My father grew up in an orphanage.
My mother grew up in a housing project.
I am college educated and own my home. Their hard work elevated us into the middle class. I have access to resources that my parents didn't and it's because they took part in the process of moving from the 'outside' to the 'inside'.
but I have to say that coaches like Belichick are the reason why the NFL feels the need to take such precautions. If they didn't, some coach would get the idea to use spotters and/or directional mics to eavesdrop on opposing teams and send the information to the coach, who would then relay it to the men on the field.
No it's not, because everbody KNOWS the first one really means the second one.
No, everyone doesn't know that because it's not true.
The term for that is 'dog whistles' - when you say words that incite violence and disguise it *just enough* that you'll be hard to convict in a court while making damn sure nobody is mistaken about what you meant.
Most of us understand what dog whistles are and people of all political persuasions make use of them. If the words do not directly convey the message, you're talking about Thought Crime. I'm not willing to go down that road and fortunately, I still have the right to vote based on that position.
Besides which - pain is not the issue, actual neural scarring is. Which has been proven to be a potential consequence from a pattern of abusive words.
If you still believe that ignoring hate speech can prevent injury then you are about 30 years behind the scientific facts.
In order to hurt me with words, I would have to value one's opinion.
Even if you ignore that words themselves CAN do permanent, real, physical harm to a person - you still run into the problem that advocating violence (which is what most hate speech is under) will cause OTHERS to wield sticks and stones.
There is a clear line. Between simple speech and advocacy or inducement.
Saying "#Person is a piece of shit #Slur and I hope he dies!" is far different than saying "#Person is a piece of shit #Slur and one of us should pick up a #Weapon and blow his fucking brains out!"
You can choose to allow the former to cause you pain.
The bigger issue is that they wanted to search an opaque bag. For no reason other than they were curious. Then when it's opened, and shows cards, again, they wanted to search, for no reason other than curiosity.
Partly yes, partly no. They wanted to search an opaque bag because they were curious. They had no right to do so... until the driver handed the cops the bag and told them that it contained gift cards he had purchased for cash off another individual, giving them (i) reasonable articulable suspicion that these were counterfeit cards, and more importantly (ii) implicit consent. It's even in the opinion:
Turner agrees that by handing the bag to the officer in response to his question about its contents, Henderson consented to the officer’s initial seizure of, and look inside, the bag.
At that point, the cops can most certainly open the bag, see the cards and, per (i) above, check if they were counterfeit.
If the driver said, "I don't consent to any searches" and shut up, they wouldn't have either (i) or (ii).
Sticks and stones being wielded by people in order to assault and injure? That act is illegal. Not the sticks and stones themselves, but the act of wielding them in such a way.
If ignoring the sticks and stones could prevent injury, it wouldn't be necessary to do anything about them.
There's no verification. Enter any email address you want.
Thus, to have Judge Haldane Mayer do an about-face on Software Patents is Huuuge, in part because of the influence the Federal Court of Appeals has on lower courts, but mostly since it shows that learning can take place at that level, when presented with cogent arguments.
Perhaps there is hope, after all.
It certainly is a good sign. The Alice ruling is key since it provides him with a basis for his opinion and the Appeals Court can use the SCOTUS decision and clarify and extend the boundaries of what is not patentable. Ultimately SCOTUS may have to weigh in on the boundaries established by the Appeals Court and say yay or nay. Which wold be good since there would be more clarity around patent law.
Not if they do it in the way Thomas did in Alice Corp.: "In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the "abstract ideas" category in this case."
"We know it when we see it" is not good law.
Any half-assed hacker can reverse engineer your code
Reverse engineering is, in fact, one of the hardest forms of engineering and projects that reverse engineer are generally filled with some of the smartest brains we have- because it's very hard. You think the wine devs are idiots ? Yet it took them more than decade to get out of alpha !
Part of that, mind you, was because they had little to no money and were working part time. How do you think Zynga cranks out their own versions of whatever the hot new game on the App store is in two weeks? Because they've got a team of a dozen full-time paid programmers reverse engineering the code.
Perhaps OP's hyperbole should be toned down to "any company with sufficient resources and motivation can reverse engineer your code," which, I'm sure you'll agree, is true.
