tkeller

9 ms·

31.
by tkeller 16y ago
I'm a big fan of the whole Sixty Symbols series. For those of you not familiar: http://www.sixtysymbols.com/ There's also a "sister" site for chemistry: http://www.periodicvideos.com/ It's good stuff. I've enjoyed pretty much every vide
32.
by tkeller 16y ago
Pretty damned mild, really. "You guys are greedy and I disagree with you" != "you guys are breaking the law."
33.
by tkeller 16y ago
> inalienable right to re-entry as a citizen Yes, for which he cites a trial court in Puerto Rico. Very convincing... I'm not saying he's wrong, but isn't there binding authority on this point? Instead of just something that's only rele
34.
by tkeller 16y ago
Call the ACLU and sue. At the very least, you'll waste some of the ACLU's time and money. (ducks)
35.
by tkeller 16y ago
Also important: understanding the difference between a patent application and an actual issued patent. The rule of thumb is that if it has a number in the millions, like 6,123,456, then it's a patent. If it starts with a year, like 2008/1
36.
by tkeller 16y ago
It's both.
37.
by tkeller 16y ago
Why didn't you send them a letter threatening to bring a declaratory judgment action, then settle for a wad of cash?
38.
by tkeller 16y ago
I was kind of disappointed in this article. He starts off with "It's easy to write a loop which looks infinite but in fact completes quite quickly..." which makes it sound like he's going to write a loop that looks finite but in fact spins
39.
by tkeller 16y ago
The question of who has the burden of proof does not turn on whether Facebook says it has questions or whether it says flat out that it's a phony.
40.
by tkeller 16y ago
Facebook, which hasn’t claimed the alleged contract with Ceglia is a phony, has "serious questions" about its authenticity, Simpson said. I don't understand this statement. If you're questioning its authenticity, aren't yo
41.
by tkeller 16y ago
Oh I didn't realize it was steel. For some reason I was thinking it actually was aluminum.
42.
by tkeller 16y ago
Why don't they just start anodizing that shit going forward?
43.
by tkeller 16y ago
> Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics. Jerks.
44.
by tkeller 16y ago
That actually is a good way of highlighting the distinction.
45.
by tkeller 16y ago
You can make any claim look arbitrarily broad by omitting language from it. You cut limitations out of the middle with your "[...]", and you also cut stuff off the end without even mentioning that you had done so. Might as well have said: d
46.
by tkeller 16y ago
Here we go yet again. They did not patent "A networked computer system [that] provides various services for assisting users in locating, and establishing contact relationships with, other users." That's just the abstract. Gotta read the cla
47.
by tkeller 16y ago
TL;DR: Here is an error message. It could be worded better, but I understand exactly what it means and where it came from. I'm going to get all offended about it, even though there was clearly no intent to offend.
48.
by tkeller 16y ago
Funny as a soundbite, but really apples to oranges.
49.
by tkeller 16y ago
This is absolutely not the case.
50.
by tkeller 16y ago
Yeah, this seems like an unbiased account. I bet there's NO information he left out of this story... Michael Arrington would never shade the truth.
51.
by tkeller 16y ago
"if David were to steal Goliath’s slingshot. . ." I just don't even know where to begin.
52.
by tkeller 17y ago
"Sigh" is right. This isn't a patent. It's an application that hasn't been examined yet. Come on people, try to learn a little bit about the subject before trolling.
53.
by tkeller 17y ago
Change appft1 to appft in the url
54.
by tkeller 17y ago
Climategate 'scientist' attacks bloggers
55.
by tkeller 17y ago
It says it's a graph of "job loss." Negative job loss (= positive job gain) should be a good thing...