268 posts • joined Thursday 4th November 2010 14:14 GMT
They've got their business model wrong, obviously: They need to look at how they can provide the light to their target users at a price those people can afford. Perhaps selling it to the more wealthy countries (I can see uses for it in camp sites and trail shelters, for example, where there is no mains power), then use that money to subsidise sales to the poorer nations? Sure someone's thought of this before - with a wind up radio...
Re: Throw the book at her.
You missed something: Reasonable Suspicion. Gumby might have done something wrong (he probably has), but you can't just arrest him for 'something', you need to state what and give grounds for why you suspect he is guilty. Then you have to prove your case in court, and he'd win if all you're doing is saying 'well, he's guilty of something'. After all, this isn't the Victorian era!
In the case of this woman, she was wearing the device in question. It is now for the courts to decide if she has broken the law by wearing it while driving.
And from what I've read on said law: There's no requirement for the device to be in use. So the defence of 'it wasn't switched on' isn't going to do much good. Rather, she needs to challenge if the Glass is covered by the law.
Re: Well, thanks for not descending into Randian lunacy
"I suspect we'd all have to pay a lot more tax, if it wasn't for smokers and boozers"
Correct. I believe it was Sweeden that binned the study that proved this.
" I do often wonder why tax addicted government doesn't throw some of that tax at curing the problems caused by smoking, thereby causing smokers to live longer and pay more tax."
Doesn't work like that - the study I mentioned above indicated that one boon of smokers wasn't the extra tax they generated, but that they died younger and quicker than non-smokers, so they didn't draw as much in the way of pensions, and when they fell ill, they wouldn't need as much health care.
Harsh, but if the only consideration was money then the government would be positively encouraging smoking.
Re: Why the hell...
Unlimited: Without limit. Simple definition. Check a dictionary.
If a service was unlimited, then you would connect at the speed the equipment is able to support. No ISP does that: They all offer packages that set a limit to the connection speed. For example, I'm on a 60Mbs connection but I could pay more and have that changed to 120Mbs. I'd not need new equipment for this, nor another line: A simple database change and a signal down to my router and the speed cap/limit will be changed.
So in speed terms: Unlimited isn't.
In data terms, unlimited simply means you don't have to worry about how much data you upload/download. There are mobile contracts that include data plans that limit how much data you can consume before being charged extra. Or they can apply a cap at which point they simply cut your connection off.
So no, I am not nitpicking or being rediculous: I'm pointing out (perhaps badly, granted) that the argument against Virgin applies to connection speed (throttling) when BT and other ISP's advertise unlimited service while applying connecton speed limits themselves, where as most users see Unlimited as no limits or caps on data 'consumption'.
It is all down to how you interpret 'unlimited'.
Re: 80 MPH
Check the BBC article: It states 80mph in a 65mph. I'd hope they checked.
Re: For everyone saying 'good'..
The difference between a Satnav (dashboard or HUD) and Glass is that a satnav is just that. Glass could be that, but it could also be showing Tom and Jerry cartoons for all the police knew. The same applies to smart phones, and the police take a dim view of people using smart phones while driving.
Besides, why exactly was she wearing them if they were switched off? How do the police know they were switched off while driving and hadn't been turned off when the she was pulled over? Bottom line: the police will have assumed she intended to use the glass because she was wearing it, hence the charge.
Re: Why the hell...
'Lots of other ISPs are unlimited though.'
Technically this isn't true. There is an implied limit imposed due to network speed. So if you're on a 20mbs line, then that's your limit: 20mbs. Can't go paying for a 20mbs line and expecting to get 120mbs, now can you?
Again, technically not true: You have a limited timeframe* and a limited connection speed, which means there is a cap on what you can upload/download**. These are even artificially enforced as the line might be able to handle 30Mbs or 100Mbs but you're only paying for 20Mbs so you get 20Mbs.
It all comes down to how you want to interpret 'unlimited' and 'cap', but it isn't fair to say that one service is unlimited when it admits it throttles the connection speed at times and under certain conditions while others could well be throttling their service all the time, or doing it without warning you.
If any of these ISPs were serious about fair use, they'd work out how much you'd used and refund you an amount if you had used less than x amount of the service you had paid for (much as BT were doing on some phone tarrifs).
