Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What poetry is this? (Score 1) 183

Or flip the view:
A towering bank undercut by a small church.


In the intersection between religion and the modern world
Religion razes grandeur to the ground for 20 pieces of silver.
In the intersection between religion and the modern world
Religion refuses to budge from barren historical ground.
In the intersection between religion and the modern world
A towering bank undercut by a small church nearly kills us.


Comment Re:The difference... (Score 1) 140

>The video starts with the patrons already attacking the Glasshole, so no, she started filming them after she was attacked.

Unless she easily clipped out the inital part of the filming that would have made her look bad.

Unlikely. The video is exactly 10 seconds long, which is the default recording length for Glass. Now, is it possible she recorded for minutes and cut it to exactly 10 seconds? And those were the particular 10 seconds where she told them she was filming, rather than saying it during any other time during the recording? Sure... But Occam's Razor would tend to disagree.

Comment Re:The difference... (Score 1) 140

It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked?

I seem to remember that the problem was some patron was aggressively annoyed that the glass-user might be filming them so the glass-users response was to start filming them. The problem was bery much idiots in that case.

The video starts with the patrons already attacking the Glasshole, so no, she started filming them after she was attacked. And frankly, filming people committing a crime is quite a reasonable response.

That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

No, they are qualatatively different. The cameras go on a loop, old data is discarded...

Unless you own the bar, you don't know that for sure.

... and no one looks at it unless something happens. Most of it is forgotten, not uploaded to a company which rather creepily claimed to want go right up to the border of being creepy (Schmidt's words, not mine), or be plasteres on the persons blog in perpetuity.

That's also true for most people's blogs - no one looks at them unless something happens like, say, some idiot attacks the person with the camera and blog.

Taking a photo (with the flash off) can look exactly like the person is texting.

If you're taking a picture of the floor, or a selfie from a very strange angle, then sure. To take a photograph of anything interesting, you need to hold the phone up and that's obvious.

Here is literally the first result for a Google Image Search for "people texting". The three on the left are indistinguishable from people taking pictures. Flip through that search and I'd say about half of the photos have people holding their phone up in front of their faces. Point being that while some people text while holding their phone down at their waist, apparently just as many do it while holding the phone up to their eyes.

Comment Re:Cameras embedded in contact lenses (Score 1) 140

So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it if I write it up in a thoughtful way and define specific details that are only hinted at in the work of fiction? Ex: Contact lenses with cameras aren't new, but maybe nobody ever described how the camera tracks eye movement to adjust the image or focus. Does including such detail make it patentable?

Fiction novels are relevant prior art that can be used to reject a patent application, but can only be used for the material they teach. H.G. Wells' story describes traveling to the moon by cannon: accordingly, it would invalidate a patent claim that recited "A method for traveling to the moon, comprising: being fired at the moon by a giant cannon." But it wouldn't invalidate a patent claim to, say, the space shuttle's main engines; or a method of calculating Lagrange points; or the timing sequence for your multi-engine startup system, etc.

Similarly, a fiction novel that says that contact lenses can include cameras would invalidate a patent claim that recited "A contact lens, comprising: a lens; and a camera attached to the lens, configured to take a picture when the user blinks twice" or something similar. It wouldn't invalidate a patent that claims how you make optically transparent CCDs, or determining proper focus based on relative distance to a second lens, or determining that a blink or sneeze is not actually a picture-taking command. The patent claim would have to include additional limitations that were not described in the fiction story.

Comment Re:The difference... (Score 1) 140

The thing is glass isn't covert, so clearly the covertness isn't the problem. The problem is that people get irritated when people are casually pointing cameras at them the whole time. They're not interesting enough to be targeted so that's not the problem, the problem is the casualness of the thing.

It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked? That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

Not the problem with cell phones since its an effort to take photos and obvious when it's happening.

Taking a photo (with the flash off) can look exactly like the person is texting.

It's the causalness where people wind up being photographed and catalogued by one of the world's largest companies where previously there wasa uninteresting enough to be anonymous that bothers people.

