the cheek too vigorously will crush their skull, therefore kissing is toxic. I'm not a medical professional, and this is just how I feel about it.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
