text:
Watch: Drake Shuts Down Groper
Drake called out a male groper who repeatedly touched girls inappropriately during his "Boy Meets World" concert performance in Sydney,…
by Clarissa Hamlin
Drake Invests In Green Tea Shop
Drake has signed on as an investor in MatchaBar, a New York-based green tea shop which is working on an…
by King Sukii, Cassius
What's Good With Drake's Whiskey Ads?
Drake is trying to take over Instagram––at least for a little while––with his new hilarious ads for Virginia Black whiskey,…
Atlanta Hawks Sued For Alleged Racial Discrimination
Samuel R. Hayes has filed a lawsuit against the Atlanta Hawks for their alleged racially discriminatory practices against Black entertainers.
Everyone And Their Mama Was Proud Of Chance…
Chance The Rapper was the real MVP of the 2017 Grammy Awards on Sunday.
by Kiyonna Anthony
Beyoncé, Rihanna, Drake, Chance The Rapper & Kanye…
Super star artist and performer Beyoncé leads the list prospective winners of the 59th annual Grammy Awards with an impressive…
Kanye, Drake & Frank Ocean Will Skip The…
Some of music's biggest artists have opted out of attending the 2017 Grammys.
How Celebs Like Drake, Nicki Minaj, La La…
16 Of Drake's Most Kissable Moments
The 6 God's lips are always pursed and ready to go.
Petition Started For Clarence Thomas
A petition has been created to highlight Thomas' contributions in the museum.
Kanye Rips Into Jay Z
Yeezy put it all out in the open.
#TeamTunechi: Stars Share Their Support For Lil Wayne…


At the end of October 2016 our CEM and CEO, Lori Kaithan, gave a presentation at the IATEFL TEASIG Conference in Aigle. The theme of the conference was: "From Theory into Practice: Assessment Literacy in the Classroom". Lori's presentation was called "The Positive Impact of Cambridge English Computer-based Exams on Teaching and Testing". This presentation will be repeated at the ETAS Annual Conference in January 2017 in Zurich.
Our Events 2017 will be published soon on our events website. We look forwared to seeing you there. If you have any questions, please contact us on info@cambridge-exams.ch or 052 209 04 50.
Reserve your seat now and benefit from practical tips in one of our free workshops, seminars and webinars.
Save your seat now and benefit from our practical seminars for English teachers on "Lehrplan 21 and Cambridge English Exams" and "Best Preparation for computer-based exams".


Saharun or Sakarun what is second name for this divine beauty beach which is located in central Dalmatia on on the northwest coast of the Dugi Otok island. Saharun nearby villages are Veruni, Veli Rat, Soline and Bozava. Beach became well known for its vivid color surroundings.
Sakarun beach 850 meters long mixture of beautiful white sand and pebble beach surrounded by pine forest from the mainland side that provide a more than a welcome shade during hot summer months.
Seacoast of Saharun is made by shallow and crystal clear bay water which at some 250 meters from the beach it is just 3,5 meters deep, what makes Saharun beach bathing area is extremely large and shallow and ideal even for younger members of family.
If you observing Sakarun beach from hillside above bay, sea is intense turquoise-blue color looking more like Caribbean than the Adriatic sea. Beach facing south, onto open sea bounded by 850 metre arch of smooth white sand and stone, which in turn is backed by pinewoods.
Due to Sakarun location and beautiful surroundings and the fact that it never gets overcrowded this is perfect place to spend a calming holiday with your family.
Beach is one of Croatia's most beautiful but less known places. Thanks to intensity of the colours the dark green from pine forest, the shimmering white pebbles, and the sea color that changes hue during the day, depending on the angle of the sun Saharun is the Croatia's famous and most-photographed beach.
Beach offering two catering facilities where you can buy refreshment from the summer heat and light snacks also moorings are arranged for the reception of ships.
How to reach Saharun beach ?
Ryanair flies to Zadar from London Stansted and Manchester. Or as a second choice, easyJet flies to Zagreb from London Gatwick, and Croatia Airlines to Zagreb from London Heathrow.
Coming on the Dugi Otok is a great experience and pleasure in itself. Jadrolinija's ferry departs from the mainland ferry port of Zadar, with its car-free old town of melancholy Roman ruins, magnificent Romanesque churches and Venetian fortifications.
From a seat up on the top deck, all traces of urban life dissolve into the hazy blue Adriatic seascape, as the ferry zigzags its way between the scattered pine-scented islets of the Zadar archipelago, of which Dugi Otok is the most distant spot.
If you arriving by a car, or planning to rent one, the best idea is to drive around the villages that dot the three peninsulas making up the northern end of the island: Soline is the closest village to Sakarun.
If you dont have private transport, you can take the local bus, then hire a mountain bike in Bozava – cycling is made easier by trails sign-posted in red.
Local bus line is scheduled to correspond to ferry arrivals and departures, but not to the catamaran lines.


The Sutera Bag is an evening incarnation of the traditional Japanese knot bag. The long handle is pulled through the shorter, which we have created with a tie for a playful touch. It is made of a rich silk duchesse satin with an organic cotton lining and has concealed magnet closure. The bag is designed as a soft alternative to a clutch or minaudière.
The Sutera looks particularly special with a monogrammed wrist strap. We use London embroiderers Hand & Lock for this intricate work, which is done by hand in a matt gold thread. Once added to your Shopping Basket, please enter your specifications therein and allow another 5 working days for delivery.
For special requests, including full names, please email us at customercare@beatriceperry.com.


