I remember when I was in middle school, a kid had brought a fake cell phone that gives you a mild shock if you press the only functional button on the phone. Of course, as cell phones were still kind of a new thing then, and as it was rare for a middle schooler to have a cell phone, a lot of people wanted to try it, and a lot of them fell for the trick. Nothing bad came of it, and while the teachers were annoyed (and may have temporarily confiscated the device and given him detention), he didn't get suspended for it. I'm glad those teachers didn't overreact like these.
We've already seen for a fact how the NSA can abuse surveillance, so I'm not sure why Senator Feinstein is continuing to argue that this can't happen. I should ask her: has she been been beating her husband? Because he looks remarkably...horse-ish. B-)
I do undergraduate research in photonics. A postdoc in our research group recently presented work including and extending from his PhD thesis which he completed last year. The thesis is freely available online, and that has inspired me to continue doing work in photonics and to also ask him more questions/work with him more closely due to the similarities between what both of us are doing. So no, American Historical Association, I can most definitely say this is a TERRIBLE idea.
I think it has to do more with their general large corporations (and not necessarily with just Sony or Nintendo in particular). I've seen here that Japan and [South] Korea seem to be two countries that treat their corporations even more favorably than the US, and that's probably because of the historical relations between the respective governments and zaibatsus/chaebols.
Well, to be fair, Jefferson did predict having to replace the Constitution every 19 years. That hasn't happened de jure, but it could be argued de facto.
Anyway, I realize that this article being on TechDirt would lead it to be interpreted as Americans disapproving of things like NSA spying, but given recent other polls showing the lack of widespread disapproval of that program and others that take away basic rights to speech, privacy, and such, does this poll really mean much in particular?
Is it just human genes that cannot be patented? If so, given the recent research into human gut biota, what will happen to every person on this planet once a biotechnology company patents the genomes of bacteria there?
I can personally attest to this. Last semester I was in a laboratory class where I had to make a presentation on shot noise and the derivation of the electron charge. The value I calculated was on the correct order of magnitude but was around 50% off. It wasn't until after the presentation (and before our papers were due) that my lab partner noticed that I had read off the wrong number from our linear fit as the electron charge (the right number was only about 10% off by contrast). If he hadn't seen what I had done, things could have turned out worse. If this had been the real world and I was publishing a paper confirming the electron charge, I would have been screwed. The problem in economics seems to be that there are too many vested interests (not necessarily professional economists) who will readily partake in confirmation bias instead of carefully scrutinizing data.
I think it's fine that Exxon is responding with rebuttals to each point made in the satire. They may not understand satirical humor, but that's fine. My issue is in them trying to block the video from spreading further. If they're going to do that, isn't that going to further perpetuate what's being said about Exxon like in the video?
Did you really expect anything else from a "unitary" plan? All it'll do is turn the current state of patents a little in one direction, but it won't ever reduce its extent.
(Quantum mechanics/linear algebra joke, nothing to see here, move along...)
Then they will charge $10 every time you walk past the store without going in (in addition to the $5 charge for not buying anything).
Then they will charge $20 for every person who reads an article about its impending bankruptcy without walking past the store (in addition to the above charges).
Then they will charge $40 for every person who reads an article about its bankruptcy and did not call them to provide some support against impending bankruptcy (in addition to the above charges).
Then they will charge $80 for every person who did not attend the going-out-of-business sale (in addition to the above charges).
Wow. Just...this is pretty incredible. But does this mean that the Copyright Office will do anything about lawsuits from the **AAs against ordinary people for amounts larger than content industry CEOs' salaries?