* It's easier to work out the cap as an amount over a given time, such as a day, a week, a month or a year. The cap is generally more than you'd ever reach, but it is still there. See **
** a rough calculation puts the cap at 1,728,000 Mb a day for a 20Mbs service
*** And with that pedantry out the way, I'll go get my coat. It's at home...
Re: Cloud cuckoo land thinking...
"Call me cynical"
Okay, you're cynical.
"but why on earth would I believe an energy sector player when they tell me they are going to close gas plants by 2016?"
Because they are being told to produce less electricity from the plant, while the cost to maintain it isn't changing. If the plant's revenue drops below the cost to maintain and run it, then who pays the difference? What business on this planet would operate at such a sustained loss? That's why I'd believe the energy sector: That's what they're saying will happen, and why they will close down the generators rather than run them at a loss.
"The idea that the UK is the only country which obeys EU legislation"
No, there are others, but we are the only major player in the EU that pays more than lip service to EU law. Prime example is France, and how they conveniently forget to pay all the fines that have been levied against them. Go look it up sometime - France could bail out the rest of the EU if it ever did pay up what it owes (no chance of that, though).
"Nuclear power - great (i'm massively in favour), but how much? Those championing nuclear as a solution clearly don't have much handle on the total costs - renewable subsidies have nothing on decommissioning costs."
The cost to commission and decommission a nuclear plant is factored in and spread out over the expected lifespan of the generator. This is then balanced against the output and is used to calculate the cost of energy production from the plant. To simplify things, the 'bottom line' tends to be used, which indicates the cost of electricity from a nuclear plant is less than from wind turbines per KWh.
Wind turbines have a cost to decommission. The cost is to remove the turbine and dispose of the materials used. It's either that or they will simply be abandonned at the end of their life. I've seen nothing to confirm or deny that this cost is covered the same way as with nuclear, but again the costs is simplified into per KWh costs over the expected lifespan of the wind turbine.
"Green taxes - ... and what are those taxes used for ie supporting the poorest and energy efficiency measures".
The 'Green tax' refers to the amount we pay to subsidise wind turbines and other green energy production such as solar and tidal. This has a larger impact on industry that has to buy 'carbon certificates' to show they're 'green' (this is why you see claims of 'we use 30% renewable power' from companies - they have no idea where the electricity is comming from, but they've got carbon certificates** to cover 30% of their power consumption, so that's okay*). Over all, we, the consumer, pay more as costs rise to cover those certificates, as well as the direct cost to us of electricity.
*There is an exception: Some companies have installed solar pannels and wind turbine on their buildings to generate power locally. This increases maintenance costs of the building, but decreases electricity costs and generates the carbon certificates for the company rather than them having to buy said certificates from wind farms and other renewable power suppliers.
**Some would argue this is what renewable energy companies are there for. Any power they produce is just a byproduct.
Re: Sensible approach or is it?
""As was said this already happens with home emergency calls, so why not make it mandatory on mobiles?"
Because no one can tell if you're in, nor track your movements just because they know the address of your landline."
Really? If someone uses the land line, then someone is at that physical location unless they've sliced into that particular phone line to make the call. So it doesn't matter WHO made the call, they know WHERE the call was made from.
And this isn't about tracking, this is all about the location the call was made from. Not all mobile phones have GPS built in, or they might not have the power to activate GPS. The cell towers can triangulate your position, but it's not exact. It's why it's better to use 112 when calling emergency services from a mobile phone - it's picked up by the cell towers and used to give a better triangulation to locate you than if you use 999. The question is: Do we refine that further or not.
Re: Sensible approach or is it?
It's not tracking, it's locating.
I call 999, my location is identified and passed on. No entity history required.
Phone tracking sufferes one problem: It tracks the phone. That's it. It has no idea who is carrying the phone, or if anyone is near it. As such it isn't useful as a replacement for ID cards. All it can do it map where the phone has been, and then hope it was where I was and that I didn't leave it in a bag on the bus, or in the boot of the car, or at home, or the battery went flat and stopped responding, or I'm in an area with bad reception/out of coverage...
Oh, and if you call emergency services on your mobile, dial 112, not 999. 112 allows for a better triangulation of your position from the cell towers. (That's from the advice from the energency services, by the way).