>He can then replicate your software in 1/10th the time it took you to develop your software
If what my software does is so simple that somebody can replicate it in 1/10th the time it took me to do it - then he's the better programmer and he deserves to win in the market place. My best defense, in fact, is to use a free software license in the first place - so it's to his benefit to rather add his features to *my* product where we can both profit than to go and create his own.
Use a free license so you can both profit? What are you going to do, make it up in volume? \_()_/
Your best defense is a patent, though you may not like them for various moral reasons. Regardless of legitimate complaints about patent abuse and patent trolling, patents are useful when a giant company swoops in and blatantly steals a feature from a small company and says, "what are you going to do, sue us?" Microsoft learned that from lesson from i4i.
You must be truly incompetent as a programmer if you are *this* afraid to compete on the merits of your product - that even with a first-to-market advantage you are this convinced any "half-assed-hacker" can make something better than you did...
Or OP's a competent programmer, but in an industry that lacks proprietary format lock-in and where the market is quick and fickle. Like, say, mobile games. NimbleBit certainly weren't incompetent programmers, but their first-to-market advantage didn't help them against Zynga's giant cross-marketing arm. Nor did Liam Bowmers, creator of Castle Clout, see a dime for Angry Birds.
As noted above, a company with the resources to devote can reverse engineer your product within a couple weeks. More difficult product that you've been working on for years to solve problems? They'll just hire more engineers. Your first to market advantage is going to be negligible, because your head start will be tiny, and they can spend lots of money on marketing, since they don't have to pay people for years to solve the problems you did when they can just take your solution.
exactly the the reason patents exist
No. That is not at all why patents exist. The reason patents exist is right there in the law. To promote open disclosure of how an invention works. Quite the opposite of what you think - it's to make sure you will have MORE competitors than you otherwise would. The reward for letting the world copy your invention, is having a brief time where nobody is allowed to.
Here, we're in agreement. The point of patents is to encourage people to give up trade secrets. Otherwise, we would end up with crappy proprietary format lock-in, intrusive DRM, and highly restrictive licenses like the one AutoCAD uses to keep people from selling older copies of their software.
One of the major problems with software patents it the absolute lack of disclosure actually - I've yet to read a software patent include full source for an implementation of the idea - and nothing less than a working source implementation can count as 'blueprints' for a software program.
I would agree, except that I'd say flow charts and pseudocode should be sufficient as blueprints. I'd also point out that, once a patent application has been filed for, an inventor is free to release white papers, functional specifications, source code, etc., without losing any rights. The original patent for Brunelleschi's merchant boat didn't include any details in the patent - it did, however, include a legal requirement that he was to separately teach everyone how to build it. Patents in many ways are like land deeds - they're written in formal language to sketch out the boundaries of a claimed invention - but you wouldn't rely on the land deed to build a house.
That said, the patent office and courts could be much better at enforcing the written disclosure requirements.
Hey it's first-to-file - who gives a fuck that she died after spending 50 years 'inventing' romance novels before I got the patent right ?
First to file didn't change anything about rules of inventorship. It simply changed the case where two inventors independently create the same thing at the same time and both file identical patents. Know how rare that is? There were about 20 interferences per year, out of half a million patent applications. And they cost hundreds of thousands to resolve. First to file simply reduces that to a black and white decision, rather than a trial.
That would be mathematics. Which is, in fact, a language - and unpatentable all by itself anyway. You may want to study computing theory - if you think software is anything but NOT pure and unadulterated mathematics on every level it's because you don't actually know what software is. Only what we try very hard to make it pretend to be.
Machines can be easily abstracted to pure and unadulterated mathematics, too, but no one would say a transmission is unpatentable because you can describe it in gear ratios.
Pure software is unpatentable. Software implemented by a machine, however, is no longer just mathematics - like the transmission, it's a bunch of interconnected parts configured to produce a particular result.
No, 'technology' consists of real, physical things - machines and devices. Processing steps - a completely abstract set of ideas is not and has never been patentable, software was an abberation in this regard - and the Alice verdict was basically the supreme court telling you just that.