After last week's show, ABC led us to believe that Episode 7 would be full of grown men sobbing over railings in exotic locations, holding back tears at the rose ceremony and breaking down in rejection limos. Shame on me for buying into the producers' tricky editing. There was only one emotional moment in the entire two hours and that was the Federal Prosecutor crying to his Mom. Instead of discovering Ponyboy's huge revelation, we had to suffer through boring date after boring date, wrapped in an array of cliches and large amounts of alcohol. Pull up a chair and join me as I try to conjure up any memorable moments from Madeira, which may be associated with Portugal or North Africa– depending on your Wikipedia research – but is definitely an island in the Atlantic Ocean that has easy access to pirate ships.
What I wouldn't give for a Jack Sparrow sighting right now.
The following information you are about to read is of personal opinion. However, if you or someone you liked on Twitter happen to personally know, sort of know, is friends with the nail stylist or bowing instructor of someone who is obsessed with the fictional life and devastating death of Matthew Crawley like me and looks exactly like one of the contestants on the show…none of this is personal and I'm sure they are all lovely people.
Desiree is super excited to continue her fairy tale romance in Madeira and has the infinity scarf to prove it. Like every other contestant on this show who has ever been on a boat, she climbs up to the bow with her suitors in tow and claims that she's king of the world. The pirate ship dances into the cove and I can't help but thinking of One-Eyed Willie and how awesome it would be if all the dates were based on Goonies.
The men high five each other after checking out their island digs. I wondered who would be sharing the twin beds that were squished together in that one room and then marveled at Chris' wardrobe choice of jorts. Of course he rocked them.
I also wondered which of the producer's uncle owns Medeira Airlines because ABC foot the bill for Des to fly over a "few good friends" to support her on this love journey. Low and behold, Catherine (as in Sean and Catherine), Lesley (as in Guinness Book of World Records Longest Kiss Lesley) and Jackie (as in Wasn't She the Red Head Who Got Dumped After Spelunking in a Cave?) all join Des by the pool to share gossip and tropical-infused martinis. Des is rockin' the bang braid. Lesley is wearing a turquoise statement necklace. (term coined by Some Guy in Austin) Jackie lounges in her hot pink sarong and Catherine has binoculars.
That's right. The ladies straight up spy on the boys below who just happen to be at the wading pool playing a rousing game of football.
Des is peppered with questions.
Each girl chooses a "favorite" based on two minutes of conversation, choice of swimwear and what physical attraction they can garner from peering 300 yards away through a spy glass. They giggle appropriately at Catherine's crude joke, pump Desiree full of approval that she totally has the best crop of guys and cheers to a journey that ends in undying love and a nationally televised wedding.
Des picks Brooks up in a tiny little jellybean car, chooses a mountain and begins to drive in the general direction of up. They discuss "code" words that could be used to express their love without actually saying the word love.
Even though her list consisted of three verbs and one noun, Brooks seemed okay with the code. I blame the grammatical error on Des' earlier head injury because there's no way she could have scaled that mountain in those high wedge sandals without tumbling at least twice.
The pair finally make it to the top of the peak. Des manages not to twist her ankle before making it to the picnic. They talk about family and the future as the clouds roll in.
CUE THE CLOUD NINE CLICHES!
Bless their hearts. Des kept going back to cloud nine. I began to feel sorry for her. Again, I blame it on the earlier head injury.
– Get your head out of the clouds.
– Cloudy with a chance of meatballs cornballs.
– Every cloud has a red wine lining.
Mix it up Des! And speaking of red wine, when I wasn't brainstorming cloud idioms, I rocked back and forth in anxious anticipation that one or both of them would accidentally spill their red wine on the white blanket, white pants or white shirt. What are the odds the ABC Intern has a Tide To-Go Stick in his back pocket? I'm guessing slim to none. Those inappropriate shoes combined with the head trauma, someone will surely slosh.
Des admits to the camera that she's in a full-on sprint with Brooks. I found that odd since "sprinting" was not one of her "code words" but I'm willing to let the lack of continuity pass. Brooks confessed to the camera that he's nowhere near the emotional journey that Des is on. My guess is that he's at a leisurely wog. You know, halfway between a walk and jog. Wog.
Whatever the case may be, it's not enough to stop making out on said rooftop. Fireworks begin to go off and Des compares that to kissing Brooks. They make out a little more and agree that having their own personal fireworks show is probably cooler than sitting on cloud nine.
They never notice the wedding reception down below on the beach. The ABC Intern is sneaky! Oh look! There's Lesley, Catherine and Jackie crashing the party! I imagine at least one of them will be skipping by dawn!
All the bros are gathered into the living space for Brooks to read Chris' name on the date card. Traditional high fives are given all around. Chris tries to play it cool, but sneaks in a quick whiff of the card, hoping to smell Des' perfume. Instead, he gets a big whiff of hot glue and down feathers.
Dude. Everyone knows that the ABC Intern delivers the date card.
Both feel that the physical chemistry is totally there and decide to explore further by making their way to a desert island for a champagne picnic on a bed of wildflowers. The ABC Intern must have been planting all night.
Let the record show that every single time we have witnessed Des and Chris alone, one has recited poetry to the other. This time their prose will be tossed out to sea in a bottle. They put pen to a sonnet that was so long I had to fast forward because I couldn't stand hearing them try to come up with another word that rhymed with rose. Not only was it a bit boring, but the cadence was off at the end. "PUT A CORK IN IT," I screamed to my TV. So they did. And chucked it in the water.
For some reason, ABC chose to edit out the portion of the date where Des and Chris talk about dressing in 80s fashions for dinner. She shows up in mustard yellow and a sequin mini. Chris has a popped collar and is fidgeting like a prepubescent tween. He began twitching, sweating and dorking out because he wanted to tell Des he's finish lining her.
Naturally, instead of just saying the words, he told her through the method of iambic pentameter. Des loved the gesture enough to make out in a random garden. The voice of a mysterious singer (not Hootie, or that other chick, or that dude with the piano) serenaded them in the roses. Chris is finishing lining HARD.
Poor Fed. Everyone is on their fifth date with Des and he's just now getting to his first one-on-one. Strike one, dude. ABC kept showing b-roll footage of cats. Apparently they are as common as a Starbucks in America and were the most entertaining thing on this date. Strike two.
A toboggan careening down the streets provided a much-needed action sequence. It's unfortunate that Des was screaming with glee as the Fed hung on for dear life and turned a suspicious shade of green. Again, I was nervous during this date because I just knew that if the tobogganeers (yep I made that word up) made one wrong step, our bachelorette and the Fed would end up as cat food splattered on these adorable streets.
The Prosecutor tries to make up for lost time by dominating the entire conversation. He talks about his mom raising him when he was a kid, his diabetes, what he wants read on his tombstone, and ends with a long soliloquy about an ex-girlfriend who cheated on him. Des both emotionally and physically checked out. I personally saw the moment when her eyes glazed over for good. Strike three my friend. You're out.
She lines them up and does her best Cha Cha DiGregorio impression to start the race.
Zak is the big winner and uses his extra special 10 minutes well by settling in on the blankets spread among the foliage sticking out of the middle of tires and pulling out a sketch pad full of date memories. Naturally, his own abs were page one. They made out a little to the smell of burnt rubber before she made the switch to Pony.
She led him to four tires stacked together with a pillow on top and that's where he told her that he loves her and really, really wants her to meet his family. Actually saying "I love you" trumps a charcoal rendering of abs, so Drew got the date rose. Zak high fives Ponyboy's rose and then some chach makes them both kiss her on either side of the cheek. Cheese. Whiz.
Des arrives looking the best she's looked all season in a gorgeous turquoise gown. Looks like the Pier One Bureau was important enough to make the trip! She sits down with Harrison to decompress about her boys.
To no one's surprise, roses are eventually handed out to Brooks, Chris and Zak, along with Ponyboy.
The Fed is devastated and pours his heart out in a very manipulative way I might add, to Des on the rejection bench. He's allowed to call his mother in the rejection limo and I immediately think that she needs to be added to the roster of that show ABC is producing with Manny and Jan.
What do y'all think? Will there be meltdowns next week? Were you surprised that Des admitted to loving Brooks already? Did the Fed ever stand a chance? Is Zak a contender? Are you excited for hometown dates? Sound off in the comments.
When Zak started talking about looking back at their memories, did anybody else yell, "NOT A SCRAPBOOK!"? Also, that poem in a bottle is totally doomed in those waves….
Lincee, I am very sorry to have to do this… but as a former English teacher, I CANNOT let you get away with saying adjectives "tell how, when, where, why and they usually end in LY." Adjectives are descriptive words (i.e. yellow, gorgeous, adventurous), ADVERBS are the "LY" words.
does anyone think drew looks a lot like val kilmer? my hubby called that one last night.
was chris sporting keen mandals on the boat date??? egads.
WHAT were the ladies giggling about by the pool–did catherine ask who had the biggest package??? i rewound thrice and couldnt make it out –just going on context clues!
loved the miami vice reference to feds outfit–teal v neck with the blazer–i actually think thats the best hes looked all season.
is chris shmoopy to anyone else but me?? NOT loving a poet personally.
brooks and drew for finale….
I like all 4 of the remaining guys – for me, I'd pick Zak, but for Des, I think it's got to be either Chris or Brooks. Fed has been in trouble since the 2 on 1 date when he cross-examined Ben to death.
When Michael's mother said 'here we go again' or something to that effect on the phone I had to laugh a little. Every reject says this happens to them EVERY TIME and you know they're attractive enough that it's not true, but wow, maybe Michael always is the dumpee.
Clever editing on the Brooks thing, as he does seem to be ambling to the finish line, but I did see that he was the first to reach out to Des and comfort/hug her after she sent Michael away.
When a grown man says I love you, I prefer it when he actually looks at me. C'mon Drew, I think you love the boom guy at this point!
I also thought it was funny that Catherine asked who had the biggest equipment, since she can't have Sean's until they're married. Obsessed much?
Ok, I can rest easier knowing that you've been corrected on the difference between adverbs and adjectives. And as a former math teacher, I'm glad you remember how to multiply fractions. Even though it wasn't applicable to last night's episode, it's extremely important to know, lol. I was so bored watching the show, but endured it only so that I could read your blog…thanks for making me laugh every single week. Team Brooks!
I agree with the previous comment about Chris being "shmoopy"! But I still love him the best, and I also think he's just unafraid to be cheesy in public. My husband was very cutesy romantic when we first got together, and still is sometimes, he'd just never make it known to anyone else. But I'm kind of hoping she doesn't choose Chris so he can be the next bachelor!
I have to think they let Des' confession of being in love with Brooks go on air because he doesn't end up being the one. Perhaps it is Brooks–not Drew–who breaks her heart. Otherwise, why not simply edit it out and maintain an element of surprise? Also, I agree with Lincee that their convo on the mountain was totally all over the place. I think Brooks was trying to talk in more practical terms about what their life together would look like and Des was stuck in a cloud (#9, to be specific).
Still not seeing the connection between Des and Zak. I feel like they are editing out their more intimate conversations. I thought his drawings were sweet though.
I'm going with Chris and Brooks for the final two and Brooks for the win. yawn.
Great recap as usual. My favorite is "Every cloud has a red wine lining." That line is pure gold.
Am I the only one that thinks ABC is setting up Michael to be the next Bachelore?
One thing is for sure: ABC does not tease you with the truth. If the tease appears to reveal something about the final rose you can be assured that something different will happen.
By the way, remember the tease about some guys throwing punches at the mansion?
"PUT A CORK IN IT!" Laughtears on that one! If the bottle did survive I feel sorry for anyone who finds it.
All this talk of Ames got me googling. Found an adorable photo of him at the NYC Opera from April 2013. Sigh.
I have thought it would be Chris for a long time now. Still think it will be him in the end. So annoyed that there was no drama this week. But shame on me for not realizing that I would be manipulated by the editors again. You would think after watching this for 10 years, I would have know better by now!
I am not getting anything with Chris. THe poetry was making me gag. Really – – a message in a bottle? The the bottle will be smashed against those rocks. Brooks isn't doing it for me either. The Fed was doomed before the date. I just can't look at Zak's ears and pyramid hair do. Ack! That leaves ponyboy. Glad James is out'a here!
I'm with Alexi, I'm not spoilered, I think Brooks is going to be the guy she is crying over. Kinda sad to be the guy she picks after that, but I guess it worked out for Ashley and JP.


