The obvious difference is the test of time. 100 years from now, if my great-great grandchildren are reading Harry Potter because it says things that are brilliant and still relevant, that's fine. But today, it's just pop fiction.
Idiot, it is very, very well thought out and well written, If I got 10% reports in the quant-pricing arena that were as well written as Ms Granger's Essays, I would be saved 3 hours per day finding out what their bad English was intended to mean.
Actually, under the PCT, you absolutely can't patent something not patentable in that country. The PCT application just gives you the right to file in those countries. My point was just that other countries do have patent laws. Also, you've got more steps than you need.
1. File patent application (PCT, U.S., whatever).
2. Patent eventually gets published and is now in the public domain everywhere except the country(ies) in which it was patented.
3....
4. Profit!
But you missed the whole point of the paragraph you quoted. The next thing you do is you go to the claims and go down them point by point, and show where your link anticipates each element (or renders it obvious, but that's a weaker argument). All you've done is post a link to a podcasting concept. And my whole point is, that's irrelevant until you compare it to the claims.
talking with patent professionals is like dealing with marxists
I think that's close enough to Godwin the thread, but in the alternative, tell me what the "real" definition of obviousness is, and tell me how it's different from obviousness in patent law.
Why is the burden to kill a patent that should not be granted put on market players?
Because once a patent issues, the courts give it a strong presumption of validity, just like they give a strong presumption of validity to other administrative actions. And "should not be granted" is just your whiny, uninformed personal opinion. Have you read the claims? Have you compared them to the prior art? Have you looked at the file history to see if there is any estoppel that would narrow the claims? Go do all that, and then tell me that you think the claims are invalid, and tell me why. You can't just say, "this is a podcasting patent, and podcasting was around before today." That's not how patents work. You may or may not be right---the patent may or may not be valid. But it's certain that your opinion is uninformed, which means that if you are right, it's just by lucky coincidence. Learn about how patents work before you argue about them.
the other 194 countries who do not recognize US patents its probably a good thing, nothing like a government eliminating its own companies from the worlds competition.
You do realize that those other countries have their own patent laws, don't you? And a clever U.S. inventor can even file patent applications in the foreign countries that matter. In fact, we have a treaty (called the Patent Cooperation Treaty) that lets you file a single application that you can then send out to different countries within a couple of years. If I want to shut down competition in Europe, I'll file in Europe.
doesn't existing patented technology utilizing their structure (i.e. iTunes) nullify their claim?
I'm not sure I understand your question. You seem to be saying that the existence of a commercially-available infringing product invalidates the patent. But if that were the case, patents would be worthless. To be patentable, your invention has to be new and non-obvious (yes, I know there's more than that, I'm simplifying; this is not legal advice and so forth). It doesn't matter if it infringes another patent, or if somebody else successfully builds your product while your patent is pending, or even if somebody improves on your invention and gets a patent on the improvement. In fact, from a patent-holder's perspective, there's nothing better than to come up with a really brilliant idea, file for a patent, and while it's pending, $MEGACORP makes an infringing product (intentionally or not), spruces it up, and creates a huge market for your invention. Hooray for solvent defendants!
If you want to kill this thing (and I'm not recommending you should---I don't personally care), the best way to do it is to find a document published anywhere in the world before November 2002 (1 year before they filed) that has all the elements of their claims. It doesn't matter what the abstract is, or what the title says, or what's in the specification, or even that the inventor calls it "the podcasting patent." All that matters is the claims. You find a reference that has each and every limitation in the claims, and those claims are dead. Nothing anybody has done since November 2003 matters to these claims, and anything between November 2002 and November 2003 will just provoke litigation over first-to-invent (which is fine for the lawyers, but not so good for anybody else). So I think it's premature to just assume these claims are invalid.
And before people start modding me troll, I'm not saying I'm a fan of patent trolls. I've defended several cases against patent trolls, and there's nothing more frustrating than having to fight a litigious plaintiff with a bad patent. I am saying that there's such a thing as a valid patent (despite what many Slashdotters would like to believe), and even such a thing as a valid computer-related patent, and if you're lucky enough to have one and win a case against a solvent defendant, it's a great day. I don't call "troll" until I've thoroughly reviewed the claims, the allegedly-infringing product, the specification, and the prior art. And nobody has hired me to do that, so I probably won't, because it takes a long time.