35 USC 101 defines patent eligible subject matter, and uses the term "process", which is a set of steps. Processes have always been patentable in this country, and the Supreme Court certainly did not say they weren't or that software wasn't patentable in Alice Corp. They said that some attempts to claim processes were too abstract (and Alice wasn't on software anyway, but double book accounting). In fact, the word "software" doesn't appear even once in the Alice decision. And a bunch of software has been patented since, and the Supreme Court just denied appeals from a bunch of patent eligibility cases, confirming patentability of software in some of them.
Alice Corp involved a terrible patent. But that doesn't mean that by invalidating it, the Supreme Court threw out all patents.
So what are you ? Patent lawyer ? Patent troll ? Since those are the *only* people who have ever benefited from software patents. No programmer has ever found them anything but a massive risk. No programmer has ever benefited from them. Many have been bankrupted by them - but it wasn't usually other programmers bankrupting them.
Don't know about OP, but I'm an engineer and a patent lawyer. And I've got many clients who rely on patents to protect their businesses. Maybe some programmer in a cubicle working for them might think patents have no value... but if that programmer's work could be easily copied by every competitor, then the programmer has no value to the company.
If we used a graphical flowchart based system to describe software You may actually get a little closer to at least properly disclosing the invention - it wouldn't solve the other problems. Oh and graphical flowcharts used to be the standard way we designed software until not so long ago. We ditched them because they don't work very well - especially for stuff like parallel execution where you could have dozens of lines on the chart all being followed at once...
Every patent application on software includes at least one flow chart. Problem is that the patent office just said "include a flow chart, and you're okay", rather than "include a detailed flow chart that you could hand to a programmer and say 'build this'," which is what they should have said, under 35 USC 112. As I said above, we agree that the disclosure requirements aren't being sufficiently enforced.
Nope software has never been patentable and never will be. It was a massive legal fuckup to pretend they were, perpetrated by a court of people who - whatever their merits as judges - were idiots at technology who could barely tell the difference between software and magic - let alone fairly adjudicate whether this is patentable technology or not. Because courts and legal systems are slow beasts, and precedent is a thing - it took decades for judges to start figuring out they had made a mistake and finally start fixing it.
Hundreds of what you'd call software patents are being issued every day, and judges are upholding them. I think you're going to have to eat that "never has been and never will be" statement.
Incidentally, your arguments are nothing new. Every new industry throughout history has complained about patents - people said that automobile patents shouldn't exist, aerospace patents shouldn't exist, textile patents shouldn't exist, small molecule pharmaceutical patents shouldn't exist, etc.. This has all been done before, and will be done again.
And how much solar power do they generate when covered by snow/ice? Your objection is short sighted...
My objection is about it taking more power to keep them clear than they could generate.
If they generate 48 watts per panel, but are drawing 150 watts to run the heating elements, they're losing 102 watts the whole time the heating elements are on.
Maybe they have figured out some way to require far less power per square foot to melt snow/ice on a flat surface than the roof heating systems I looked at for reference, but they'd have to be down below 10 watts per square foot to break even under ideal conditions. That is not much heat at all, and as others have pointed out in the sort of conditions where you'd need the heaters running the weather tends to not be anywhere close to ideal for solar so the chances you'd even get 48 watts are slim.
According to all the articles and press releases power generation is the primary purpose of these panels. They claim they'll have enough surplus to offset the energy usage of the entire town square. If they are consuming more power in an hour than they could generate in three, just to keep them able to generate power, that doesn't make a bit of sense.
Now if they were hyping this as an interactive LED sidewalk that's heated to stay clear on its own in winter, and it also happens to generate some solar power, that'd be an entirely different thing. That's not what they're doing though.
From a distance he couldn't tell whether the car was driving itself, or its human operator had made a mistake. Stachelek took out his phone in time to shoot a brief video of Uber's vehicle backing up and driving away, then uploaded it to Facebook. "Driverless car went down a one way the wrong way," he wrote. "Driver had to turn car around."
Well, was it driverless or did it have a driver? If it had a driver, was the driver in control? Which would make it just a funny looking car and a confused human operator?
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.