TV News Anchor In Hot Water - Description: Did TV Anchor Violate Gun Law?
Illinois will finally get CCW right - Description: Judge gives the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law"
WWII Gun at Police Buy-Back - Description: Woman from Hartford has a $20,000.00 Nazi Assault Rifle and didn't even know it!
Wounded Warrior Program Anti-Gun? - Description: Indications are that those running the Wounded Warrior Program are anti-gun.


text:
Concrete bridges are a type of bridge, constructed out of concrete. They started to appear widely in the early 20th century. Early examples include:

History
Regular concrete has been used for bridge construction since ancient times. The Frenchman Joseph Monier is considered to have invented reinforced concrete as a building material. In 1873 he received the patent on reinforced concrete bridge construction, with the first reinforced concrete bridge being constructed in 1875. This and all later bridges made according to Monier's system patterned the construction of previously used stone bridges. Their main structural unit was an arch barrel. All barrel sections were reinforced similarly regardless of the forces acting on it.
A classical example of cast concrete bridge on the site is the Waterloo Bridge built in London in 1928. It has two spans of 50 feet each and average spans of 110 feet. The world longest span made of regular concrete is the average span of the Rocky River Bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. It is 128 feet long. Now reinforced concrete with steel rods is mainly used and can be built much faster than stone and regular concrete arches.

Finland

 Ylivieska (picture 1).
 The second oldest concrete bridge in Finland, built 1912 and named humorously as Savisilta (clay bridge) is located in Ylivieska. (picture 1).

United Kingdom
 Glenfinnan Viaduct, Scotland (constructed 1897-1901)
 Seaton in Devon, England
  A concrete bridge that was built over the River Axe in 1877.