What a delightfully evil idea! And by the way, it's quite possibly patentable itself. And it would be a totally legitimate derivative work of public domain works. Couple it with some Google Adword algorithms, include hyperlinks to relevant products, and you've got a winning idea! (By the way, for $2,500, I could get you a provisional patent application on the idea---no joke).
You could even work the algorithm to add or mutate whole sentences. Just think: "Elizabeth Bennett quickly spritzed some Chanel No. 5(R) [hyperlink] perfume, and went to the drawing room to meet Mr. Darcy." "Why, it's the bell ringer from Notre Dame! The one who rings the well-crafted Pass & Stern(R) church bells!" "Thanks to widening adoption of Apple(R)[hyperlink] productss, it was the best of times. But also because of the continued entrenchment of Microsoft, it was the worst of times." We could have a whole new generation grow up believing that Sherlock Holmes smoked Camels! Or that Captain Nemo built his submarine using GE products! Or that Tarzan learned to read from a set of Prentice-Hall dictionaries! Or that Billy Budd sailed on a Northrop Grumman-built Man-of-War! Or that Romeo's apothecary sold only genuine Pfizer products! Why, we could wreck the entire public domain!
You need to patent this now. That way, when Amazon inevitably decides to do this, I can sue them for you, and we can both retire rich. And you can get a permanent injunction that will force them to stop doing it. It's a double win!K/p>
Dang kids wouldn't know a Jon Pertwee or a Tom Baker if they beat 'em over the head with an impractically-long scarf. They think David Tennant is the only guy to ever fly a TARDIS.
Just in the past week, I've seen, pitched as front-page news, that Barack Obama KILLED A FLY and had FROZEN CUSTARD with his kids. A couple of weeks ago, it was similarly reported that he HAD A HAMBURGER. Corn can't be too far behind. Apparently nothing about the Dear Leader is so trivial that the media drones will not wet themselves with delight and dutifully report it.
Facebook there's enough pics for any future historian.
And here, children, is our exhibit on the Great Collapse, also sometimes called the Second Dark Ages. The details of how it happened are sketchy, but we have abundant archaeological evidence from what is known as the Facebook Archive that 21st century humans were utterly incapable of forming coherent sentences or spelling words in their entirety, and were bizarrely obsessed with inane abbreviations like "brb," "lol," and "ur." Without any effective means of communication, commerce broke down completely, and the people apparently resorted to a system of "mafia wars," wherein they formed marauding bands to steal items like the "Ace of Clubs" from one another.
We don't know how this society of babbling idiots survived, but they managed to eke out some kind of meaningless existence until the Armed Grammarian Uprising of 2057, when order was restored.
the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri.... Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.
That's really not surprising. Look at the U.S. Pre-election polling gave the Democrat-controlled Congress single-digit approval ratings, and then the people voted heavily in favor of putting MORE Democrats in Congress. Let's face it. People are stupid. Elections are about building the biggest personality cult, not about policies. In 1994, the people knew that "Democrats are bad." So they voted for Republicans, despite having no idea what those Republicans' policies were. In 2008, the people knew that "Republicans are bad." So they voted for Democrats, despite having no idea what those Democrats' policies were, and despite the fact that the Democrats had controlled the House for 2 years, and the people already didn't like what the House was doing. But Republicans were bad in 2008, so it was obviously their fault that Congress was bad, despite the fact that they didn't control it. The only difference between the 1994 Democrats that the people emphatically booted out and the 2008 Democrats that they emphatically cheered in was the year. The only difference between the 2008 Republicans that the people emphatically booted out and the 20xx Republicans that they will emphatically cheer in (yes, it will happen) is the year.
All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I'm betting they just assumed that he agreed with them because they liked him. He's strong and a good leader, so he must want the things I want. Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say, "I'm in favor of clubbing baby seals," and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say, "Yes, we should protect the baby seals," because he's just so darn charismatic and likable, they assume that he wants what they want.
This is something that is somewhat contested still.
Well, maybe in the sense that there are still people who disagree with it, but not in the sense that it's unclear what the Court has held. Most people disagreed with Kelo too, but the current state of the law is that the state pretty much owns all your property. Is that a bad ruling? Absolutely. But it's not unclear.
I'm not saying that I agree with Justice Holmes. There are lots of Supreme Court opinions I disagree with, and I think the worst of them are the "make it up as we go" decisions. I'm just saying that this is the state of the law. Treaties can do things that statutes can't. It's not because treaties trump the Constitution, but rather because under the current state of the law, the Constitution does not place any substantial limits on treaties. Sure, I'd love to see a narrowly-construed Commerce Clause too. That would eliminate about 90% of the federal government. I'd love to see those restrictions apply to treaties. A narrowly-construed Commerce Clause and treaties limited by the 10th Amendment would mean absolutely no Kyoto, which would be great. But we're just not there now.