Re: Employee Files
In the UK we, the employee, have a right to review what's in our personnel file. More over, we can have things removed if we can show they are incorrect, irrelivant or unnecessary. This is all covered by the data protection act.
And no, an employer can't add something without our knowledge. Well, not legally, and there are checks in place to catch such employers out if they try.
I take it this isn't the case in the good old US of A?
Re: Steve Jobs
'People buying taking out loans / mortgages / credit cards that they couldn't afford'
Someone had to approve those loans/mortgages/credit cards.
It's easy to blame the banks, yes. However, they approved those loans and they should have been more diligent. Actually, they had a duty to protect their savers and investors, but they didn't. The banks got greedy, and they gambled with money that wasn't theirs, and the people who were saving or investing in the banks were the ones to pay.
Re: Lithium + water?
The water will damp down the area to contain the fire. Sure, lithium might* still burn merrily in the water, but the plastics, the metals, the paint, the foam seating, and anything else around that could catch due to the heat from the fire will not.
Once contained, the fire fighters can then go in and tackle the chemical component, which probably does need specialist kit to tackle, but they managed with what they've got. Powder extinguishers don't contain oxygen which could be why they used that in the end, once they got the lithium out of the battery so they could smother it.
*I'm not a chemist - he's sat next door and is busy at the moment. I'll ask him later about this.
Re: Lithium + water?
The fire service in the UK use a chemical mix in the water tanks that make it more a hybrid of water and foam - it forms a skin over the liquid fuel that cuts off oxygen. Not sure if the American fire service does the same, and I'm not sure which service responded to this particular fire.
Re: I don't think it's fair...
'Clearly not in this case. The training has fallen behind the times, I'd suggest.'
I would suggest you go train as a volunteer fire fighter. Then you would know if the training was falling behind the times or not. You'll also find out if the equipment they're using is behind the times, too. After all, how do you know they were using just normal water and not water with chemical additives to make it safer to use in such fires. After all, all cars have batteries and electrical components, and a petrol fire is a chemical fire (liquid rather than solid, of cause).
As for petrol fires: Petrol used to contain lead to retard combustion, making it more efficient to burn. Remove the lead and the petrol becomes far more volatile. Hmm... and we went and removed the lead and didn't try replacing it with something else...
Re: I don't think it's fair...
I really hate to correct you, but the important thing in a fire is to remove one of the three components: Heat, Oxygen or Fuel. However, you are spot on that CO2 would only delay combustion for a very short time on a engine fire as it will simply disperse and allow oxygen back in.
You are also spot on re: Firefighters. They are trained in tackling fires and they know what their priorities are. Spraying down an electrical fire with water stops the heat from that fire from causing secondary combustion, meaning the fire is contained. They will be less concerned about the chemicals at that point: They want to get the fire contained first, then look at tackling the source.
And it sounds like they did exactly that: contain the fire, then tackle the chemical component.
Re: Once again I cannot understand why the IPCC claims their confidence has *risen*
'I believe they grew grapes in the South of England'
'something we have yet to do in this warming period'
Hate to say this but I have grape vines growing in my old greenhouse that has been left unattended for the last 5 years. Oh, and it's not got much glass left, either thanks to the various vines and weeds over the years, so it's pretty much open to the climate.
It just happens to be a rather hardy grape vine and the grapes are rather small. But they are definitely grapes.
Re: But then again....
Just to correct one point: Cnut did not believe he could hold back the tide. Rather, he was demonstrating that he could NOT.
BT have stated they would take 15 years to recoup costs. That's from upgrading an existing network. For anyone else the costs would be significantly higher, and so the time to recoup costs would be longer, and that would discourage rivals from bidding.
Especially when most of said rivals can wait for BT to do the work then invoke LLU to provide rival services.
Re: Surely the issue
The real reason why BT are dominating the market is they started out on top, with a network that covered the country.
BT are the only telephone company who have suspended cables (above ground cables) which they were supposed to have buried by 2000, but aren't even close to doing so still. All rivals have to bury cables, which is a lot more expensive.
BT only need to upgrade their existing kit, not install new kit, which is a damn sight cheaper than putting new kit into the ground. So they have a distinct advantage when it comes to getting broadband services out to remote communities - even ones 10 miles from town.