References

Bridges

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Allentown School District to become first in state to take advantage of program using cameras to catch school bus stop sign scofflaws
Federal judge denies bail for retired firefighter charged with throwing fire extinguisher at Capitol police
Patient sues LVHN saying doctor illegally tapped his medical records and shared them with business associates
Faith and Values: Broken glass, broken lives, finding healing
Holly Grim homicide prompts wrongful death lawsuit
No. 14 Villanova survives scare, beats DePaul in overtime
By Dan Gelston
VILLANOVA, PA. — Headed into overtime after blowing a big lead in regulation, Collin Gillespie had a one-word challenge for Villanova: Attitude.
With the national championship stars gone, a new era of Wildcats are finding out what they need to win in the rugged Big East, and Gillespie showed them the way.
Gillespie made four straight free throws in overtime and scored 21 points in 43 minutes, and No. 14 Villanova survived a scare to beat DePaul for the 19th straight time, 79-75 on Tuesday night.
"It's not like a Disney movie and it just happens," coach Jay Wright said. "It's going to be ugly at times, it's going to look good at times. Just hopefully at the end, we can be a really good team."
The Wildcats (13-3, 4-1 Big East) trailed by 13 early and got a fight few expected from one of the perennial worst teams in the conference. DePaul's Charlie Moore made one free throw and intentionally missed the second with about a second left in OT, but the Blue Demons failed to score -- or complete the comeback.
[More Sports] Patriot League men's basketball: Second half surge lifts Bucknell to weekend sweep over Lehigh »
DePaul (12-5, 0-4) trailed by 11 points with 2:14 left in regulation, one more loss against one of the nation's elite a mere formality. But the Blue Demons showed grit down the stretch they rarely played with in the series against the Wildcats. Moore buried a 3 to start the rally and Jalen Coleman-Lands connected on a corner 3 with 31.5 seconds to go that made it 67-65 and silenced the Villanova crowd.
Moore scored the tying basket after Villanova threw away the ball on the inbound play, and Villanova missed a shot to win at the buzzer.
Gillespie steadied the Wildcats in OT and they won for the 10th time in 11 games. Saddiq Bey scored 18 points, and Jeremiah Robinson-Earl had 13 points and 13 rebounds.
"That's what a season is, you go through experiences like that and you learn how to trust each other in tough situations," Wright said.
[More Sports] Lehigh wrestling team's struggles continue with loss at Navy »
The Wildcats could not shake the pesky Blue Demons and were stuck tied 40-all midway through the second half. Moore hit five 3s and scored 29 points for DePaul and Paul Reed had 18 points and 15 rebounds.
The Wildcats were 10½-point favorites for a reason, undefeated against DePaul since Jan. 3, 2008. To put that in perspective, that was two national titles and a renovated arena ago for the Wildcats.
DePaul showed a flicker of improvement with a 12-1 start to the season, highlighted by an overtime victory against national title game finalist Texas Tech, only to drop the first three games of the Big East play.
Against the Wildcats, DePaul came ready for an upset. The Blue Demons stunned Villanova early, and when Moore buried a 3 from the top of the arc and Nick Ogenda followed with a second-chance layup, they led 21-8 and forced Nova to call timeout. DePaul used a 9-0 run and Villanova missed nine of 10 shots over a 3-minute span to make this one a ballgame.
[More Sports] Report: Former Penn State coach Bill O'Brien on track to become offensive coordinator at Alabama »
Villanova's Cole Swider hit a 3 that ended the scoring drought and kickstarted a 22-7 run to close the half. Gillespie hit back-to-back 3s, sank two free throws and buried a 3 after DePaul was whistled for an offensive foul, and suddenly the Wildcats were within two. Swider tied it on two free throws and Bey sent the Pavilion into a frenzy with a big bucket down low that sent the Wildcats into halftime with a 30-28 lead.
"I think we just need to start to learn how to compete for a full 40 minutes," Gillespie said.
DePaul: Reed had his 12th double-double, tops in the Big East.
Villanova: Coach Jay Wright is 21-2 vs. DePaul, and the Wildcats lead the series 29-8.
Former Wildcats Kyle Lowry (2004-06) and Ryan Arcidiacono (2012-16) will have their jerseys retired in separate ceremonies this season. Lowry, an NBA champion with the Toronto Raptors, will be honored on Feb. 26 and Arcidiacono on Feb. 12. Villanova will now have retired 23 former jerseys, including 18 players, three coaches and long-time trainer Jake Nevin. Paul Arizin's No. 11 is the only retired number in program history.
"We've just got to win," DePaul coach Dave Leitao said. "We're 0-4 and we had four games that could have went either way. Each one, at whatever point late in the game, were one-possession games.
"We've got to be able to understand how over the course of the game we don't get to that point. And then we've also got to understand when we're in that mode in late games, how to do a good job of making sure the other team doesn't score and get positive results on offense."
DePaul continues its rugged Big East stretch Saturday against No. 5 Butler.
Latest College Sports
Patriot League men's basketball: Second half surge lifts Bucknell to weekend sweep over Lehigh
Lehigh wrestling team's struggles continue with loss at Navy
Report: Former Penn State coach Bill O'Brien on track to become offensive coordinator at Alabama
The Wildcats play former Big East rival UConn on Saturday at the Wells Fargo Center.
Who should respond to 911 calls related to mental illness? Allentown discusses police alternatives, though path forward remains hazy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Fuji X-H1. IBIS, Phase Detect 4K beast?
By DaveAltizer, February 8, 2018 In: EOSHD
No offense but this is BS. There are a lot more than a few people making money with 8-bit cameras. From YouTubers, to wedding/corporate/commercial videographers, R&G, indie film etc.. one could argue 8-bit is "the normal thing".
Not sure what you consider the "industry" but there is now a whole new digital platform outside of broadcast television that doesn't care about any old "standards". (which btw is what.. BBC/EBU standards?)
Even cinema doesn't really care.. Soderbergh's next movie was shot entirely on iPhone 7+ and just premiered at Berlin Film festival last month..
Anyways i sense trolling.. because we all know only a single mirrorless/dslr camera exists on the market today that shoots 10-bit internally.
So.. just get that or pony up for a pro video cam. Easy.
In fact, cable TV stations here require BBC/EBU standards, and this is the norm in EU, I know because I did sound on a couple of this last year. Most terrestrial channels ask for 4:2:2 8bit, but most of them are not very anal about it (a couple of years ago a C100 was enough), but on another 2 shows on private stations, they requested 10 bit, so we shot with GH5. A few other jobs I did this year needed top specs as well (a feature documentary we shot C300mkII, and a couple of shorts with Ursa mini pro), and this were just medium to low budgeted jobs.
I do not thing that this conversation is relevant here though. Different tools and different needs. The @Alt Shoo expressed his opinion that this specific tool isn't right for his intended use. No one should have been offended by it.
This joke about Soderbergh's film will go on forever I guess. If you feel confident do your work with an iPhone 7+, be my guest, no one will judge you, and I support every artistic choice (my favorite films of all time are Italian neo realistic films and indies of all kinds from around the world), but this is not a serious argument for a dozen of reasons, thoroughly discussed on similar threads, or in all the other threads that this arguments out of the blue appears to bring off topic comments and confusion (e.g the thread about the Canon's, which suddenly became an iPhone Vs all the cameras challenge).
If I cared about photo and video, and I have to choose between an iPhone 7 or a X-H1, I would choose the latter, in every possible way.
Don Kotlos, Alt Shoo, Rinad Amir and 3 others reacted to this
4 minutes ago, Kisaha said:
(e.g the thread about the Canon's, which suddenly became an iPhone Vs all the cameras challenge).
fun isn't it?! now that phones can be used in the same sentence as cinema!
just wait till someone makes an app that simulates kowas, cookes, hawk vlites etc.
1 minute ago, sam said:
I do not know your age, but its the same story since the beginning of time.
It is fun, sure, do you know anyone do not want to pay 1000$ and have a phone/gaming machine/media player/cinema camera/photo camera/sound recorder/coffee maker on his pocket??! Even though you top the game a bit with the Cookes (especially).
This conversation happens now, because the first mobiles we had, were the size of your laptop, and barely could make phone calls.
We had some political prisoners here, some of them the greatest artists of my country (sculptures, painters, poets) and the only way to express themselves were 1) carving coal from fires they could find 2) the occasional wood from those said fires 3) writing on packet of cigarettes. They had needs they had to express, and they used whatever they could.
Sod could use his arse's hole as a pin hole camera, and that would be in all major festivals for sure, probably could have won some as well. When one is "no one" shooting an iPhone is the same like the dozens of millions shooting on their iPhones on youtube.
Also, you put those two words in the same sentence, negating all the arguments I made, and from the hastiness of your reply, I guess you didn't even bother to read my post! but I would like to add another point in your argument (because I am such a nice guy!), I would add an older film made by an iPhone, by an arguably excellent director (his first films especially), that shot a 30min film in 2010-2011 with 150.000$ (with inflation that is more with todays standards)
http://entertainment.time.com/2011/10/26/park-chan-wooks-night-fishing-the-future-of-cell-phone-cinema/
25 minutes ago, Kisaha said:
sorry but no, he didn't say 8-bit isn't the right tool for his intended use, he claimed "fact remains these aren't the requirements for any serious and aspiring professional in this industry" which implies 8-bit cameras cannot be considered serious professional tools for videography. i find that statement indeed offensive/inflammatory/ignorant.
as for the point about soderbergh, it was just to illustrate that "standards" don't mean much even in cinema. and btw he isn't the first to do it. george lucas shot star wars AOTC on a 8-bit Sony in 2002 as pointed out here recently. movie grossed $650 million.
anyways, the fact remains if you need a 10-bit camera, it's either GH5 or 10-bit video camera. not much point debating it in any other current mirrorless/ dslr thread imo.
Prandi reacted to this
Trek of Joy 527
Globetrotting Redneck
Plenty of people do paid work with 8-bit material. I've shot a number of events and done a few cheap/free broadcast commercials. All were 8-bit, and I go back to the 5d2 in like 2008 or so. All of the spec was either 720/60p or 1080/30p and a minimum bitrate of 50mbps. I've never shot 10-bit or more outside of tinkering with a C300 and a Red a few times. Scratch that - I had a BMPCC for awhile, so I did shoot some raw/prores. But I never did any paid work with it because the workflow didn't jive with my run-and-gun shooting style.
People keep repeating things like Netflix of BBC standards, which in most cases apply to them - not everyone. I know people that have shot stuff for Discovery, Nat geo and so on with gear below their published standards. If you're doing stuff for broadcast, then it might be an issue, but if you're shooting weddings or TV spots, its not an issue.
I never understand why people criticize specs from their own bubble. If you want a 10-bit camera, this isn't for you. If you want to shoot for 3 straight hours, this isn't the camera for you. Move on. Why keep repeating the same numbnut argument and clogging up this thread?
Back to the XH1- I absolutely love Eterna. 24p looks beautiful. I'm much more excited about this camera than the A7III. It looks like a winner. I'm looking forward to mine arriving soon.
Django, Emanuel, Tim Sewell and 3 others reacted to this
I agree with all of you! not a lot of people need 10bit, and the vast amount of the masses do not need nothing else than their mid-tier smartphones camera [just a small minority owns top iPhones phones anyway https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/disappointing-response-to-iphone-x-forces-apple-to-halve-production/articleshow/62705797.cms that affects others too, because Sony had budgeted 120-160.000.000 sensors, and Samsung 40.000.000 OLED screens for this mobile phone only (each camera has its own sensor, while the screen is one obviously!)].
I will be glad to see some footage and real life experiences from the people buying the actual camera soon.
Alt Shoo 89
I forget that in the world of cameras there are pixel peepers and in the world of forums, there are word wizards and sentence surveyors. Whoever feels some type of way about my comment is reading way too much into it.
Matter of fact I agree with the majority, surprisingly that wasn't read into, that you don't need 8 bit, but once again for my needs it just doesn't cut it. Regarding the Xh1 it's great that it has DCI 4k!
Don Kotlos 912
BOT 78140 is dead
Members via Facebook
mkabi reacted to this
Thomas Hill 58
8 hours ago, Clovis said:
Indeed !
How come ?? I saw the video has (only) 23,98 fps. I would expect more jitter here and there ...
I don't know. What usually annoys me is jitter with movement across a static screen. It could be some Fuji magic dust sprinkled in the new 200mbit codec or her spinning across the screen is disguising it. Either way, the image is lovely.
mkabi 231
24 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:
Noticed that motion cadence goes out the window with Face AF on...... Hopefully that is fixed in a future firmware update.
2 minutes ago, mkabi said:
The 70 degrees shutter angle was the most probable culprit.
Andrew Reid 8,192
Andrew Reid - Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD
Had a go of one today.
They have badly messed up the ergonomics for video.
The silent control panel is a joke... Touch screen items are way too small to accurately select and the scrolling is unresponsive.
The exposure comp. button is programmable but you can't assign movie recording to it... there is also no movie record button whatsoever!
Strangely you can assign slow-mo frame rate options to the button, and select them any time you want... even in stills mode. But you can't shoot.
The movie mode is on the end of the drive selection lever again like X-T2 and it sucks balls. Finger nail grasping, clicking, takes ages... just horrible. Have to go through about 6 clicks to reach the movie mode.
Autofocus was poor. Didn't try all lenses though.
On the bright side... The stabilisation seemed REALLY effective.
salim and jonpais reacted to this
salim 105
20 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:
Thanks! That's all I needed to know...I guess, Sony A7iii is a much better practical option.
Yurolov 132
2 minutes ago, salim said:
Yeah me 2. It is a shame as the images are really nice, but for a portable camera autofocus would be nice to have for quick run and gun type work. I am waiting on canon as I know only they can get it right from both an ergonomics and image standpoint. I think we just have to pray the ff mirrorless will give us what we have been asking for.
webrunner5 and salim reacted to this
Tim Sewell 310
I have no skin in this game, but on the Fuji camera forum I frequent a couple of people who have received their X-H1s are reporting that the AF is noticeably quicker. Obviously that's for stills - and they haven't detailed the lenses used - but I guess we shouldn't dismiss it too early. Those of us who use Fuji cams know that there is a difference similar to that between the weather in England right now and that enjoyed in the Florida Keys in AF performance between lenses.
KitaCam, mechanicalEYE and Emanuel reacted to this
The video AF is surprising because it is excellent on the X-E3.
22 minutes ago, Yurolov said:
Yeah me 2. It is a shame as the images are really nice, but for a portable camera autofocus would be nice to have for quick run and gun type work.
The IBIS look good, the colors look pretty good. They almost got everything right to have a tiny camera that you can steal shots with and quickly create something. But if you are going to be fighting with AF, then it's going be a headache. But for some people who are going to focus manually along with Fuji's very reasonable zoom cinema lenses, it makes a good compact package still.
I am waiting on canon as I know only they can get it right from both an ergonomics and image standpoint.
Not going to happen anytime soon. Canon is doing financially well and as a result there is no financial pressure on them to innovate outside of what they have been doing. Yes, canon mastered the AF technology with Dual Pixel technology. But they're not going to give you a camera in the $2-3k price point.
I actually think there is more incentive on Nikon to create something great, but not sure they can muster the technology needed.
So, it really comes down to Sony and they put a lot into their A7iii and I think it's a very reasonable price for a FF 4k camera. The question for me is still if their IBIS has improved at all or not for video stuff.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:
I am trying to be silent on this thread because of the recent bad blood, but I have to say it.
Some of the above negatives are the positives that keep us closely to our NX1's so many years after its release.
Super accurate and responsive touch control, that can change almost anything with one button (Fn + multi touch functions), plus Fn button on the lens, that can adjust settings rotating the focus ring (yes, it can do that as well).
Movie Record Button (programmable), and movie mode (on stand bye) with one button (no dials whatsoever for that, of course there are programmable positions in the program dial if you'd like), and almost everything on thumb and index fingers.
Those are small things for some, for others quite substantial, and only @Andrew Reid can confirm these!
tfraser reacted to this
^Do you work for Samsung? You know their camera line went out of business and you're not being paid anymore right? :P
webrunner5 and mechanicalEYE reacted to this
@InazumaSomeone should have copied simple things like those mentioned above though, and still haven't. I know for sure (I read a couple of top Fuji executive interviews in 2016) that they were following NX really close, it could be easy to just copy some of the things that were right in that camera. This are not small things when in the field and ergonomics matter. The line doesn't exist, but the cameras do, and work well, that a dead line from 2014 has some advantages to a newly manufactured camera of 2018, says more for the new camera than the old one though, and that doesn't sound well.


text:
Marowa  is a village of Nalbari district in Western Assam under 51(5) No Upar Barbhag Gram Panchayat.

Language
The primary language used in Marowa is Kamrupi, as in Nalbari district and Kamrup region

See also
 Villages of Nalbari District

References

External links

Villages in Nalbari district


text:
Iospilidae är en familj av ringmaskar. Iospilidae ingår i ordningen Phyllodocida, klassen havsborstmaskar, fylumet ringmaskar och riket djur. Enligt Catalogue of Life omfattar familjen Iospilidae 4 arter.

