Re: A wide variety of threats
Sorry: "Industrial".
886 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Aug 2007
Indeed: the suggestion is for graphine to act within a short-pulse laser system, not to be a lasing material itself. The odd thing in such systems is that you only have to make some beam directions/frequencies/phases less easy to traverse the resonating cavity than the rest, and the lasing material (whatever that is) will put most of its energy into the easy routes (via positive feedback of the stuff that gets though most easily).
As pointed out by a few, you can't have a single frquency and be a short pulse at the same time: a short pulse requires a range of phase-locked frequencies. But the definition of a laser can cope with that.
"...rules needed to be fixed internationally and business needed to be consulted on those rules..."
Well it would certainly help if they were internationally agrteed: but there's always a weakling / vested interest who'll rock the boat, so if you wait for that, you'll be waiting forever. Establish rules for the magority and trade restrict the rest. Yes it will make all sorts of things harder. But the current system suits only the mega rich and there's no point in sticking with what is extremely broken.
As for business being consulted. Sod that for a lark. That's a governments task. Stop shirking and do your bloomin' job.
"...She has been tasked to work out how deploying tablet devices could help the management team better cope with the demands of their day..."
An interesting task in that it pre-supposes tablet devices will be given to the management team, even though there is (as yet) no proven business case to do so. Toys for the excs first; IT case second. Same-o same-o.
I'm waiting for the day a patent troll sues another patent troll for trolling a third party using a patent that the primary troll alledges prior art on (and thus should be trolling the tertiary party instead). Or somesuch. Lets hope they all kill themselves anyway. And software patents die with them.
It can all get a bit silly if you try even just a little bit.
Say I buy a CD. What I buy is a disk with a series of holes in it. I use a CD player to read those holes into a digital equivalent, decode them, copy them to another buffer, send to a DAC, send the analog output to a speaker, wobble the diaphram a bit and make some sound which I listen to, decode in by ears to nerve impulses and so on and so on.
I didn't buy the sound. I bought the holes. So is any of this process legit? I'd imagine as soon as I read the holes, that's a derivative work. I've stored bits of it endlessly as I've gone along because the design is easier in some cases, because I have to in others. So is that reproduction?
Does fair use allow this? Not all markets have a fair use BTW. If it does, then there's copies in there: fair use copies. In what way are they legally different to other copies? Becuse they are only temporary perhaps - but I've never seen that in the small print of a CD case; and if it isn't on the case (info before you buy), it doesn't count. Again - depending on what juristiction you are in.
Can we not have a grown-up chat about digital ownership - which probably means RIPA-types and the freetards are sent outside and the rest of us can sort out something sensible?
Indeed, but as a researcher pointed out only last week, (and on El Reg here: www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/25/lightspeed_variable/) there really isn't any significant stretch of vacuum anywhere due to pesky background radiation particles being "in the background" as it were plus the even peskier virtual particles, with an extended field theory slapped on to fill the gaps.
If you want to mount a high res camera mounted to mini-remote-zepplin, photograph Bristol, then sell the photos for a tenner, on you go. Just don't steal somebody's else's work who did it properly.
Granted the Somalia reference was poorly chosen, but the point still holds. If nobody will pay, nobody will supply. Economics is about a maintainable market - the "everything for nothing" market is an inevitable dead-end.
But as you charge in monthly units, you should refund in monthly units.
Set a triggering threshold loss-per-day (e.g. 2 hours) and/or loss per month (e.g. more than 2 days per month) to get the whole thing rolling. Companies can then compete on the packages they offer to customers: if the ISP doesn't believe its own reliability hype, the package will soon show that.
And beware pointless insurance, e.g. short-hop travel insurance (if stolen from your hold luggage it's not covered. In travel insurance: WTF?). Buildings insurance (structure) yes. Contents? Rarely worth it - the decent policies cost too much, the affordable ones are worse than a bank account you put some savings into to handle it yourself.
And don't forget the true cost of claiming: not just the excess and deprication of items-worth by insurance auditors, but also the future cost resulting from a claim: all the other insurance renewals you'll get in the next 5 years (wether in the same field or not) will go up by a total that is likely far more than what you've just "saved".
A con of an industry.
Only use tradesmen somebody you know has recommended: it's a common reaction to try and avoid bad service (though, like amazon, carries the risk of a review from somebody who doesn't know they just got shafted).
What is less well known is that tradesmen also have recs of the good and blacklists of shoddy customers.
You reap what you sow: that laywer would likely struggle to get anyone local to work on any part of their house ever again.
I got a garbled error message too: not sure whether I've got one ordered or not as a result. Email says yes; on screen message said no at some point, claiming "errors" would be updated over the next 24hrs. However, if they took any money, that's a contract no matter what their systems do.
I'm in the 5-6 weeks camp, so imagine they can cope with the odd glitch in ordering in this group.
Not just Adobe: it's all of them.
I think they have been court tested in NY and it was essentially "companies are expected to read them - individuals are not". That might have been wishful thinking though!
The article makes a bizare claim for Apple ("I have to say I find Apple’s take on things rather interesting."), but as anyone who has updated any app on an iPhone/iPod etc knows, the T&Cs change with great regularity and even greater verbosity: 35 pages or more to get an update from another company, not even apple!
The new bit you add to prior art to create a new patent must be more than just "neat" or "handy": the new bit must itself be *inventive* and "not obvious to anyone skilled in the art".
The seperate issue of patenting things you haven't (or as yet can't) make is yet another hole in IP law. But let's face it: IP law is starting to push the "collander" comparison further than you'd want a collander to go.
Part of the US system is a legal undertaking from the inventors to bring all potential prior art they know of to the US patent office's attention duing the application process. Failure to do so is a criminal act. Its always tricky to prove what somebody doesn't know, but sometimes the blitheringly obvious really should try to lock some of these nutters away.
As to why the USPTO didn't spot the blitheringly obvious - it's all been said before. Not fit for purpose.
It won't really cost Apple anything to contest the patent: they can show "blitheringly obvious" prior art pre-trial; if they then win in a full trial, they'll then claim and get costs.
Of course they don't really have costs in the same way a small company do: they have specialist IP laywers on staff, so its just what they do in their 9-to-5. Perhaps it might stop them suing somebody else for a week though...