BT don't need to compete in these communities, either: They are the existing dominant supplier. They have 100% coverage, where as any rival would have to lure customers away from BT by offering cheaper or improved services - services that BT could roll out without much trouble or effort days, even weeks before the competitor went live.
The competition can also sit back and wait for BT to run the cables out to the villages, then invoke LLU to get their services out there without having to pay a penny in laying cables, or causing any disruption to the locals at all.
BT aren't the better service. They just started out with a massive advantage.
'Cleaners jobs are tough on their hands.'
That's a good point, really:Even if they wear gloves when working, won't their finger prints be damaged and so become unreadable? Won't that then make the scanners useless as the work force couldn't use the scanners even if they wanted to? I know the last time I looked at finger print scanning, this issue came up, and it was all to do with wear and tear on the hands...
Be interesting to see what happened if the cleaners did agree to use the scanners - would the system simply stop working, or have they got a solution to this issue now?
Re: Private circuits
Nope, safest place is Scunthorpe: The government porn filters keep the spies away from there, too!
Re: Honey someone's calling you
" Give me ONE great use case for a healthy human to wear electronic glasses around"
Information on the move (texts, e-mails, or web browsing). Replace the smart part of the smart phone, or link them up so you're not looking down at your mobile device and so oblivious to everything else around you. At least with electronic Glasses you can catch movement and react to someone about to bump into you, or you into that lamppost.
Satnav: Not for the car - use a HUD for that, but when walking around. Makes it easier to find the route rather than looking at a smart phone and trying to decipher the image into your surroundings (think Saints Row 3rd or 4th direction arrows if you know those games).
Work: Stock market for example, but how about Doctors? They see an overlay on a patient indicating where the patient is reporting pain or other problems, and a list of possible prognosis. Medics would benefit from that, too. Or how about surgeons so they can record where the sutures are, or the swaps, so they can be counted out more accurately. Overlaying circuit diagrams or engine plans, or instructions while assembling or fault finding. And this list can go on quite a bit longer if you stop to think about it.
Social: Art galleries, museums and other displays. This would allow for far more information being made available than a small plaque by the display.
My favorite: Running from Zombies. Okay, this is an exercise app with a Zombie theme, but at the moment all I get is an audio warning that a zombie is close and that I need to run. Would much rather get the warning and be able to see the Zombie :p Would also make games a lot more fun if I could see images superimposed around me.
These are things that electronic glasses could provide. However, what most people are focused on is the advertising. After all, that's where the money is.
1: He set the camera up and opened a port in the firewall as the install software asked for it, and didn't change the default password on the camera itself (check the BBC article on this, btw - slightly more info).
2: babycam p0wned.
Both of the above can be true.
Re: @Chris Miller (was: @TeeCee (was: Well that proves it!))
You do realise that if you take the Gospel as, well, gospel, you have Adam and Eve, then their two children, Cain and Abel, then Seth, then other sons and daughters... and it is from these alone that all humans spawn? That's quite a bit of incest, don't you think?
Or you can go back to the Jewish testaments and read those, and learn that Eve was Adam's third wife... then read even further back and find that Lilith was Adam's first wife, although she is also a Babylonian demon...
Then you might stop and consider that where there might have been truth, once, in those religious texts, that truth has long evolved into myths, legends and lies.
Re: Quash it, don't pardon it
Agree that we should learn from the past to fix the future.
Just one minor point though: 'before we even get round to the "witches" burned at the stake!'
In England, and New England for that matter, witches were hung, not burned. Scotland burned witches, as did other parts of Europe, although this generally referred to the burning of their bodies after they were executed. Spain and Italy were the only countries known to practice 'burning at the stake', thanks to the Inquisition, and it is from here that the myth of 'burning witches' came from.
Re: Very true
"Indies do not know how to make better games, Indies however are able to slip under the radar until they produce a game good enough to get them noticed."
Might I point you in the direction of Star Citizen?
Game in production, true, but it's a kickstart/crowd funded game simply to avoid interference from finance and marketing which often spoil an otherwise great concept.
But I dare you to say that Chris Roberts doesn't know a thing or two about making games (Freelancer, Starlancer and Wing Commander were his, after all).
