Part of the point of what three words is I believe to avoid mistakes. So similar sounding words are either not used or result in locations far separated (such as a different continent). For national resuce services this provides an in built error check as a mistake will lead to a location in a different country and can be quickly rectified. Mess up slightly with lat/long and you could be close but still in the wrong place (e.g. 30.15 being noted down as 31.5).

And before that we took single-sided 5.25" floppies, carefully removed the disc, cut some extra holes in the case, carefully replaced the disc and, if we were lucky, had a double-sided disc instead!

I remember the "fun" of installing Office from floppy in the 90's when it came on something like 44 discs.

aaaargh the nightmares.....................

You know they could be bringing these people in because all the decent, diligent, intelligent and reliable local workers have jobs already and those without jobs are crap at what they do. Or am I mistaken and actually all Americans, even the thick and stupid ones, are better workers than highly-educated and motivated people from countries like India or from within the EU?

Just a thought.

You mean like:

"DESTROY THE INFIDEL AMERICANS!, lol"

(here is some random text because Slashdot is being wanky about caps again :) )

We are? I didn't even know I lived near D.C.

noob :)

(It's not often I see another 3k series userID)

Antibiotics are very quick - their major effect is in the first couple of days of a 10 day (2 week, whatever) course. The extra week or more of pills is to make absulutely sure that everything that can be killed off, is. This is to prevent (or at least restrict) the chance of any drug-resistant strains developing.

One of the major problems in countries like France (where drugs are handed out like sweets) and in the developing world (where people can't afford the whole course, or save some for "next time") is people not finishing up a full course of antibiotics because 3 days in, they feel well and can't see the need to swallow any more of the evil pills that have given them diarrhoea and other stomach problems (the main side effect of broad spectrum antibiotics....).

Surely you mean Dome-sday ;)

Only if one of the classes you could play was an Anonymous Coward :)

*sigh* Have you spared a moment to consider whether the OP is a non-native English speaker?

Slashdot might be based in the US and thus be predominantly Anglo-centric but there are quite a few people on this Earth who aren't native English speakers. English could be this guy's 4th or 5th language for example.

I have no problem with the idea of poking fun at someone's language skills when they should know better (or indeed DO know better but are just being lazy) but assuming everyone speaks MY language at least as well as I do is, in this day and age, very naive.

Reminds me of a girl I once went out with.

*shudder*

It's a METHOD of doing something. You can view each step of the method as a little black box with an input from the previous step and an output to the next. It is irrelevant TO THE METHOD what is in each black box. It could be some hardware, it could be software, it could be a little fairy with a wand and some fairy dust. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the method - as a series of technical steps - is novel and inventive.

Maybe the method steps are not actually novel or lack an inventive step, I don't know as I've not studied the patent and related prior art and I don't intend to, it's not my field of work. I can only assume my colleagues did a thorough job and found that the method being claimed was both novel and inventive. Implementing something in a computer or with software when that is the only difference to the prior art is not patentable under the EPC as lacking (amongst other things) inventive step. This is very clear if you understand European Patent Law. There must therefore have been, in the eyes of the examiners, something inventive in the particular series of method steps as claimed in the granted patent specification. The parts of the independent claims referring to computer implementation will not have formed part of that reasoning. Furthermore, the general public (and ALL of Apple's competitors) had years in which they could oppose and comment on the application before it was granted and nobody did.

I refer you back to my point - please learn some patent law before commenting on these cases. Yes, I've been around here a while and yes I know that most people comment on stuff here without reading the stories and without actually having any knowledge of the subject in question. I can usually resist but when people are choosing to mock my chosen career and the work carried out by my colleagues in the EPO, without any form of knowledge or study to back-up their obviously idiotic bias, it annoys me a tad.

Untrue. Yes, the claims in the document everyone keeps linking to and discussing are rubbish and should never be granted - indeed they weren't as that's merely the published application. If you look at the claims of the granted patent specification (and not the published application which everyone keeps linking to) http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20100929&DB=&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=2059868B1&KC=B1 which actually define the scope of protection offered by the patent, you will see 2 independent claims. One is directed towards a method and is phrased in terms of method steps i.e. a series of actions to perform to obtain a desired event or result. The other is an apparatus claim, claiming the device that carries out the method of claim 1.

The method is "computer implemented" sure, but it's not software. Each step has a technical nature "do this, do that, wait for this to occur and then do something etc".

The claims don't claim software as such, they claim a method that can be carried out by software. It is, however the method itself which is granted (rightly or wrongly, I don't know, I don't work in this field) because that combination of method steps is, in the opinion of the examining division, new and inventive. The additional "feature" of it being computer implemented or "in software" is not inventive under the guidelines of the EPC and will have been treated as such.