Great, until 10% of the population goes bat shit and takes over entire swatches of space and everyone else just lays down to die...
Re:This too was foreseen
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think the point was that he can't give you a good reason, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. Our knowledge is limited and it may be prudent to keep from mass scale meddling until we understand better, but that's not a reason not to dig and innovate.
Thank god for facebook and other social networking sites where anyone can post your picture...not all thefts are by strangers. Or maybe we'll just see a sudden increase in missing family photos after home invasions...
Just because exploring the ethical consequences hasn't been the modus operandi thus far, it doesn't mean that it isn't a cause worth considering. The fewer the people who stand up and ask for moral considerations, the easier it is for ethical abuses to occur unnoticed and unchecked. (Or, put in an even more cliche manner, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.")
What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?
Lately? "Reality television" has been inordinately popular for years.
Was it a product that you have actually owned and had a bad experience with? If not, this tactic stinks of hypocrisy. It may feel good from a revenge standpoint, but it's actually counter-productive since it only compounds the problem of not being able to trust the veracity of product reviews.
The Sham Wow is actually pretty cool and works pretty much as described. I bought one after I saw a live demo and it's been great for use on various surfaces. It's been very useful for carpets in particular, especially with a cat that beelines for any container of liquid that is put down for more than 5 seconds...
(Order in the next 4 minutes and we'll throw in a second set ABSOLUTELY FREE! Just pay separate handling and processing fees.)
At least that means he's slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
Have to agree. It freaked me out a bit since it was only a couple miles from my house, but checking in for more details on signonsandiego.com the next day, the story had already been replaced with a story about "a community mourning" over a slain teenager. An obliterated house with 4 family members in it is not a huge enough story I guess. I do feel really bad for the man though.
Yes, my answer was poorly worded (I should also clarify that this is also not necessarily the "best" way to get a patent through). You are correct, applicants do not get generally get a say, HOWEVER, proactively eliciting a rejection to ease the examiner's caseload (especially if explicitly offering potential grounds for rejection, since most patents ask for far more than the inventor actually needs/is likely to get anyway) CAN result in your response be viewed more favorably and not scrutinized as closely. Although the rejection and the written response are still necessary, this shifts much of the work to the attorney/patent agent, and the examiner is more lenient in response.
I recently took an IP law class (taught by a patent attorney) and he mentioned this fact. He also said that the best way to get a patent through is to contact the patent reviewer assigned to your application near the end of the month, agree to a rejection on specific grounds (even if they are minor, simply to help them fill their quota), and then resubmit the next month with a response to those issues. The reviewer assigned to your case is always the same, so they will recognize your application and approve it on its second time through as a quid pro quo. So yes, there's no denying there are issues and opportunities for corruption within the approval process, but it's actually more natural for the reviewers to reject rather than approve to make a dent in their caseload. Also, the grounds for objection (obviousness, for example) can be very subjective so it is possible to reject many patents based on a combination of several pieces of prior art and the assumption that it could have been discovered or invented by anyone with ordinary skill in the art, even if this might be unlikely in reality.
Slightly inaccurate. The US is a "first to invent" system, as opposed to "first to file" system (which is how the rest of the world operates), and proof is required. In addition, patent application reviewers are actually reviewed, judged, and promoted by the number of patents that they REJECT. There are very visible and acknowledged rejection quotas that the employees must meet. The only patents that are simply approved are the 1-year provisional patents, which are usually just stamped and thrown in a file. True, USPTO employees are usually completely overwhelmed, underpaid, and at times underqualified to understand the substance of the patent applications, but the substance needs to be there and in the right form for approval.
That's a valid fear, and one I share - not specifically about Gmail, but the "cloud computing" phenomenon in general. Cloud computing absolutely has its benefits, especially as we become increasingly mobile, but to not have a solid local backup is foolish. In my view, cloud computing shares some of same downfalls as DRM (though has more benefits to balance it out).
As DRM has taught us, if you rely solely upon an external business to provide you with access to your own files, you can be left high and dry (as demonstrated by Wal-Mart's recent DRM shutdown). You can hope that a company will operate admirably and give you notice and/or an alternative way to access/backup your stuff, but this is not guaranteed. In my practice, I use cloud computing as a convenient backup option rather than the primary storage area for my information, and I doubt any business line about how "inevitable" is will change this for me.