This is the real issue... Glass costs $1500, and many of the people wearing them are in places with huge economic inequality, like SF or NYC, where gentrification and high rents are pushing out people who have lived there for decades. It's not "there's a camera pointed at me", because there's that security camera pointed at you already. Instead, it's "that rich hipster 'entrepreneur' douchebag is pointing a camera at me, and he's supported by a multi-billion dollar company, and where does he get off coming into my neighbor and replacing my cheap pizza joint with his gastropub, and demanding free parking in charger spots for his Tesla? He wants to be Glassed? Well, I'll show him a glass to his face."

It's the same sentiment behind people attacking the Google busses, or the the SF cops that arrested and held a guy in solitary confinement with no charges after finding out that he was a startup founder.

Comment Re:Appeal to authority is not good enough (Score 1) 588

if 100% of vaccines are 100% safe

There is no if. There is no 100%.
"If" is anti-vaxism.
"100%" is antivaxism.

Real world data from a multitude of studies by a multitude of independent professionals show that vaccines are something like a hundred or a thousand times safer than any random food item.
There is no "if" there. There is no "100%" there. Vaccines are safer than food.

ad hominem attacks

Ad hominem means "against the person". More specifically, an ad hominem attack is an argument that someone's statement is false, or should be ignored, because the person is bad.

When the argument is "don't listen to her, she's a nasty ugly bitch", that's ad hominem.

When the argument is "she's repeating stuff that was shown to be fraudulent research, and her claims have been exhaustively proven false, therefore she is wrong" is not ad hominem.

Proving her wrong, and then concluding she's a bad person because she's wrong, is not ad hominem.

Getting angry at her after she is proven wrong is not ad hominem.

Throwing gratuitous insults at her, after she is proven wrong, calling her an ugly bitch or whatever, after she is proven wrong, is not ad hominem. Gratuitous insults certainly add nothing to a debate, BUT THERE'S NO DEBATE HERE. On one side you have data and science and evidence, and on the other side you have an irrational social movement - fear based on a fraud all flying around a rumor mill of conspiracy theories and ignorance. "Don't take your child for their routine medical checkup, I heard the doctor is a pedophile! Don't take your child to any doctor for a routine medical checkup, you don't want to risk that doctor is part of the vast secret pedophile-ring that I hear is running the American Medical Association".

Heck even the huge Wakefield thing was handled like someone who was trying to cover up bad behavior.

Your description of events is rather inaccurate.

Wakefield was being directly paid to do his "research" by a lawyer looking to file a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.
Wakefield drew up a business plan, with figures for how many tens of millions of dollars a year could be brought in by marketing a competing vaccine
Wakefield established a contract with the medical school where he was working, requiring them to conceal the source of his funding, prohibiting them from disclosing his involvement with a pharmaceutical company.
Walkfeild established a contract with that pharmaceutical company requiring his involvement to be kept secret - secret specifically until he would be able to cash out on stock options.
Wakefield preformed "research" which, on later investigation, was found to be entirely fraudulent.
In order to publish his research the Journal REQUIRED the disclosure of things like the source of his funding and relevant business plans or involvement with pharmaceutical companies. In order to get his fraudulent study published in the Journal he fraudulently denied the existence of any financial conflicts of interest.
Countless legitimate scientists, a ton of valuable medical research money and research resources, were all WASTED trying to replicate the fraudulent Wakefield paper. It resulted in massive confirmation that the original claims were fictional and that vaccines were extremely safe. And then the specific investigation revealing exactly how Wakefield's original work was fraudulent.

And if things had ended there, all of this would be a pretty insignificant non-story. But things didn't end there.

We got a melting-pot that took on a life of it's own. We got the news media hyping an insignificant "research study" based on an insignificant patient sample, a paper which had not yet been confirmed (and which would turn out to be fraudulent). And in the melting pot we got parents of autistic children DESPERATE for any explanation why their kids have autism. And in the melting pot we got the kooks whom no one usually listens to.... the ones who spin conspiracy theories about vaccinations being some evil government plot... kooks who latched on to vaccine news stories to sound credible while they spew random scary paranoia-generated vax-nonsense into the mix. And then some famous idiot like Jenny McCarthy picks up the banner and tells millions of uninformed parents how scary and dangerous vaccines are while saying how any good parent would eagerly choose measles over autism. Which is a load of crap. It is a completely fraudulent implication that choosing to vaccinate is a choice about autism. It is a fraudulent and DEADLY implication that a parent who vaccinates is a bad parent risking giving their child autism.