Kladogram enligt Catalogue of Life och Dyntaxa:

Källor

Externa länkar

Havsborstmaskar
Iospilidae


text:
HORDE, THE (2012)
TroyAnderson July 2, 2013 No Comments0 likes
THE PLOT THUS FAR
It is the word "horde" that had meant, for many countries and nations, bloody raids and being under humilating contribution for centuries – a strange and scary world with its own rules and customs. To be or not to be for Rus (Ruthenia), that is the price of the one-man mission as he is departing to this world to accomplish a feat. The film tells the story of how Saint Alexius, the Metropolitan of Moscow and Wonderworker of All Russia, healed the Tatar Queen Taidula, Jani-Beg's mother, from blindness, in 1357.
WHAT WE THOUGHT
"The Horde" wants to show the proper Historical scope for the rise of the Mongols and the Russian Expansion. Playing around with both cultures, we get a look at ancient history that rarely is touched upon in the Western World. One can say that it whitewashes a lot of what happened back then. Honestly, I see it for being an anti-grandiose performance. Sort of an Anti-"Mongol".
There are so much historical sources about how Russian were killed in a most cruel ways, thousands of them, families and towns. There was almost no life at all, how you expect all this feelings in every soul – fear and anger – to be shown? And yes, it the almost beginning of Christianity in Russia, with all passion and exaggеration, but also with all self-sаcrifice, specific for the period.
The DVD comes with no special features other than the trailer. The transfer is pretty sharp, even if it's a world cinema mix in standard definition. The Dolby 5.1 audio track is sharp enough for what's available. Still, it works. In the end, I'd recommend a purchase to foreign film fans.
RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW!
Previous ArticleSUPERMAN: UNBOUNDNext ArticlePHANTOM
ISN'T IT DELICIOUS
WORDWORLD: PLANES, TRAINS AND TRUCKS
WALLACE & GROMIT: WORLD OF INVENTION
RELUCTANT DRAGON, THE: WALT DISNEY ANIMATION COLLECTION
TUCKER & DALE VS. EVIL


Video is the darling of social media now. Facebook announced earlier this month (in Nov 2015), that it has more than 8 billion (!) video views every day.
A few days later, Snapchat announced that it has 6 billion video views every day.
Obviously, there is a clear marketing trend evolving for 2016 and 'video' seems to be the most favourite media format for online marketers. Apart from recorded and edited video content, there are new Live streaming platforms like Periscope, Blab and Meerkat, creating more live videos than ever before. Driven by mobile consumers, social media users and global connectivity, video is here to stay for the long-term and it will only gain strength as time goes by.
If you aren't convinced already that video is where you need to focus your attention, here is a list of Top 5 reasons with recent statistics that will push you over the edge and help you realize that video will be one of the key factors for online marketing success in 2016.
For a marketer, the mother of all metrics is 'conversion'. Any activity that helps you convert deserves your time, attention and resources. And it is now a proven fact that video converts.
Actually this is not news. For decades, videos have been conveying messages more effectively to people than written content or images, in the form of TV Commercials. That is why advertisers still choose TV Commercials as their No.1 Choice for promotions. To give you an idea of how big video commercials are – in 2015, Super Bowl had 114.4 million viewers in the US and the average cost of a 30-second commercial on that day was $4.5 million! And obviously videos convert so much that companies were ready to spend $4.5 million for just 30 seconds.
But what is news is the fact that this powerful medium has now become affordable and available for small businesses, startups and nonprofits with smaller marketing budgets, thanks to the Internet. Digital marketing has democratised video marketing. You can now create an awesome, creative and value-adding commercial for your audience using your iPhone, and it might go viral with millions of views on Youtube. Now you have millions of viewers for your commercial without having to spend $4.5 million for a 30 secs slot!
I must also mention that what makes video so special as a medium of communication, is its unique ability to convey a message with a touch of emotion. You are not only telling the customer about the product benefit or features, but you are able to add an emotional element to it by way of music, visuals and special effects.
We all hate high 'bounce rates' and low 'average duration' of visitors in our webpages. We want people to spend more time in our websites, mobile apps and social media channels. Video is your best bet to make that happen.
Videos can be so engaging that your prospects will want to stick to your website longer than usual. The longer they stay, the better are the chances of them taking actions like clicking a button, downloading eBooks or buying a product. Humans are visual beings. If you are able to engage them visually, you have their attention for a longer duration. This is a great opportunity for marketers.
When Skype was bought by Microsoft for a mind-boggling $8.5 billion in 2011, it was proof that visual communication was the future. As humans, we prefer pictures while communicating and when it is 'motion' pictures, it make it even better. The second statistics about millennials (above) also clearly indicates the emergence of video as the preferred medium by the upcoming generation, who will be your future customers. So future-proof your marketing by starting video marketing now.
Attention spans of consumers are going down. Recently Telegraph reported that human span of attention has gone down from 12 seconds in 2000 to just 8 seconds in 2015. That is lower than the attention span of a goldfish, which is 9 secs!
With such less margin to work with, as a business you need an engaging medium like video to convey a message. As a digital marketing consultant, whenever I work with a B2B client or a client with a disruptive technology or an innovative product, I strongly recommend they use videos as the main communication medium. Simply because videos convey more information to their audience in less amount of time. There is so much information and communication overload out there, in order to stand out and get people's attention, you need a way of conveying more information in less time. Videos can help you do that.
These statistics clearly indicate that video is the future. And no marketer or business can afford to ignore video marketing. Get started now!


Full description of Emoji Keyboard Cute Emoticons .
To Download Emoji Keyboard Cute Emoticons For PC,users need to install an Android Emulator like Xeplayer.With Xeplayer,you can Download Emoji Keyboard Cute Emoticons for PC version on your Windows 7,8,10 and Laptop.
4.Install Emoji Keyboard Cute Emoticons for PC.Now you can play Emoji Keyboard Cute Emoticons on PC.Have fun!


What happens to my car loan interest rate in bankruptcy?
Nothing in a chapter 7, and it usually drops in a chapter 13.
In a chapter 7, if we want to keep the car, we reaffirm the loan with the same interest rate, payments structure, and balance. If you are behind on the loan, you'd better catch up or work something out with the lender.
This means that a chapter 13 allows you to reduce the interest rate you are currently paying on a high interest car loan.
This entry was posted in Utah Bankruptcy on February 17, 2014 by robertspaynelaw.


text:
package com.softwaremill.common.cdi.security;

import java.lang.annotation.ElementType;
import java.lang.annotation.Retention;
import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy;
import java.lang.annotation.Target;

/**
 * @author Adam Warski (adam at warski dot org)
 */
@Target({ ElementType.TYPE, ElementType.METHOD })
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@SecureBinding
@Secure("#{var1 == true}")
public @interface AccessIfVar1Set {
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Welcome to Open Access Week 2016. We're honoring the theme of this year's OA week, "Open in Action," by highlighting how we work to make open the norm at IUPUI. On each day of OA week we will post about how we're putting open in action. Stay tuned to learn how the library supports digital access to Indiana's cultural heritage, free access to theses and dissertations, open educational resources, data sharing, OA journal publishing, the implementation of the IUPUI Open Access Policy and much, much more.
While you're reading about the how we put Open in Action everyday in the library, this would be a great time to show your support open access. Visit the "Open in Action" portal and make a committment today. Upload a work to IUPUI ScholarWorks, create an ImpactStory profile, select an OA journal for your next article, sign the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, select an open educational resource for your syllabus, start a conversation, or choose to do something that makes sense for you as a student, educator, scholar, reader, or librarian. Commit to putting open in action.