"No it's more on the same level of analysis as "jumping in a river wearing platemail will cause you to sink" "
To get into the Huscarls, you had to be able to swim across the Thames while wearing a full hauberk of Maille armour, which is somewhat heavier than platemaille. (This requirement came in after the Norse raiders pulled the supports from under the original London Bridge while the Huscarls were crossing it, drowning the lot of them. The King was rather upset so insisted his Huscarls should learn to swim).
Swimming in Plate, or Platemaille is harder due to the restriction in movement, but you can do it. What can cause you greater problems are things like shields and weaponry, but properly slung, it's still possible.
Yes, I have friends who are historians, and re-enactors, or whose work involves dancing Gangnam style while in a full plate rig... (don't ask - he's not explained that one to me, either)
Re: Is it April 1st?
The brain re-maps the connections making it easier when reconnecting broken nerves or spinal tissue. It learns quite quickly, especially with older people as we know what we're trying to do and what the outcome should be.
you see this a lot with stroke patients (where the brain can re-wire itself) and minor spinal injuries.
So all you need to do is connect the head then maintain heart and lung functions until the brain has those mapped and under control, then wait for the patient to learn how to control their new body. Might take a year or two before the patient can do back flips, but there's still hope.
However, I don't think this is has a practical application due to suitable candidates being few and far between: You'd need a donor who has gone brain dead but who has an otherwise healthy body, and who is not going to be subjected to an autopsy to see how they died, so Big Brother contestants won't qualify...
Re: We can't currently repair damaged nerves in humans.
Yes we can. It's not brilliant but we're improving the technique all the time.
Currently we can restore some, but not all sensation from badly damaged nerves, and we can transplant nerves, and there is ongoing research into the use of stem cells to mend nerve damage. We know stem cells can repair spinal cord damage, and have helped previously paralysed people walk again, and that was from over 5 years ago. The only issue is that most of this research is restricted, and patients have to go private for the treatment.
Re: Are you bored...?
They want you to dream about their products, so when you wake you'll go out and buy them. It's like the sleep learning tapes for languages: Fall asleep while listening to the tape and wake up being able to speak total gibberish in yet another language! Doesn't work, of cause: You're mind will naturally rebel and you'll dream of smashing said product to pieces in increasingly inventive ways.
Mind you, a clever marketing bod might then consider using this technique to set you against a rival product...
Damn, don't tell Apple or Samsung! They'll be brainwashing people on public transport into becoming their own private army!
Re: Anyone actually surprised?
"King Cnut (how apt) trying to order back the tide."
Just a small point: King Cnut's followers claimed he could hold back the tide, such was his divine right to rule. Cnut himself denied this and went out to *disprove* the claim. By failing to hold back the tide, he succeeded in proving *his* claim.
Strangely, he could easily not have tried at all, with the same results but less effort.
In the UK, cold calling and in particular cold calling for sales purposes is already illegal. You have to invite them to call in order for them to try to sell you something.
This is why most companies now start off with a 'marketing' call. They ask you about products you might be interested in, then if you show interest, they pass you on to their sales department (aka the person sat next to them). That is when they are pretending to be compliant with the law.
BT can (and do) block number withheld and international calls for customers. They don't like doing it and will try to put you off, but there is nothing illegal about doing it. Rather, they'll refer you to the TPS or tell you to block the number on your telephone (which will still tie up the line even if you're not taking the call).
The Telecoms act (1984) was written with a view that phoning someone is the same as visiting them. As such, someone calling without an invitation or with reasonable grounds is trespassing. This is why companies are so quick to confirm that you will accept contact from them and their affiliates. It means they can sell the list to other companies, so making that other company an 'affiliate'. However, this practice has been going on for so long now that they don't bother and no one seems interested in fixing things. It's simply too much trouble for them these days, so we, the poor punter, have to suffer intrusion.
On the other hand, as the law on trespass allows you to use reasonable force to defend yourself from intrusion... I'll leave it there for your warped imaginations to take over :p
Re: What's the problem?
"if you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" (to revert to the older saying).
We have plenty of things to hide, and quite legitimately, too. In fact, we're required to hide things, such as PIN numbers and passwords, and we have quite a bit to fear if they are found out. Indeed, we can get into a LOT of trouble if we didn't hide some things...