Actually, the GP is nearly on target. A treaty has the force of a statute, and can permit the President, with the Senate's approval, to do things that could not be done by the House and Senate together with the President's approval (via statute). I forget the case (sorry, out of law school, so no more free Westlaw access), but Justice Holmes held pretty clearly that treaties are not bound by the same "Congress shall nots" that limit statutes. When the Rhenquist Court started showing signs of actually giving the Commerce Clause some meaning other than "Congress can do whatever it feels like," the Greens got nervous that they wouldn't be able to get their environmental legislation approved (since Article 1 Section 8 does not give Congress the power to regulate the environment), and started advocating that treaties were the way to go, since they are not limited by Art. 1 Sect. 8 and the 10th Amendment.
As an interesting exercise, does this mean that the President, via treaties, could do things like limit freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, since the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." without mentioning treaties? It may sound far fetched, but I'm not aware of any case that has held the contrary, which would leave us with just Justice Holmes' analysis.
All you've done is toss out one bit of uncharacteristically-specific advice that you happen to disagree with. Even if you regularly listen to General Conference, that's still only half of what I said. Listen to what's said and actually try it. Then tell me when something bad happens. I'm throwing down the gauntlet here, man! I'm challenging you. Actually do one of these things yourself, and tell me how it wrecks your life. (I will admit that the image of Pres. Hinckley yelling "get off my lawn" was amusing).
If I had my way, all churches would lose their tax-exempt status.
The day you win this point is the day Free Exercise dies. Taxation is one of the government's most powerful tools for exercising control over people. We are forced to make decisions as individuals based on how our actions will affect our tax liability. The day the government gets to tax churches---and I mean any church, because Baptists and Catholics and JWs must be as free to practice their religion as I am to practice mine---is the day the government gets to decide what we can and cannot believe. If we are to be free, we need both the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause. I don't think you would take kindly to the government prescribing the sacraments of any religion (and you shouldn't). I also would not take kindly to the government proscribing the sacraments of any religion (unless they involve sacrificing virgins or something), by taxation or any other means. What you are suggesting is essentially government-enforced atheism, which I believe you just suggested live-and-let-live atheists would never do.
Indulge me for a moment and pretend that you don't believe in the supernatural.
I don't believe in the supernatural. No indulgence necessary. I could not believe in a god who excepts himself from the natural laws that govern the rest of us.
True power is controlling the lives of millions of worshippers the way those old men in Utah do with all my Mormon friends (especially the women).
Have you ever personally listened to a single address given by any of those "old men in Utah"? They speak every six months. I listen every six months, and I have never been worse off for having done so. Go see what they've said recently. Once you've listened to their advice and tried it and something bad happened, come back and let me know. Until then, you're just talking trash about something you don't understand.
I think those are valid points, and I'll even agree with those who argue that historically women and minorities have been largely excluded from certain professions for silly and arbitrary reasons. And perceptions won't change overnight. That's why I say if we open up the fields to everybody who is interested and qualified, over time those fields will eventually get the mix that reflects that mix of interest and qualification. I don't think it will happen overnight. It may take decades. But it will happen. And I don't think we can remedy past prejudices and discrimination with more prejudice and discrimination. I think we're better off making a conscious, concerted effort to open those fields to everybody, and let those who want to come.
The Supreme Court gets to decide what cases they want to hear, and hearing one you don't think you might overturn is a waste of time. So it's true that opinions that get reviewed by the Supreme Court don't fare well in the Supreme Court.
About 75% get reversed. Like I said, you can interpret what her record means. I was just pointing out that it was not three. It was five reversed, and one result affirmed with her reasoning rejected.
She's just not an extremist by any reasonable measure.
Perhaps not, but what's more important is she will now play a very large role in determining what "extreme" means. As soon as she is confirmed, the "mainstream" law is whatever she and four other people say it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The obvious difference is the test of time. 100 years from now, if my great-great grandchildren are reading Harry Potter because it says things that are brilliant and still relevant, that's fine. But today, it's just pop fiction.
Idiot, it is very, very well thought out and well written, If I got 10% reports in the quant-pricing arena that were as well written as Ms Granger's Essays, I would be saved 3 hours per day finding out what their bad English was intended to mean.
