I agree that cushman seems to be being thick, but there are two magnetic poles on all magnets including the Earth, dangit, not "the magnetic pole of the planet". In fact, the part that points north is the magnetic south pole of the compass.
(Now I suspect the bit about the level of discourse does apply; I was well-aware of magnetic polarity in 1st grade, and polarity itself defines there being two ends...)
I was more concerned with expressing a relevant thought I had than ensuring that the phrase I used to sum up the general concept of a compass was scientifically accurate. Because after all, the very thing this entire thread about is that the properties of magnetism and the nature of compasses are irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase, "moral compass."
Nerds, each of us. I say that affectionately but man I regret answering theorique's question.
You may not like it, but to most people a story with a cute kid in it is worth a thousand reports produced by a team of legal and technical experts. We here may not like the appeal to anecdote and emotion, but these things would not be common logical fallacies if they weren't effective.
So this might be just the story that will stick in people's craw about what patent reform could mean to them.
On a related note: One of the least popular things about patents is the ability to patent something relatively obvious and then sit on that "invention" for years waiting for someone else to "copy" it. Patent trolls have taken this to an art form.
As a way to fight patent trolls who produce nothing, it's been suggested that a requirement be added to attempt to actually CREATE and MARKET the technology. That you can't just sit on a patent and wait for someone else to stumble on it by accident; in fact, if someone else DOES stumble on it by accident, it should be considered de facto evidence that the patent isn't novel.
How is this related to the article? If you DID have the requirement that a patent owner actually produce a product, then you could add on the additional restriction that the patent would only apply in the market that the patented product is being sold to. If they can but won't sell an iPad version of their product, and they are notified that someone wants to use their patent that way, then (after a reasonable grace period) the patent would lose its ability to prevent competition in that realm.
Remember the Flip video camera? Super cheap video that anyone could use? They were allegedly working on a new version that would allow you to use the camera as an ultra-cheap video conference device. They were bought by Cisco for $590M, and then just before releasing this new product, Cisco shut them down. The Wikipedia article [1] suggests that maybe the purchase was to acquire patents, but since the company was still profitable and they made no move to divest their ownership of Flip, it seems more likely they shut it down rather than allowing the consumer device to compete with their expensive enterprise video conferencing devices.
It's when patents are used to PREVENT a product from existing that they should be null-and-void. That doesn't help "...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." [2] IMO, it's only when a patent is used to grant you a temporary monopoly on a product to help you recoup your R&D expenses through sales of the product that it should be valid.
And in the case of an iPad app being able to do the work of a large $9000 piece of hardware -- if they won't produce an app, they should lose patent protection that can be used against someone who CAN produce an app. Protecting their market for $9000 hardware devices shouldn't be done at the expense of "Progress of Science..."; it would be like blacksmiths using a patent portfolio to prevent cars from being manufactured, holding back progress rather than promoting it.
"in fact, if someone else DOES stumble on it by accident, it should be considered de facto evidence that the patent isn't novel."
You have industry support for this idea:
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
― John Carmack
There are a lot of "shoulds" in this comment. I'm no fan of the patent protection racket we have going, but what you lay out would be infinitely worse. All those "shoulds" are decisions that would be made by beurocrats with little real understanding (who really knows whether the $9000 device can really be substituted with an iPad and app?).
Patent reform is tough. The obvious one (no pun intended) is that patents really should be non-obvious. Beyond that, I vacillate between killing them and severely neutering them. I think they could have some value if they protected inventions that were two or more steps ahead of the current technology. Being able to patent the place everybody would put their next foot is inane.
i think the simplest and easiest solution to patent reform would be to just scale back the term. 20 years is garbage, i'd say that patents should be granted for a maximum of four years. their purpose is to give innovators a chance to use their invention to build a business, and if you can't build a business in four years you aren't going to. in a fast moving industry like software, the term should be more like 6mo - 1yr.
also, it'd be great to kill licensing of patents. it would turn patents from an IP marketplace to a use-it-or-lose-it incentive for inventors.
>what you lay out would be infinitely worse. All those "shoulds" are decisions that would be made by beurocrats with little real understanding (who really knows whether the $9000 device can really be substituted with an iPad and app?).
I can't say that I have all the answers, but neither are you providing any alternatives.
Can you make a suggestion as to how to prevent patents (or for that matter other IP protections) from being used as a tool to prevent innovation as opposed to promote it, as it was intended?
Natural languages have syntax highlighting; note the capitalization of proper nouns in English, or better yet all nouns in German, along with capital letters to start sentences. There are various typographical standards, all of which provide syntax highlighting, and it's arguable punctuation serves a related purpose (note the pairing of certain marks in Spanish).
after all you can still read this without it but it takes more effort i think the author may have glossed over the aspects in language because they have faded to background noise if your syntax coloring is a distraction change it if it works dont
Within the last six months I used a hex editor to diagnose a problem with a PCM streaming solution and generate a "corrected" form of the output to show how my hypothesis was correct.
To a degree. Initially as you lose weight, riding at X mph will require less power (moving a lighter object!), so you will sweat less.
But once you reach a reasonable weight and are just gaining muscle and cardio power, added fitness level just allows you to emit more power for longer. But sweat levels are pretty much just related to power (how much heat you generate) - and of course cooling.
At Grandparent's speed (22.5 mph) on flat ground, he's going to produce massive power to overcome air resistance. The effective fan will help cool him down/dissipate sweat, but especially in body areas that don't get such a good air blast, he will end up soaked.