What is the pro-vaccine response? To tell people they are stupid murderers

You kinda skipped a few steps in your story. In particular you skipped the step WHERE CHILDREN STARTED DYING.
And we're not even talking about anti-vaxxers killing their own children, which would be bad enough. We're talking about anti-vaxxers killing other people's children. We're talking about actual disease outbreaks among anti-vaxxers, who then infect someone else's 1 month old infant. You can't vaccinate a 1 month old baby, their immune system isn't developed enough yet and the vaccine isn't effective yet. We're talking actual infant corpse, dead of vaccine-preventable-disease. Not to mention any cases resulting in brain damage, deafness, blindness, infertility, or other sever complications.

But, I guess you're right..... it's not literally murder by the legal definition. Perhaps manslaughter would be a more appropriate term? Reckless endangerment and disregard for life resulting in someone's death. I'm only half joking there. There are severe problems with trying to make people criminally liable for something like that, but they sure as hell are morally responsible. People DIE from this antivax bullshit. Antivaxxers are morally culpable for causing deaths or catastrophic injury to innocent bystanders, including other people's vulnerable infants.

There's good reason that smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella were targeted for world vaccination. We've had a generation of people growing up in a world essentially free of these diseases, and people are blissfully unaware of just how painful, horrific, or fatal the outcome can be for a percentage of the people who contract them.

three shots seperatly

You mean 6 shots. The triple vaccine is 2 shots, giving them separately requires 6 shots.

First, lets just rationally examine the merits of that plan.
We have thirty years record of probably a billion+ people and a gargantuan body of research establishing the triple vaccine is extremely safe and and highly effective. We have only limited study and limited track record on the safety and efficacy of a 6 shot program, and essentially zero basis on the ordering or timing of such a program.

What we do have is an extensive record that vaccination programs suffer skyrocketing failure rates as the number of doctor visits and injections increases. Whether it is due to poverty, apathy, forgetfulness, children begging their parents to avoid the needle, or whatever, vaccinations programs fall into catastrophic collapse because too much of the population fail to reach each increasing doctor visit or injection.

Some children aren't bothered by needles while others escalate the fear and pain to almost traumatic levels, but in any case it's hardly in the child's best interest to subject them to it three times more than necessary.

It's certainly not in the child's best interest to subject them to three times as much pain, three times as much bleeding, three times as much risk of infection from the puncture. And while the risk of adverse reaction is negligible... vastly lower than the risk of adverse reaction of eating a banana or any other food... it's still contrary to the child's interest to multiply the risk of an adverse reaction.

Splitting vaccination into 6 shots leaves the children vulnerable to two-out-of-three diseases during the delay period. (What delay period anyway? A day? A week? A month? 6 months? A year? There's no answer on that because this is all a vacuous hear-say "fix" for an urban legend nonexistent problem.)

The only "other side of the argument" is parents who are going to harm their children out of fear of an urban legend. Given a choice between harming children by not vaccinating them at all, or harming children with an untested regimen involving three times the pain and three times the skin punctures and multiplied risk of adverse reaction, well...... an untested vaccination regimen with a multiplied suffering and multiplied negligible-risk is vastly better than the dangers of going unvaccinated.

As for single vaccines they are around, although it seems that for one of the three diseases the most effective version is only available from Merck and only in the triple vaccine. The others are known to be less effective and aren't approved in all countries. I guess it would be a good thing if Merck offered all three as single vaccines if it would reduce the harm being done by vax-paranoid parents. And if Merck doesn't want to do that, well every country has health-and-public-safety clauses to their intellectual property laws and they could take the extremely extraordinary step of issuing an exemption allowing other companies to manufacture single vaccines. Or counties could just plain invoke health and public safety and make the triple vaccine mandatory, and simply ignore the anti-vax nonsense the same way we ignore the fluoridation paranoid conspiracy theory nutters.

It is like my wife coming home and finding a womans jacket that does not belong to her.

No, someone TOLD your wife that there was a woman's jacket.