It is possible for people to hear (and to see, for that matter) things that don't happen.
The reason is that the brain cheats. It doesn't process all the incoming data, but rather it takes bits of the data and then fills in the blanks after. Even recall is imperfect for this very reason. So if someone calls you a useless twit, you might hear something different, just as you might read it differently, too. By listening for what was actually said, however, you are more likely to get it right.
It works the other way, too, of cause: You might call someone a useless twit, but actually say something else instead.
Artificial Intelligence: A lovely subject and such an eye-opener! Took us ages to work out why computers were so far behind the human mind in processing data...
Re: What's his angle?
Fossil fuels keep coming up as the largest component of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, followed by deforestation. And cutting CO2 emissions from power generators and transport is supposedly the main way to meet our targets for reducing CO2 emissions.
Now, personally I think we should plant trees to replace those cut down, but that's as much to do with engineering as CO2. Trees are really important to the environment, and to engineering, so we really don't want to keep cutting them down else we'll see massive increases in flooding and droughts... oh, we are, aren't we... and we've been cutting down a lot of trees in those areas, too... ah, well, hopefully the survivors will learn.
As for the 5.5% - that's the figure I see quoted most often when I read up into what we're producing and what impact we're having. So, have you considered looking it up yourself?
Seriously, that's all I did: I took some time to do some research to find out what I didn't know. And to check up what I thought I knew. You just have to be careful and double check figures, which is a pain, but the internet is there to help you after all.
Re: @grantmasterflash (was: And Eric Schmidt's climatological background is ... What, exactly?)
"If the temperature extremes of 1814's winter occur this winter, the Thames will freeze."
This is actually false. The Thames has been dredged and widened making a freeze far less likely. The dredging was to allow shipping to get further up river.
"Likewise, nobody's growing wine grapes between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall anymore, despite the fact that The Romans demonstrably were."
False. There are some small vineyards in the area. The problem is it isn't profitable to do this on a larger/commercial scale due to the availability of cheaper imported wines.
However, yes, the earth has run hotter and colder, be it within or outside of human written history, and it will no doubt continue to fluctuate in the future, even when we're gone.
Re: What's his angle? (@Mr.nobody 1)
"Given that in the last 50 years the atmospheric concentration has risen from ~300 PPM to ~400 PPM, I wouldn't call the amount of CO2 emitted by humans 'insignificant'"
That is somewhat debatable. Records of atmospheric CO2 preindustrial revolution put CO2 at @400ppm. We are currently at 387ppm. Those initial readings were from scientists who were nobel prize winners, yet they have been ignored in the push to promote a sharp rise in CO2 since 1850. Indeed, most who wish to promote the increase claim CO2 stood at @290ppm in 1850.
From your own quote.
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW
32.6% endorsed AGW
So do explain how 97.1% endorse humans are causing AGW?
Or is that 97.1% of the 32.6% in which case we're not looking at overwhelming evidence of AGW. Instead the overwhelming evidence is that science doesn't yet have a position (66.4%)
Or, to quote an aged saying: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Re: What's his angle?
Okay, I'll bite:
C is wrong
Human activity accounts for @5.5% of CO2 emissions. However, this is not the issue: It's the increase in fossil fuel CO2 that is, and that's only a proportion of the 5.5%, and while it might be a significant proportion, and is on the increase, that does not mean that human activity overall is a significant contribution to CO2 emissions.
If you want to hide your nefarious activities, you might look to obfuscation. However, how do you draw like minded sickos to your site? How do you extend your network and retain secrecy and security?
The alternative is to flood the internet with images. Don't their content obvious, either: Mix up the meta tags, use popular name and common phrases so they turn up when searching for 'innocent pictures of kittens at play' (The internet is, after all, there for our lolcat fix), and world + dog is exposed. Those who are interested in such material get their fix, and those who are not are scared that they have now been tracked and will be tarred with the 'PEDO!!!' brush, sentenced to eternity on the Sex offenders register and hounded out of town to live in a cardboard box under a bridge with no access to anything even remotely resembling technology beyond the most basic one of a crude fire. If they're lucky, that is.