text:
Andy Oram
Three vantage points from which to view patents
I've been doing a lot of research recently into the patent system. The impetus is the history-making Peer to Patent project, and specifically an article I recently finished for the Economist magazine. ("A patent improvement" in the September 8, 2007 issue, Technology Quarterly section.)
This blog is not about the Economist article or Peer to Patent, but about how several months of immersion in the subject of patents has affected my understanding of related policy issues, and how my opinions differ from many of my friends in the software field.
Patents are necessary to promote invention
One of the fuzzier notions making its rounds in the software field condemns patents as backward and oppressive. Not just software patents--some people criticize the whole notion of patents.
What you have to remember is that every major innovation--even in free software--tends to be driven by a highly-motivated visionary. Just because a company may fund the project (or a community may provide bug fixes and enhancements, in the case of free software) doesn't mean the role of the wild-eyed genius is eliminated.
Sara Boettiger shows in a First Monday article that patents are by no means incompatible with open source development; in fact, they can protect openness. What if you create an open source technology and someone patents an improvement to it? If you have a patent on the base technology, you can bargain with the person who patented the improvement, because he or she needs your patent license to use the improved version of your software. That's one reason the Open Invention Network is worthwhile.
Open source is great, but it has worked so far in areas where people can innovate sitting comfortably at a computer. They don't generally have to writhe around on the floor trying to insert a bolt in a hard-to-reach place or mix dangerous concoctions of expensive chemicals, which is how a lot of significant innovation takes place in other fields. (However, the locus of innovation is shifting, an observation I'll take up in a moment.)
A good idea is a precious find, and not all of us are fated to make the discovery. The inventors need both a guarantee of recognition and the hope of financial reward (which sometimes has to be massive) to continue the amazing roll-out of new inventions we've seen over the past several decades.
One can speculate endlessly on what drives inventors to put in their effort, but it appears they are spurred on by the opportunity to own their invention, both in the sense of being recognized publicly and in opportunities to make money from it. Indeed, the patent system is valuable because it offers recognition and financial reward while persuading inventors to give up some "ownership" and share the invention with the public.
Patents that are improperly granted or exercised with too much reckless force can cause harm and lead to high legal costs. Similar things could be said about police who act improperly. As with patents, some people (particularly among racial minorities) say they'd rather not have police at all. But the abuses just remind us that powerful forces need to be carefully regulated, and abusers have to be disciplined.
Buying and selling of patents is required
Not everybody can take an idea from conception to market. Do you know an inventor? Now do you know an inventor who can assemble the means to produce the invention on a massive scale at high quality? If you do, can that inventor also set up a company that's expert at branding, marketing, and distributing the invention?
All but a handful of independent inventors need to assign their ideas to other companies in order to bring them to fruition. Even if a company owns an invention, the managers may realize they're not the best company to manufacture or market it. Furthermore, innovation is based on the recognition that an inventor deserves to be compensated for his or her creativity even when others bring the idea to market.
So technology transfer is a fundamental part of the robust ecosystem that allows inventions to reach the public in the form of cost-effective products. And given that patents have an economic role in encouraging inventions, I see a role even for the companies that buy patents with no intention of manufacturing the invention. They may deserve the accusation of trolling if they strike a manufacturer strategically when it's vulnerable and has to agree to loathsome terms, but if they simply demand the license fees that would normally be due the original inventor, they're part of the same capitalist game as everyone else.
It's easier to understand licensing if you think of innovation in the form of risk. Inventors may risk several years of their lives developing inventions, and manufacturers risk money in developing and marketing the resulting product. Assigning a patent to a patent holding company is also risky, because the patent may be worth a lot more than what it's sold for. But it also may be worth a lot less, so patent holding company is also taking a risk and deserves a comparable reward.
The one risk inventors can't tolerate is for someone else to get a patent on something that's obvious or already in widespread use. That's where we should focus on improving the patent system.
If policy changes tightened requirements for getting a patent, facilitated the overturning of improperly granted patents, and reduced the inflated damages that are awarded for infringement in many cases, we'd reduce the specific "trolling" problem of companies that ask for license fees greater than the invention is worth.
Software represents the current stage of innovation
This may be the most controversial observation in this article, and the one whose implications I am least sure about. Technological innovation has always represented the embodiment of a creative spark in a machine or process--you might say that what people are patenting is a mental process for manipulating some physical or chemical process.
But technologists have explored the physical worlds pretty thoroughly. Certainly we'll see more new compounds--and the world of biology is wide open for exploration--but it's natural for a lot of innovation to have moved to a higher level. Now that we've invented a lot of physical or chemical embodiments of mental processes, innovation continues among those mental processes themselves. And insofar as mental processes are embodied in software, one can argue that patents on software will promote further inventions.
I don't buy this argument, even though I've tried to state it in a way that's fair to proponents. Correspondingly, many of the arguments against software patents are flawed.
The complaint that a lot of non-novel processes were being patented because software patents were new was a powerful argument thirty years ago, but it's getting old as the repository of software patents piles up.
The complaint that software is complex is unsustainable because lots of non-software machines and processes are complex too. Is most software more complex than an oil refinery?
The argument against software patents that I find most persuasive is the fundamental unity of a program. An inventor can always identify the particular hinge she has added to a machine, or the particular molecule she has added to a compound, making it unique. There is no such construct in software. Everything a piece of software does draws on data and code scattered throughout a program.
One can strip a function out of a well-designed program and substitute another, but that doesn't mean one can identify what makes one function novel in the sense of being patentable. The difficulties of designing modular software (well documented in dozens of books on software engineering over the past four decades) show that in fact software is a unified entity that is not merely the sum of its parts.
The damage caused by the enforcement of overly broad patents is often called a "boundary" problem. (See, for instance, work by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer.) I consider the unity of a software program to be the ultimate expression of this problem.
Another way to state this point is that an idea is of little value, and that the real innovation lies in the embodiment of the idea in code. Protection of software by copyright is therefore sufficient to protecting an inventor's rights, and patenting software is overkill.
Tim O'Reilly, my employer, looks back toward the original social contract behind patents: that the patent holder gets the exclusive rights to develop a product in exchange for teaching the public about the new technology. He interprets this tradition as demanding that software not be patented unless the patent-holder publishes a working, open-source implementation. (But the patent would still be restrictive because it would rule out the release of other implementations, which might be better or address different application domains.)
Proportional rewards
The fundamental dilemma in innovation is that it requires such a high investment of time and money, with such a tenuous hope of reward, that it's amazing for people to undertake the effort at all. A legal and economic system that offers enormous financial rewards to the inventor who has benefited the public is a success. But such a system also increases income disparities. The money spent by people on new medicines and other patented technologies is one factor in a complex equation that seems to funnel wealth to a tiny segment of the population.
However, it should be possible to tweak the system without reducing the rewards for innovation. One can hope that a more equitable distribution of wealth will create more people with the time and education to pursue inventions. There's nothing wrong with a patent system that acts as a tax whose proceeds go to inventors, so long as undeserved patents are kept to a minimum and the public can afford the tax.
I'll finish with one comment about Peer to Patent. The most common objection to it is, "They won't get people to sign up and participate." I think the project has broken through this barrier to feasibility, having gotten over 1,300 people to sign up during the first two months and having received 57 suggestions for prior art covering 14 patent applications (as of an email I got on August 22). This success may, of course, reflect the first flush of excitement over a new idea, as well as the choice of computer-related patents for the pilot.
However, I could very well see participation in patent review becoming one of the volunteer activities that research communities come to expect of their members, just as they now review journal articles, sit on the boards of non-profits, and perform all sorts of university-related duties unrelated to their fields. Most people who achieve notable success in a particular field lead public lives and take on public responsibilities, and the whole message of Peer to Patent (enthusiastically picked up by the US Patent and Trademark Office) is that the public can take on some responsibility for patents.
tags: open source | comments: 18 | Sphere It
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/5825
Roy Schestowitz [09.10.07 05:34 AM]
> I don't buy this argument [against software patents],
> even though I've tried to state it in a way
> that's fair to proponents.
I am aware that you are more of a scientist/author, not a lawyer. Would you also suggest that patenting mathematics should be appropriate because it relates to thoughts (or formulation thereof)?
I am stunned (yes, stunned) to find that some people still think that merely anything can be owned and monetised.
Swashbuckler [09.10.07 05:41 AM]
"Tim O'Reilly, my employer, looks back toward the original social contract behind patents: that the patent holder gets the exclusive rights to develop a product in exchange for teaching the public about the new technology. He interprets this tradition as demanding that software not be patented unless the patent-holder publishes a working, open-source implementation."
Then Tim really needs a refresher course: the patent disclosure is how the public is taught about the new technology.
Most software patents are crap, but requiring/expecting that a software patent be put in open source is insane.
Alex Tolley [09.10.07 06:25 AM]
"One can speculate endlessly on what drives inventors to put in their effort, but it appears they are spurred on by the opportunity to own their invention, both in the sense of being recognized publicly and in opportunities to make money from it. Indeed, the patent system is valuable because it offers recognition and financial reward while persuading inventors to give up some "ownership" and share the invention with the public."