And after that person was shown to be LYING about it, your wife just spiraled deeper into paranoid jealousy and started following an internet psychic who tells her details about the (fictional) woman you're sleeping with. And then your wife kidnaps the kids and takes them to hide out in cabin in the woods, refusing to take the kids for regular checkups at the doctor because she's afraid you and the (fictional) woman you're sleeping with are planning to sue for sole custody of the kids.


Comment Watch Dogs Tablet App... (Score 3, Informative) 43

Rather than bribing journalists, it may also have to do with the Watch Dogs tablet/smartphone offline game play features:

This time, however, the demo concluded with a demonstration of a real-time iPad app that supports a kind of meta-game - much in the manner of Microsoft's Xbox SmartGlass.

Here players were presented with a wireframe map of futuristic Chicago, drawn in a similar style to the one that used in the press conference demo. The map can be scrolled and zoomed, with pop-up boxes and icons providing real-time information about the game in progress.

"As we said, everything is connected - and we've extended that to mobile devices," said the Ubisoft demonstrator. "We have Chicago in the palm of your hand. Everything that you've seen in the game will be accessible, so different shops - pharmacies, gun shops - will also be available here. You can see everything."

Comment Re:The Slide-to-Unlock Claim, for reference (Score 1) 408

Right, I can't imagine unlocking a phone would be difficult to find.

Exactly, now you've got it. Once you've got a combination of prior art references that teach or suggest each and every element in the claims, you've got a solid argument that the patent is obvious and therefore invalid.

Comment Re:The Slide-to-Unlock Claim, for reference (Score 1) 408

Then prove it. To show that something is obvious at the time the video was made, having admitted that the video doesn't show continuous movement, all you need is another reference from the same era that does.

There's plenty, like this one which clearly shows continuous movement dragging a UI element. (see ~5 minute mark)

See? Very simple process... Now, you just combine that video and this one and argue that together they teach or suggest each and every element of the patent claim, and therefore, the claim is invalid as obvious.

Mind you, you still need to find a third reference for the unlocking, but that can't be that hard either, right?

Comment Re:The Slide-to-Unlock Claim, for reference (Score 1) 408

Now, all along, I've been saying one thing: this is new in view of the video

If you take the video in isolation, yes. But who the hell is doing that? Nobody is arguing that this video alone - irrespective of anything else - is sufficient to disprove Apple's claim. Why would you even point out non-continuous movement?

Maybe you missed most of the other threads here, but yes, many people are saying that this video is enough to disprove Apple's claim. That's why I pointed out non-continuous movement. And as to why you would do that, it's the relevant test under 35 USC 102.

Meanwhile you've been saying "Apple's claim and this video aren't identical, i see 3 frames and can't see any correlation between that and animation of continuous movement", well no shit, nobody ever said they were and nobody is attempting to take this video in isolation to prove or disprove anything. Non-continous movement when dragging a UI element is a side-effect of the technology available at the time the video was made, it is obvious so it is irrelevant.

Then prove it. To show that something is obvious at the time the video was made, having admitted that the video doesn't show continuous movement, all you need is another reference from the same era that does. That is the test for obviousness under 35 USC 103: if a combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element in the patent claim, then it's per se obvious.

But here, I was assuming you would say "no, it is obvious". That's the no.

Yet they got the patent.

No one has found the other references yet. Why, I don't know. Probably because they're too busy arguing that this is so mind-numbingly obvious that they don't need to fulfill the requirements of due process.

Comment Re:The Slide-to-Unlock Claim, for reference (Score 1) 408

We have a Boolean AND. One input is yes. The other input is no. What's the output?

Why are you making the assumption that the other input is no? I would think the addition of "unlock" on a slider control is pretty obvious, in fact given that almost every real-world representation of such a control does exactly that it is extremely obvious.

Because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that wasn't clear. The "yes" is "does it pass the test"? Let me try again:

Once more: there are two separate and independent tests (there are really more, but you're already way too confused): (i) novelty, AND (ii) nonobviousness.

We clear? It's a Boolean AND. You have to pass both to get a patent.

Continuing: if you take existing art and add one thing to it, then it's novel.