Pot, kettle, black.
This was the kind of place where the parents got mad when teachers had grade schoolers read Harry Potter.
I'd be mad too if the school was making my kids waste time reading Harry Potter. Harry Potter isn't literature; it's pop fiction.
Actually, under the PCT, you absolutely can't patent something not patentable in that country. The PCT application just gives you the right to file in those countries. My point was just that other countries do have patent laws. Also, you've got more steps than you need.
1. File patent application (PCT, U.S., whatever). ...
2. Patent eventually gets published and is now in the public domain everywhere except the country(ies) in which it was patented.
3.
4. Profit!
But you missed the whole point of the paragraph you quoted. The next thing you do is you go to the claims and go down them point by point, and show where your link anticipates each element (or renders it obvious, but that's a weaker argument). All you've done is post a link to a podcasting concept. And my whole point is, that's irrelevant until you compare it to the claims.
talking with patent professionals is like dealing with marxists
I think that's close enough to Godwin the thread, but in the alternative, tell me what the "real" definition of obviousness is, and tell me how it's different from obviousness in patent law.
Why is the burden to kill a patent that should not be granted put on market players?
Because once a patent issues, the courts give it a strong presumption of validity, just like they give a strong presumption of validity to other administrative actions. And "should not be granted" is just your whiny, uninformed personal opinion. Have you read the claims? Have you compared them to the prior art? Have you looked at the file history to see if there is any estoppel that would narrow the claims? Go do all that, and then tell me that you think the claims are invalid, and tell me why. You can't just say, "this is a podcasting patent, and podcasting was around before today." That's not how patents work. You may or may not be right---the patent may or may not be valid. But it's certain that your opinion is uninformed, which means that if you are right, it's just by lucky coincidence. Learn about how patents work before you argue about them.
the other 194 countries who do not recognize US patents its probably a good thing, nothing like a government eliminating its own companies from the worlds competition.
You do realize that those other countries have their own patent laws, don't you? And a clever U.S. inventor can even file patent applications in the foreign countries that matter. In fact, we have a treaty (called the Patent Cooperation Treaty) that lets you file a single application that you can then send out to different countries within a couple of years. If I want to shut down competition in Europe, I'll file in Europe.
doesn't existing patented technology utilizing their structure (i.e. iTunes) nullify their claim?
I'm not sure I understand your question. You seem to be saying that the existence of a commercially-available infringing product invalidates the patent. But if that were the case, patents would be worthless. To be patentable, your invention has to be new and non-obvious (yes, I know there's more than that, I'm simplifying; this is not legal advice and so forth). It doesn't matter if it infringes another patent, or if somebody else successfully builds your product while your patent is pending, or even if somebody improves on your invention and gets a patent on the improvement. In fact, from a patent-holder's perspective, there's nothing better than to come up with a really brilliant idea, file for a patent, and while it's pending, $MEGACORP makes an infringing product (intentionally or not), spruces it up, and creates a huge market for your invention. Hooray for solvent defendants!
If you want to kill this thing (and I'm not recommending you should---I don't personally care), the best way to do it is to find a document published anywhere in the world before November 2002 (1 year before they filed) that has all the elements of their claims. It doesn't matter what the abstract is, or what the title says, or what's in the specification, or even that the inventor calls it "the podcasting patent." All that matters is the claims. You find a reference that has each and every limitation in the claims, and those claims are dead. Nothing anybody has done since November 2003 matters to these claims, and anything between November 2002 and November 2003 will just provoke litigation over first-to-invent (which is fine for the lawyers, but not so good for anybody else). So I think it's premature to just assume these claims are invalid.
And before people start modding me troll, I'm not saying I'm a fan of patent trolls. I've defended several cases against patent trolls, and there's nothing more frustrating than having to fight a litigious plaintiff with a bad patent. I am saying that there's such a thing as a valid patent (despite what many Slashdotters would like to believe), and even such a thing as a valid computer-related patent, and if you're lucky enough to have one and win a case against a solvent defendant, it's a great day. I don't call "troll" until I've thoroughly reviewed the claims, the allegedly-infringing product, the specification, and the prior art. And nobody has hired me to do that, so I probably won't, because it takes a long time.
things like ... not going bald are probably pretty stable
Tell that to Captain Kirk. Next you'll be saying that green women have never been considered attractive either.