True. I obviously prefer to go the CD route if at all possible. However, I've found when searching for specific karaoke/instrumental arrangements (Broadway tunes or more obscure choral arrangements), they can be extremely difficult to find at all, so my purchasing options are extremely limited, often with no full CD available. Wal-Mart was one of the few places that had a decent selection of these types of tracks (available only for download). So the choice then becomes how badly do I want it? Is a DRM purchase really worth it? For a few it is, but then we're back to the original problem when things like this go down. Still, as inconvenient as it is for me, I don't mind because it's still a step in the right direction.
People are STILL buying DRM tracks?? At this point I don't blame the retailers, but the consumer. Amazon has been selling DRM free tracks for a long time now, and they're usually cheaper to boot!
Sometimes there's really no other choice. I have about 15 Wal-Mart DRM tracks because it was the ONLY place I could find those particular songs/arrangements. For less popular genres (choral, instrumental, karaoke, etc.) it can often be difficult to find viable alternatives since they are often too rare to download and not offered DRM-free anywhere else.
I agree, but would like to also point out that if the kids want email badly enough, they will sign up for it on their own through the various free services available. There's a very fine line between appropriately shielding your children from potential harm and sheltering them to the point where they are unable to develop the critical decision making skills that will allow them to protect themselves. If something is deemed off-limits, the child will either not experience it and become "out of touch" with behaviors that are normal for their age, or, more likely, find a way to obtain it, and the parent will lose the ability to have an open dialogue about the important issues of the situation.
I actually read this first on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which cited the AP article, so it appears to also be significant in legal circles, though still noticeably absent from mainstream news sites.
There also appears to be an some additional info here.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, until 10% of the population goes bat shit and takes over entire swatches of space and everyone else just lays down to die...
I think the point was that he can't give you a good reason, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. Our knowledge is limited and it may be prudent to keep from mass scale meddling until we understand better, but that's not a reason not to dig and innovate.
Once they have your password, you choose another one and that's it. I'd like to see you do that with your face.
We're getting there...
Thank god for facebook and other social networking sites where anyone can post your picture...not all thefts are by strangers. Or maybe we'll just see a sudden increase in missing family photos after home invasions...
In other news, mmmmmm baklava.... /Homer
Except for all of those who were born via C-section...
Soo...um...are you seeing anybody?
Just because exploring the ethical consequences hasn't been the modus operandi thus far, it doesn't mean that it isn't a cause worth considering. The fewer the people who stand up and ask for moral considerations, the easier it is for ethical abuses to occur unnoticed and unchecked. (Or, put in an even more cliche manner, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.")
What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?
Lately? "Reality television" has been inordinately popular for years.
Was it a product that you have actually owned and had a bad experience with? If not, this tactic stinks of hypocrisy. It may feel good from a revenge standpoint, but it's actually counter-productive since it only compounds the problem of not being able to trust the veracity of product reviews.
The Sham Wow is actually pretty cool and works pretty much as described. I bought one after I saw a live demo and it's been great for use on various surfaces. It's been very useful for carpets in particular, especially with a cat that beelines for any container of liquid that is put down for more than 5 seconds...
(Order in the next 4 minutes and we'll throw in a second set ABSOLUTELY FREE! Just pay separate handling and processing fees.)
This sounds like a great plot for the next Sci-Fi channel original movie (hopefully starring Stephen Baldwin and set in space).
I've got a nice Chianti.
Gmail's "Mail Goggles" feature is starting to sound more and more useful...
At least that means he's slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
Have to agree. It freaked me out a bit since it was only a couple miles from my house, but checking in for more details on signonsandiego.com the next day, the story had already been replaced with a story about "a community mourning" over a slain teenager. An obliterated house with 4 family members in it is not a huge enough story I guess. I do feel really bad for the man though.