Stopping there - if you add something to the claim that's not in the prior art, then it's novel, and therefore passes the test under 35 USC 102 and therefore has novelty: "Yes, it passes the first test." That's your first yes.

Continuing, we then ask what the value of the other input to the Boolean AND is: does the claim include something not taught or suggested by any prior art reference? If so, then it's not obvious and passes the test under 35 USC 103

But here, I was assuming you would say "no, it is obvious". That's the no.

Now, what happens when you have a Boolean AND and the inputs are "Yes" and "No"? What's the output?

>But the thing you have continually ignored is that even if you prove it to be novel and non-obvious it is still just an idea and you cannot patent an idea, you can only patent the implementation of an idea. That's the whole point of a patent, to protect a particular implementation, arguing over whether an idea is novel and non-obvious is pointless because it's just an idea.

That's an entirely different question and statute - 35 USC 101, specifically. And in reality, it's a 4-way Boolean AND - you have to pass 101, 102, 103, and 112. If any of those result in a "no", you fail to get the patent. Clear? That's how AND gates work. Now, all along, I've been saying one thing: this is new in view of the video - one input to the gate is "yes". Clear now? For some reason, you've been turning that into "you're saying this is revolutionary and Steve Jobs should get the Nobel prize and be made Emperor of all tech and that's crazy and the patent system is broken and you're stupid and I like turtles!" No. It's simply "new", full stop. Whether it passes any of the other required tests and therefore is a valid patent is an entirely different question - three different questions, in fact.

Comment Re:The Slide-to-Unlock Claim, for reference (Score 1) 408

OMG. How many times do I have to repeat this? "New" and "non-obvious" are different and distinct requirements.

Yes sorry that should've been or, not and.

I am not arguing that it is "non-obvious". I'm arguing something very, very, very simple: the patent claims X. The prior art video does not show X.

This is what I'm trying to determine, so you can take existing art, add one thing to it then it's patentable? Doesn't that sound a little silly to you? Like I said from the start I'm not saying you're wrong by the legal definition, I'm saying the patent system is royally screwed up if all you need to do is tack something on the end of something existing and it's a patentable "invention".

Yes, that would be incredibly idiotic if it were true. IT'S NOT TRUE.

Once more: there are two separate and independent tests (there are really more, but you're already way too confused): (i) novelty, AND (ii) nonobviousness.

We clear? It's a Boolean AND. You have to pass both to get a patent.

Continuing: if you take existing art and add one thing to it, then it's novel. Now, does that automatically mean it's patentable?
You tell me: We have a Boolean AND. One input is yes. The other input is no. What's the output?

If you think it's yes, then we have to have a whole 'nother discussion before we talk about whether the patent system is screwed up.

Comment Re:Yeah, maybe not now (Score 1) 588

It seems there's a portion of the population that will compulsively latch onto hear-say and pseudoscience nonsense and conspiracy theories, no matter what we do. Maybe we should just accept that. Just deal with it and make the best of things.

I've got this totally scientific evidence that autism is caused by the ink in lottery tickets. The ink doesn't affect adults, but the chemicals stick to your fingers. Then when you touch your kids the chemicals get absorbed through their skin and disrupt their developing brains. My kid was perfectly healthy one morning, and at a routine checkup that afternoon my child was diagnosed with autism! And the only thing that happened in between was that I bought lottery tickets and hugged by child! You can't imagine how devastating that is to a parent, unless of course you're a parent who bought a lottery ticket and immediately had their child diagnosed with autism.

Have the so-called "scientists" tested the lottery ticket ink? HELL NO! The government rakes in millions of dollars on lottery tickets! Scientists all want grant money (our money taken in taxes!) to do their research. And is the government going to give them money if the government doesn't like the results of that research! OF COURSE the scientists are going to be biased and tow the government line.

I am not anti-lottery-tickets.
I just want to reduce the ink and reduce the toxins. Lottery tickets are fine when the government proves that that new ink ensures no children will get autism.
If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want their kid to have autism, or whether they'd choose to pass up on a lousy lottery ticket, well duh they'll pass up on the lousy lottery ticket.

What parent would ever knowingly risk giving their child autism? It's unthinkable! It's just not worth the risk.


Slashdot Top Deals

What hath Bob wrought?