Now consider which of the two is simpler, cheaper and safer to implement and you have the reason why this issue exists. That said, the Government don't care about innocent people being exposed to illegal images: They're just glad for an excuse to push for 'filters' that can later be expanded to block other content they might find undesirable: Web censorship via the back door.
Re: Oh, the irony!
'Anyone else think it's about time to put a stop to these patent wars?'
Might it be that Apple have been patenting world + dog so they can throw out enough 'infringement' claims that people get fed up with the patient spate and ditch the lot, thereby allowing Apple to infringe valid patients with impunity?
Why else would Apple even dream of patenting things like the 'slide to unlock' and the dozens, even hundreds, of other patents that most of us see as being far too obvious or littered with prior art?
So rather than stopping these patent wars, perhaps it's time to require that patents are checked for validity (at the holders expense) *before* they can be used in a court case? That way people can continue patenting world + dog, but when they try claiming patient infringement, those they try bringing to court have the protection of a pre-trial hearing paid for by the plaintiff that checks the patent was valid before prosecution can proceed. That would serve to protect people from Patent trolls and cut down on a huge chunk of patent infringement cases while avoiding re-forming the patent office or trawling through all existing patients to see if they're valid or not.
Not a perfect idea, though, but better than idiot patents and patent trolls costing the consumer a fortune while protecting genuine innovation.
As i recall, Romana could regenerate indefinitely and at will without problem, and did so for vanity's sake.
The Doctor also held the presidential post, complete with the scepter et al that the Master then stole in order to reset his regenerations (Dr Who and the Deadly Assassin was the story, I believe, or at least was part of the story chain). So even according to WHO lore, 13 and beyond is quite possible, and there is a very easy fudge to allow for Dr Who to continue regenerating for as long as the show is popular and still hold true to the old WHO lore.
Re: New Dr.
I believe Mr Hurt was the 'unseen' Doctor - the one who saw to the destruction of the Daleks and caused the timelords to be lost in time/space. That is why he was locked away within the Doctor's memories: He did the unthinkable and so is the greatest shame of the Doctor.
So yes, he's a previous incarnation and that throws out the 12th Doctor concept: Matt Smith is the current incarnation but while the 12th to play the Doctor, he is the unspecified incarnation on the Doctor's life.
It's all timey-wimey, I'm sure.
Re: The real problem
I have a document that shows I was born here. I think you have one, too. It's called a Birth Certificate and it matches to a registry of births, deaths and marriages. So while someone can claim to be born here, without that certificate they can't prove it.
But otherwise, yup: I agree :p
Re: Whilst I can see the value.....
Okay, I'll explain it for you:
Smart meters cost money. This money comes out of their profits, which is generated by charging consumers for the gas/electricity supply. This then reduces the company's profits which in turn reduces dividend payouts to investors/share holders. This then devalues the company, and investors/share holders will pull out or they will force a vote on the management and replace them.
To protect from this, the utility companies will increase tariffs to increase profits and thereby cover the costs of the smart meters. This means ALL consumers pay more, but as the cost is spread out between those getting the new meters and those who are not, the cost is easily hidden.
When all homes have smart meters, some expect the cost of supply to drop, hence introducing an expected saving. This may or may not happen as the utility companies now know the consumers will pay the increased rates. If it does happen, you can be assured that not all the savings are passed back to the consumer. Rather, the utility company is most likely to opt to retain an increase in profits and so be able to invest in... well, nothing: They'll just increase dividends which will increase the company's value which will attract more investors and share holders.
And with any private company, it always comes down to money.
Re: Justice and The Law
I believe she claimed for all costs totaling $224k, not just legal costs. These costs included the loss of earnings when she quit her job and took a lower paid job elsewhere. As such the $224k isn't likely to be upheld.
The problem with out of court settlements are they are made 'without prejudice' so they are not admitting guilt. This means she can't then publicise what happened, either through media or biography as any allegation she made would be 'unproven'. By proving her case in court, she is now free to report the events through the media and so will force Oracle to change their behavior. In short, the court case will help protect others from such abuse, or encourage them to come forward with their own cases. It might be possible for her to sell her story to help recoup costs, but as the media have already had open access to the case (or so it seems), there's probably not a lot of interest any more. Or rather, nothing that won't further embarrass the woman in question.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support