What a delightfully evil idea! And by the way, it's quite possibly patentable itself. And it would be a totally legitimate derivative work of public domain works. Couple it with some Google Adword algorithms, include hyperlinks to relevant products, and you've got a winning idea! (By the way, for $2,500, I could get you a provisional patent application on the idea---no joke).
You could even work the algorithm to add or mutate whole sentences. Just think: "Elizabeth Bennett quickly spritzed some Chanel No. 5(R) [hyperlink] perfume, and went to the drawing room to meet Mr. Darcy." "Why, it's the bell ringer from Notre Dame! The one who rings the well-crafted Pass & Stern(R) church bells!" "Thanks to widening adoption of Apple(R)[hyperlink] productss, it was the best of times. But also because of the continued entrenchment of Microsoft, it was the worst of times." We could have a whole new generation grow up believing that Sherlock Holmes smoked Camels! Or that Captain Nemo built his submarine using GE products! Or that Tarzan learned to read from a set of Prentice-Hall dictionaries! Or that Billy Budd sailed on a Northrop Grumman-built Man-of-War! Or that Romeo's apothecary sold only genuine Pfizer products! Why, we could wreck the entire public domain!
You need to patent this now. That way, when Amazon inevitably decides to do this, I can sue them for you, and we can both retire rich. And you can get a permanent injunction that will force them to stop doing it. It's a double win!K/p>
Dang kids wouldn't know a Jon Pertwee or a Tom Baker if they beat 'em over the head with an impractically-long scarf. They think David Tennant is the only guy to ever fly a TARDIS.
+1 Dr. Who
Just in the past week, I've seen, pitched as front-page news, that Barack Obama KILLED A FLY and had FROZEN CUSTARD with his kids. A couple of weeks ago, it was similarly reported that he HAD A HAMBURGER. Corn can't be too far behind. Apparently nothing about the Dear Leader is so trivial that the media drones will not wet themselves with delight and dutifully report it.
Facebook there's enough pics for any future historian.
And here, children, is our exhibit on the Great Collapse, also sometimes called the Second Dark Ages. The details of how it happened are sketchy, but we have abundant archaeological evidence from what is known as the Facebook Archive that 21st century humans were utterly incapable of forming coherent sentences or spelling words in their entirety, and were bizarrely obsessed with inane abbreviations like "brb," "lol," and "ur." Without any effective means of communication, commerce broke down completely, and the people apparently resorted to a system of "mafia wars," wherein they formed marauding bands to steal items like the "Ace of Clubs" from one another.
We don't know how this society of babbling idiots survived, but they managed to eke out some kind of meaningless existence until the Armed Grammarian Uprising of 2057, when order was restored.
the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri. ... Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.
That's really not surprising. Look at the U.S. Pre-election polling gave the Democrat-controlled Congress single-digit approval ratings, and then the people voted heavily in favor of putting MORE Democrats in Congress. Let's face it. People are stupid. Elections are about building the biggest personality cult, not about policies. In 1994, the people knew that "Democrats are bad." So they voted for Republicans, despite having no idea what those Republicans' policies were. In 2008, the people knew that "Republicans are bad." So they voted for Democrats, despite having no idea what those Democrats' policies were, and despite the fact that the Democrats had controlled the House for 2 years, and the people already didn't like what the House was doing. But Republicans were bad in 2008, so it was obviously their fault that Congress was bad, despite the fact that they didn't control it. The only difference between the 1994 Democrats that the people emphatically booted out and the 2008 Democrats that they emphatically cheered in was the year. The only difference between the 2008 Republicans that the people emphatically booted out and the 20xx Republicans that they will emphatically cheer in (yes, it will happen) is the year.
All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I'm betting they just assumed that he agreed with them because they liked him. He's strong and a good leader, so he must want the things I want. Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say, "I'm in favor of clubbing baby seals," and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say, "Yes, we should protect the baby seals," because he's just so darn charismatic and likable, they assume that he wants what they want.
You mean like Grant?
Skip the middle man. Just hire Frank Doyle.
This is something that is somewhat contested still.
Well, maybe in the sense that there are still people who disagree with it, but not in the sense that it's unclear what the Court has held. Most people disagreed with Kelo too, but the current state of the law is that the state pretty much owns all your property. Is that a bad ruling? Absolutely. But it's not unclear.