Yes, my answer was poorly worded (I should also clarify that this is also not necessarily the "best" way to get a patent through). You are correct, applicants do not get generally get a say, HOWEVER, proactively eliciting a rejection to ease the examiner's caseload (especially if explicitly offering potential grounds for rejection, since most patents ask for far more than the inventor actually needs/is likely to get anyway) CAN result in your response be viewed more favorably and not scrutinized as closely. Although the rejection and the written response are still necessary, this shifts much of the work to the attorney/patent agent, and the examiner is more lenient in response.
I recently took an IP law class (taught by a patent attorney) and he mentioned this fact. He also said that the best way to get a patent through is to contact the patent reviewer assigned to your application near the end of the month, agree to a rejection on specific grounds (even if they are minor, simply to help them fill their quota), and then resubmit the next month with a response to those issues. The reviewer assigned to your case is always the same, so they will recognize your application and approve it on its second time through as a quid pro quo. So yes, there's no denying there are issues and opportunities for corruption within the approval process, but it's actually more natural for the reviewers to reject rather than approve to make a dent in their caseload. Also, the grounds for objection (obviousness, for example) can be very subjective so it is possible to reject many patents based on a combination of several pieces of prior art and the assumption that it could have been discovered or invented by anyone with ordinary skill in the art, even if this might be unlikely in reality.
Slightly inaccurate. The US is a "first to invent" system, as opposed to "first to file" system (which is how the rest of the world operates), and proof is required. In addition, patent application reviewers are actually reviewed, judged, and promoted by the number of patents that they REJECT. There are very visible and acknowledged rejection quotas that the employees must meet. The only patents that are simply approved are the 1-year provisional patents, which are usually just stamped and thrown in a file. True, USPTO employees are usually completely overwhelmed, underpaid, and at times underqualified to understand the substance of the patent applications, but the substance needs to be there and in the right form for approval.
That's a valid fear, and one I share - not specifically about Gmail, but the "cloud computing" phenomenon in general. Cloud computing absolutely has its benefits, especially as we become increasingly mobile, but to not have a solid local backup is foolish. In my view, cloud computing shares some of same downfalls as DRM (though has more benefits to balance it out). As DRM has taught us, if you rely solely upon an external business to provide you with access to your own files, you can be left high and dry (as demonstrated by Wal-Mart's recent DRM shutdown). You can hope that a company will operate admirably and give you notice and/or an alternative way to access/backup your stuff, but this is not guaranteed. In my practice, I use cloud computing as a convenient backup option rather than the primary storage area for my information, and I doubt any business line about how "inevitable" is will change this for me.
True. I obviously prefer to go the CD route if at all possible. However, I've found when searching for specific karaoke/instrumental arrangements (Broadway tunes or more obscure choral arrangements), they can be extremely difficult to find at all, so my purchasing options are extremely limited, often with no full CD available. Wal-Mart was one of the few places that had a decent selection of these types of tracks (available only for download). So the choice then becomes how badly do I want it? Is a DRM purchase really worth it? For a few it is, but then we're back to the original problem when things like this go down. Still, as inconvenient as it is for me, I don't mind because it's still a step in the right direction.
People are STILL buying DRM tracks?? At this point I don't blame the retailers, but the consumer. Amazon has been selling DRM free tracks for a long time now, and they're usually cheaper to boot!
Sometimes there's really no other choice. I have about 15 Wal-Mart DRM tracks because it was the ONLY place I could find those particular songs/arrangements. For less popular genres (choral, instrumental, karaoke, etc.) it can often be difficult to find viable alternatives since they are often too rare to download and not offered DRM-free anywhere else.
I agree, but would like to also point out that if the kids want email badly enough, they will sign up for it on their own through the various free services available. There's a very fine line between appropriately shielding your children from potential harm and sheltering them to the point where they are unable to develop the critical decision making skills that will allow them to protect themselves. If something is deemed off-limits, the child will either not experience it and become "out of touch" with behaviors that are normal for their age, or, more likely, find a way to obtain it, and the parent will lose the ability to have an open dialogue about the important issues of the situation.
"What a bore to load on more stuff people will want me to shut up about..." Can someone please mod that up as insightful?
I actually read this first on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which cited the AP article, so it appears to also be significant in legal circles, though still noticeably absent from mainstream news sites. There also appears to be an some additional info here.