You completely miss the point about the economics of patents. Patents were originally granted because proprietary knowledge was so hard to replicate and thus society would benefit from the temporary monopoly in exchange for the release of the knowledge. However, if it is easy to create new inventions, then the barrier to societal gain is low and there is no need for patent protection. The Horatio Alger model of invention is just self serving for existing patent holders. If a software algorithm can be reinvented a million times because it is so easy, there is no reason to grant it a patent as the "non-obviousness" criterion fails. Most patents however are granted because searches cannot find prior art, i.e. the novelty criterion only is satisfied. This hinders idea diffusion, not strengthens it.
"Certainly we'll see more new compounds--and the world of biology is wide open for exploration--but it's natural for a lot of innovation to have moved to a higher level."
Another perversion of patent system has been the ability to effectively patent discoveries in biology by locking up use patents. This has become a huge problem in drug research as one example.
"... innovation continues among those mental processes themselves. And insofar as mental processes are embodied in software, one can argue that patents on software will promote further inventions."
With this line of thought, why stop at software? Why not patent mathematics, even certain types of thinking itself. Perhaps one could patent a new political system? Do you really not see the bankruptcy of your line of thinking?
Don Marti [09.10.07 07:07 AM]
Andy, your arguments for software patents work just as well for prose patents. A book is complex, too. Should Steve Oualline be able to patent the analogy that he uses to explain pointers in Practical C Programming? The key is to balance the inventives for R&D that the patent system offers against the transaction costs of maintaining the system, and the balance clearly doesn't work for software (or prose, or guitar chords, or rhyming words). (PS: please allow "cite" tags in comments.)
Karl Fogel [09.10.07 08:51 AM]
It's not clear that innovation itself is inherently more useful to society than freedom to use all inventions available. How valuable is the "amazing roll-out of new inventions we've seen over the past several decades" if the world isn't free to use those inventions?
There's a trade-off here. The more useful an invention is, then by definition the more harm is done (to everyone but the patent holder) by granting a monopoly on invention. I'm not saying that no good is done by the patent system; I'm just saying that its harm must always be roughly proportional to its benefit. It's a negative feedback cycle: the more effective patents are at stimulating innovation, then the more effective they must be at squelching society's ability to use those innovations, because for every invention they stimulate, they squelch others' ability to use it.
For a given invention X, we'd ideally want to know the probability of X having been invented anyway (without the patent system), and we'd want to know the "squelch factor" for X: that is, the number and usefulness of applications to which X cannot be put because while it is under a patent.
It is possible that a lower overall rate of innovation would still be better, if in exchange for that we got a greater freedom to use the innovations that are available.
Also, of course, re-use is not a static process: it can lead to other forms of less-dramatic, lighter-weight innovation, which the current system is biased against because the patent system imposes a constant overhead on everyone right now.
Tim O'Reilly [09.10.07 08:58 AM]
Swashbuckler --
Have you read many software patents, and compared them to early patents for mechanical inventions? The latter effectively comprised a construction manual for the invention, complete with diagrams, by which anyone reading the patent could subsequently reproduce the device nearly exactly. Can you imagine anyone doing the same thing from the "disclosures" in a modern software patent? They aren't even at the level of pseudocode, let alone reproducible code.
Perhaps saying that only open source software should be patentable is going a bit far -- I was trying to be provocative.
But saying that working source code should accompany the application (to be escrowed by the patent office for the duration of the patent) should definitely be feasible.
It would be an effective way of raising the bar against frivolous software patents. First off, people would have to have actually made a working program, instead of just describing an idea that they never implemented. Second, they would have to make the tradeoff between disclosure and monopoly protection that was originally envisioned by the patent office. (Source code might also address Andy's unity argument -- sometimes, you can see what's original in a program, and there *may* be innovations so significant that they could qualify for patent protection. Although for the most part, I agree with Andy, that copyright is sufficient.)
If you can show me a case where the public has been taught more about the new technology by a software patent by the disclosures in that patent than simply by observing the operation of the program, that is probably one of the few cases where patent protection might have been deserved. (Public key cryptography is a good example, whatever you think about the social effects.)
One more thing, Swashbuckler --
In the old days, every patent application had to be accompanied by a working copy of the invention. (I saw Thomas Edison's light bulb proudly displayed in the patent commissioner's office.) That requirement was abandoned, but I think it was a good one. And it's easy to do for software. As I said above, it would definitely raise the bar on one class of patents, for "inventions" that have never actually been built.
Andy,
I'm not sure I buy your first premise, that patents are *necessary* to promote invention. I do believe that there are likely many cases where they encourage it, but there are probably others where they discourage it. (See Karl Fogel's comment.)
But that being said, those cases where they do encourage it are important ones. I'm thinking of one prominent inventor I know, Dean Kamen. Best known for the Segway, he actually made his money by inventing, patenting, and licensing medical devices: a portable dialysis machine and an insulin pump, both of which have saved many lives.
What occurs to me thinking about Dean is that what the patent system (and particularly, the second of your three points) promotes is this: the ability for an inventor to remain an inventor, and not to be forced to be the one to actually commercialize his invention. Dean didn't have to start a new company for each invention (although sometimes he might have.) The option of licensing allows him to go back to the lab.
(Dean told me a funny story recently. Now, he's done very well by his inventions, but he told me that when Sergey Brin came to visit him, and saw his display cases with his various breakthrough inventions, which have created billions of dollars in value out in the world, with only royalties coming back to Dean, he said, "Dean, you need a better business model!" In the case of the true inventor, the separation of invention and deployment and commercialization actually gives the inventor only a part of the value created, with perhaps a larger part going to the company that takes the invention to market.)
And this is one of the big differences between traditional inventions and software: with software, invention *is* deployment. Especially in the era of open source and web 2.0, you don't need to create a company to deploy and create value with your software.
And it raises the interesting counter-case: why isn't there a market for people to "license" designs for software in a way analogous to the way they license designs for machines or other inventions? Might that be another argument for why and how software is different?
It seems to me (though I've done no exhaustive research on the matter) that software patent licensing fees generally come by extracting after-the-fact licenses from someone who has unwittingly deployed a parallel invention, and in the case of patent trolls, an after-the-fact extortion from someone who really built and deployed the invention, on the grounds of some theoretical prior art.
If software patents are like other patents, there should be lots of cases where someone came up with an idea, patented it, and then found willing and eager licensees. (I'm sure that medical device companies are willing and eager to license anything else Dean does in that field.) Does anyone know of any such cases?
Tim, the RSA patent seems to be a good example of "willing and eager licensees." Ford is also licensing a bundle of hybrid car technology from Toyota, and key elements of that are implemented in software.
Yes, I've read a number of software patents and patent applications (admittedly mostly from my own company) - often in excruciating detail. I've only glanced thru non-software related applications.
However, that's not relevant to my point. If someone has to create software in order to demonstrate the patent, they shouldn't have to open source it as well. Make it available for public review perhaps (and that's questionable in my mind), but not open source.
And creating software to demonstrate a patent is not always that easy. Some patents (I have a few in mind) would require months to write the software that accompanied the patent. If the U.S. ever fixes its broken patent system, one step of which would be to go to first to file instead of first to invent, requiring software would open a whole new kettle of fish. Does the software have to accompany the patent application? What if the software doesn't work properly or doesn't implement the patent exactly? Does that invalidate the patent application?
If you want to get rid of bogus software patents then try to fix the root of the problem: patent examiners who don't have a clue. In my mind, what you're proposing is a band-aid.
Personally, I think software should be patentable, but the crap that gets accepted these days (e.g. 1 click) is ridiculous. And, at this point, I'd be willing to punt on software patents until a proper review system can be implemented. Right now, software patents are more trouble than they're worth.
WmD [09.10.07 01:44 PM]
I don't mean to nit pick, but...
"Tim O'Reilly, my employer, looks back toward the original social contract behind patents: that the patent holder gets the exclusive rights to develop a product in exchange for teaching the public about the new technology."
Patents don't grant the right to produce anything, only the right to prevent others from doing so.
The basic example, Amy patents a doorknob. Jacob seeing the doorknob, patents a doorknob with a pushbutton lock. Jacob is prevented from making such a device by Amy's patent on the doorknob itself. The only value there is that Jacob can prevent Amy from making a doorknob with a pushbutton lock, so he can try to get money out of her.
Hooray for exclusionary rights!
chromatic [09.10.07 01:56 PM]
If someone has to create software in order to demonstrate the patent, they shouldn't have to open source it as well.
It's difficult for me to reconcile this idea with the simple fact that non-software patents trade public disclosure of a patentable invention for the right to exclude other people from reproducing the same invention.
Without the public disclosure portion of the patent, what value is there for the public to allow a temporary monopoly in manufacture and sale?
Tim O'Reilly [09.10.07 10:43 PM]
Don --
Then these are cases of "good" software patents. Or at least ones that are deserved.
If someone hasn't written the software yet, then why should it be patentable at all. Then it's just an idea, which may or may not be workable. Edison had the "idea" for a lightbulb long before he had a working implementation. But you don't get a patent for an idea (at least you didn't), but for something that really works.
I agree that open source (i.e. the requirement to allow redistribution) isn't the right term for the kind of software disclosure I have in mind, because if it were patented, it couldn't be copied and redistributed. So the two are contradictory. What I was referring to was just the idea that the source should be disclosed -- that there should be a working model of the program (including source code) as part of the disclosure. I think it would solve a lot of problems, and would prevent a lot of bad software patents.
Ken McNamara [09.11.07 02:36 AM]
The best example of the value of software patents is the LZW - GIF patent.
You could write a book on the innovation inspired by that single patent.
Ian Mulvany [09.12.07 06:23 AM]
There is an interesting complement to the patent system in the domain of assigning credit to ideas, which is the academic peer-review system.
The inventor of the idea in the case of academia is the author. The equivalent to the patent office is the editorial board of the academic journal that the author submits to.
There is an idiosyncratic historical connection between the two systems too. Einstein famously worked as a patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland, before becoming a published academic.