I'm not saying that I agree with Justice Holmes. There are lots of Supreme Court opinions I disagree with, and I think the worst of them are the "make it up as we go" decisions. I'm just saying that this is the state of the law. Treaties can do things that statutes can't. It's not because treaties trump the Constitution, but rather because under the current state of the law, the Constitution does not place any substantial limits on treaties. Sure, I'd love to see a narrowly-construed Commerce Clause too. That would eliminate about 90% of the federal government. I'd love to see those restrictions apply to treaties. A narrowly-construed Commerce Clause and treaties limited by the 10th Amendment would mean absolutely no Kyoto, which would be great. But we're just not there now.
Actually, the GP is nearly on target. A treaty has the force of a statute, and can permit the President, with the Senate's approval, to do things that could not be done by the House and Senate together with the President's approval (via statute). I forget the case (sorry, out of law school, so no more free Westlaw access), but Justice Holmes held pretty clearly that treaties are not bound by the same "Congress shall nots" that limit statutes. When the Rhenquist Court started showing signs of actually giving the Commerce Clause some meaning other than "Congress can do whatever it feels like," the Greens got nervous that they wouldn't be able to get their environmental legislation approved (since Article 1 Section 8 does not give Congress the power to regulate the environment), and started advocating that treaties were the way to go, since they are not limited by Art. 1 Sect. 8 and the 10th Amendment.
As an interesting exercise, does this mean that the President, via treaties, could do things like limit freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, since the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ..." without mentioning treaties? It may sound far fetched, but I'm not aware of any case that has held the contrary, which would leave us with just Justice Holmes' analysis.
In other news... water is wet!
And athletes use steroids! No, say it ain't so, Joe!
All you've done is toss out one bit of uncharacteristically-specific advice that you happen to disagree with. Even if you regularly listen to General Conference, that's still only half of what I said. Listen to what's said and actually try it. Then tell me when something bad happens. I'm throwing down the gauntlet here, man! I'm challenging you. Actually do one of these things yourself, and tell me how it wrecks your life. (I will admit that the image of Pres. Hinckley yelling "get off my lawn" was amusing).
If I had my way, all churches would lose their tax-exempt status.
The day you win this point is the day Free Exercise dies. Taxation is one of the government's most powerful tools for exercising control over people. We are forced to make decisions as individuals based on how our actions will affect our tax liability. The day the government gets to tax churches---and I mean any church, because Baptists and Catholics and JWs must be as free to practice their religion as I am to practice mine---is the day the government gets to decide what we can and cannot believe. If we are to be free, we need both the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause. I don't think you would take kindly to the government prescribing the sacraments of any religion (and you shouldn't). I also would not take kindly to the government proscribing the sacraments of any religion (unless they involve sacrificing virgins or something), by taxation or any other means. What you are suggesting is essentially government-enforced atheism, which I believe you just suggested live-and-let-live atheists would never do.
Indulge me for a moment and pretend that you don't believe in the supernatural.
I don't believe in the supernatural. No indulgence necessary. I could not believe in a god who excepts himself from the natural laws that govern the rest of us.
True power is controlling the lives of millions of worshippers the way those old men in Utah do with all my Mormon friends (especially the women).
Have you ever personally listened to a single address given by any of those "old men in Utah"? They speak every six months. I listen every six months, and I have never been worse off for having done so. Go see what they've said recently. Once you've listened to their advice and tried it and something bad happened, come back and let me know. Until then, you're just talking trash about something you don't understand.
these caps that melded a mesh into the head that would render people docile and subservient so they could be used as slaves.
So the aliens invented government entitlement programs?
I think those are valid points, and I'll even agree with those who argue that historically women and minorities have been largely excluded from certain professions for silly and arbitrary reasons. And perceptions won't change overnight. That's why I say if we open up the fields to everybody who is interested and qualified, over time those fields will eventually get the mix that reflects that mix of interest and qualification. I don't think it will happen overnight. It may take decades. But it will happen. And I don't think we can remedy past prejudices and discrimination with more prejudice and discrimination. I think we're better off making a conscious, concerted effort to open those fields to everybody, and let those who want to come.
Six out of how many hundred?
Well, six out of six that have gone up on review.
The Supreme Court gets to decide what cases they want to hear, and hearing one you don't think you might overturn is a waste of time. So it's true that opinions that get reviewed by the Supreme Court don't fare well in the Supreme Court.
About 75% get reversed. Like I said, you can interpret what her record means. I was just pointing out that it was not three. It was five reversed, and one result affirmed with her reasoning rejected.
She's just not an extremist by any reasonable measure.
Perhaps not, but what's more important is she will now play a very large role in determining what "extreme" means. As soon as she is confirmed, the "mainstream" law is whatever she and four other people say it is.