At the time that Einstein was working the volume of patent applications was probably on a par with the submission rate of academic papers to peer reviewed journals, though I have no figures to back this up. In both cases an idea was submitted, examined by experts for originality and either accepted, granting the creator rights, or rejected, sending them back to the drawing board.
Fast forward to today and it seems that on the whole the two systems, work in almost the completely opposite manner from one another.
The peer review system continues to work much as it used to. An idea is submitted, reviewed, in most cases rejected initially, tweaked, re-submitted and possibly accepted. Scientists for the most part are looking for peer recognition though publication, and the career rewards that come with that through tenure and increased likelihood of earning academic grants. The micro-bio and nano fields are diverging from this template, but I'll get back to that at the end. I would classify this system as one in which the interrogation of the idea happens before the laurel is bestowed on the applicant. Contrary claims or claims of prior art appear as new publications in an ongoing conversation, but it is very rare for the reward (the citable paper) to be retracted. Working as a publishing editor for three years managing five academic journals I saw this happen with one paper, and even that that was considered unusual.
The patent system currently seems to work in completely the opposite way. The bar for having a patent approved seems quite low, but even after acceptance of a patent the rewards are not guaranteed until after the patent has been challenged in a court. The interrogation happens after the laurel has been bestowed, and only in cases where there is contention that there might actually be money to be made, which seems to be the real reward that drives people to patent their ideas rather than publish them.
Now why is this the case? I would offer this idea. Patent offices are essentially national bodies. This means that compared to the growth of academic journals there are relatively few of them. The academic system provides a distributed means of testing the goodness of the ideas, and so as the volume of academic submissions has risen the journal system has been able to scale with the growth and been able to cope.
While patent applications remained mainly technical it was possible for a centralized office to cope with the volume, but the advent of software patents has dramatically changed the balance. (I'm not saying that these ideas are essentially less valuable intrinsically, but rather that the explosion of people literate in creating though the medium of computer code has increased dramatically the volume of patents that are being filed). Under this increase in volume the national patent office system has simply broken. Where it now finds it's scalability is in the court system. There are lots of courts and lots of lawyers versed in patent law. I am not sure that any fix to the patent office, or to the information that is required to submit a patent is going to get rid of the problem of scalability as long as the office remains a centralized organization, but I might well be dead wrong about this.
In what could be a worrying parallel to the way that the patent system has gone the peer review system is beginning to experience strain. It is clear that it is key in the scientific process, however the vast numbers of qualified scientists coming out of China and India are beginning to greatly increase the submission rate to academic journals. The peer review system is beginning to creak under the weight. I hasten to add that it is working just fine at the moment, but consequences can be seen in the growing importance of various citation indices. A publication on its own is no longer sufficient for the advancement of most academic careers. It usually has to come with additional properties, such as being in a popular journal, being cited a certain number of times.
Another interesting development is that in some scientific areas patents are replacing peer-reviewed publications. I know of a few groups working on nanotechnology where they have results that could be published in a peer reviewed journal, but to do so might infringe on IP. In other cases the revenue from industry that the groups are attracting mean that at the moment they don't have the time to commit to writing up their results for peer-review.
Are the two systems getting closer again?
Could the patent system benefit from having different levels of quality in the way that the peer-review system has different quality journals? A gold-standard patent requiring full code disclosure and bug-free running program, with a bronze-standard patent being equivalent to the current level?
How can both systems utilize collective intelligence to alleviate the numerical and informational pressure that surrounds the act of review?
Though a word of caution, if you have answerers to the above questions you should probably patent them, shhh now.
Scott Berkun [09.12.07 07:18 AM]
It's useful to note that us software folks aren't the first to claim that a) the patent system is broken b) that our technology is unique and doesn't fit the "antiquated" model. Every patent system in history I've seen was abused, misguided in some major fashion and failed its share of altruistic inventors. And many waves of new tech claimed that their work was hurt but an aging system.
My point isn't that we should stop complaining - only that we can learn from other innovators who have run up this hill before.
Buckminster Fuller was a long time critic of the U.S. patent system back before WWII. Prior art collisions occured often even with mechanical inventions, and the process of creating and researching patents was obfuscated by legal bureaucracy. It's particularly useful to read the history of the lightbulb patent, as many of the issues we gripe about have clearly been with us for some time.
> Andy wrote:
> The argument against software patents that
> I find most persuasive is the fundamental unity
> of a program. An inventor can always
> identify the particular hinge she has added
> to a machine...
This isn't quite true. Some inventions are novel because of how they combine existing elements, not necessary the creation of a singular new element (I'm pretty sure the the early gas engine patents by Benz or Otto, fit this). I don't buy most of the "software is a unique kind of invention" arguments, but that's a separate thread.
More interesting is how the semantics of what is an element and what is an invention dissolve quickly. The Phillips screw (Patent #2,046,343) is itself an invention, but appears in zillions of other inventions as "an element". Yes, its patent expired, but conceptually all inventions reuse other inventions. The boundaries we create are arbitrary and there is no perfect answer.
In research for The myths of Innovation book I spent some time studying different patent systems and they all had major problems, half of which were political, but the other half were due to the inherent subjective (e.g. sloppy) nature of defining what is novel, creative, unique or innovative. That judgment, in every system, is made by analysts of some kind and their training, hiring and reward system seems the most leveraged place to explore reform, whatever the intent of the reform is.
Sérgio Carvalho [09.12.07 06:08 PM]
In the discussion of patents as a whole, and software patents in particular, there a few key points which I find obvious enough that everyone can agree. Let me line up those, then I'll come to a conclusion, and meet your post in between.
1) Patents are an artifact. By this, I mean patents are an imposed scarcity on a good that has no reproduction cost. Reproducing an idea, software or any other kind of information costs zero. Non-scarce items have zero value in a capitalist economy, so patents are an artifact designed to assign value to ideas. It's important to note this, because it reveals that we *can* lift this scarcity.
2) Patents protect investment. That's the general idea behind patents. They introduce scarcity on reproduction of an idea, to reward the one who originally invested in it. Many inventions are impossible before being achieved, only to become obvious afterwards. We need to reward those who pour time and money achieving the impossible.
3) Patents introduce costs. Patents require a large social support framework, from patent offices to lawyers to courts. All of this imposes costs on people having ideas, on people using ideas and on society as a whole.
4) Patents introduce evolution lag. While a patent is valid, recombination of the patent idea to produce novel ideas is limited. By this I mean that an idea dependent on another patent has reduced value, so is less rewarding to pursue.
I think these four points are solid enough to be a basis for discussion. Now, the question about patents is that they produce both positive and negative effects. It is immediatly obvious that an indiscriminate use of patents produces a legal nightmare that freezes evolution. A balance is needed.
I also happen to have the opinion that the negative effects of patents very quickly surpass the positive ones. The reasoning is simple: There are very few individuals with the ability to produce breakthrough innovation. These individuals are very rarely at the top of the economic food-chain, so are very vulnerable to the costs defined in point 3 and to the reduction of value defined in point 4.
In general, a patent system that fails to protect some valid patenteable ideas is much better than a system that protects ideas that should not be patenteable. It so happens that we currently have a system that allows stuff as obvious as Amazon's 1-click to be patented. It's absurdly skewed and should be shutdown and rebuilt.
Regarding software patents, software is a minefield for obvious ideas that appear patenteable but are not. Most ideas in software can be invented in a few monts time, and do not warrant protection for a couple of decades. I believe that the current distortion of the patent system would only be worse in software.
Although software could use a *good* patent system, I don't believe it's feasible so it's better off without any patents at all.
Haig S. [10.06.07 10:49 AM]
Patents restrict use of the invention (the class, not the instance) to the terms set by the owner of the patent. By definition that is not open innovation. It impedes all further innovation that could evolve through using that invention even if independently re-invented without the knowledge of the original patent.
However, Andy is very right when he says inventions are usually instigated and nurtured by a visionary leader(s) and that leader needs to 'own' her hard-earned work in order to stay motivated.
That's why the copyright system (including the copyleft and open source hacks on top of the US system) are there. They provide the person who worked so hard to own their work without owning all possible works within that invention-space.
You should be able to own the instance object, not the class.
This creates the best of both worlds where people stay motivated to invent and innovate but doesn't impede others from doing the same and doesn't block avenues of innovation that may be the only road to further advancements.
(please be patient, comments may take awhile to post)
Copy this comment to FriendFeed
Copy this comment to FriendFeed: [X]
FriendFeed nickname or email:
Remote key [ find your key ]:
Subscribe to Radar
Follow Radar on Twitter
Haig S. on Three vantage points from which to view patents: Patents restrict use of...
Sérgio Carvalho on Three vantage points from which to view patents: In the discussion of pa...
Scott Berkun on Three vantage points from which to view patents: It's useful to note tha...
Ian Mulvany on Three vantage points from which to view patents: There is an interesting...
Ken McNamara on Three vantage points from which to view patents: The best example of th...
Tim O'Reilly on Three vantage points from which to view patents: Don -- Then these are ...
chromatic on Three vantage points from which to view patents: If someone has to creat...
WmD on Three vantage points from which to view patents: I don't mean to nit pic...
Swashbuckler on Three vantage points from which to view patents: Tim, Yes, I've read a ...
Don Marti on Three vantage points from which to view patents: Tim, the RSA patent see...
MOST ACTIVE | MOST RECENT
Google I/O keynote, day 1
Google Bets Big on HTML 5: News from Google I/O
From the July NY Tech Meetup
Active Facebook Users By Country
Ignite Google IO Line-Up; 5 Passes to Give Away
FCC discusses broadband: the job is a big one
Google Web Elements and Google's Iceberg Strategy (Google I/O)
Four short links: 27 May 2009
RADAR TEAM
Tim O'Reilly
Allison Randal
Andrew Savikas
Artur Bergman
Ben Lorica
Brady Forrest
Brett McLaughlin
Jesse Robbins
Jim Stogdill
Josh Ross
Marc Hedlund
Michael Loukides
Mike Hendrickson
Nat Torkington
Nikolaj Nyholm
Robert Passarella
Sara Winge
RADAR TOPICS
etech
hard numbers
O'Reilly Home | Privacy Policy ©2005-2009, O'Reilly Media, Inc. | (707) 827-7000 / (800) 998-9938
Website: ' + ending); document.write(''); // --> | Book issues: