If the goal of the patent system is to encourage inventors to publish descriptions of their inventions, so that everyone can benefit from their discoveries, why do we need an office to approve them? Why not just allow inventors to publish whatever they want, in a suitably widespread publication, and claim patent protection? We would only need experts to review the worthiness of patents when there is some sort of dispute -- and the civil court system has been set up to handle these sorts of expert-witness-based trials for years. (Granted, this aspect of the civil court system leaves a lot to be desired, but it still sounds like it'd be more effective than the bloated, bureaucratic bottleneck we have today.)
If you browse using Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock on Linux behind a two user-configured firewalls and are somewhat up-to-date on the state of Linux viruses, then yes, you are a computer expert.
Why not just have a system where publishing the description of an invention automatically patents it? If there's any dispute, let the civil courts handle it.
This way, we don't need a massive and slow bureaucracy -- the government only gets involved when there is a claim of infringement. It seems to work OK for copyright (and by OK, I mean it's a total clusterfuck, but at least you don't need to convince some "copyright clerk" at the copyright office that your work is original before you publish it). Of course there would need to be some guidelines about how and where to publish the description of the invention, but this reinforces the original intent of patent law, which was to encourage people to share information by publishing their inventions.
You'd think with their brand name, premium rates, and large customer base, they'd have the budget to architect and administer a superior hosting solution, rather than the substandard packages they offer now. Instead they are milking it, dwindling, and will eventually go tits-up.
"There is an old story, something about a golden goose; I can't remember the particulars." -- Tycho (Penny Arcade)
To my way of thinking, Monsanto gave him their patented technology by allowing it to float around pollinating his crop. Genes spread -- everybody knows this, especially biotech companies. If a Monsanto-owned organism escapes its controlled environment, they better be prepared to pay for all the clean-up (like replacing that guy's contaminated wheat), or else give up their rights to it.
Really? When I was in public elementary school ~20 years ago, we learned fractions in 3rd grade, and decimals and negative numbers in 4th. By 7th grade we had algebraic formulas. This was the highest-level math class but it wasn't super-advanced (basically the top 25% math students -- it wasn't some top 1% magnet school or anything).
Has math education really gotten dumbed down so much in the intervening years? Granted the early math had a ton of memorization of times tables and I hated that part, but that will always be there.
We had a War on Poverty, and poverty increased. We had a War on Drugs, and drugs increased. We had a War on Terror, and terror increased.
So, yeah, let's have a War on Cyber, and maybe cyber will increase too. Cybernetics? Cyborgs? Cyberspace? Cybering? I guess you take the good with the bad.
Why do we worry about missiles when it is so easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US inside of drug shipments? The enemy wouldn't even need to be a suicide bomber. They could just rent an apartment, put the thing on a 3-week timer, and leave the country. This is not a problem that can be solved by better lasers.
Maybe you're on the wrong thread? It's a review of a book about unit testing, not error handling. The two are only moderately related, as far as programming concerns go.
Actually, it's not the is-ought problem, it's the naturalistic fallacy. Confusing the two is a common mistake.
I think it's cool that you are trying to teach people better critical-thinking skills but if you are going to use the fancy official terms you should probably get them right. There are several (possible) solutions to the is-ought problem, but I've never heard the naturalistic fallacy described as anything other than a specific sort of unproven assertion.
Wrong -- pen-and-paper RPGs are selling better today than at any previous point in history (well, actually I think the high point was 2008, but we can probably blame this slump on the economy). And it's not all just nostalgic 30-somethings (my demographic) either. There are a LOT of high-school and middle-school kids getting into the hobby.
Remember, these kids grew up on Pokemon, which is both a CRPG and a collectible card game, and WoW and LotR make them very familiar with the source material. It's not a far leap for them to try out a little D&D. (Everybody's doing it. It'll make you feel good... Your first hit's free!)
If you bemoan childhood development due to the lack of role-playing and the prevalence of 3D movies, imagine how horrified YOUR parents were when they realized you were going to stop reading books and spend all your time watching TV.
Slashdot Mirror
If the goal of the patent system is to encourage inventors to publish descriptions of their inventions, so that everyone can benefit from their discoveries, why do we need an office to approve them? Why not just allow inventors to publish whatever they want, in a suitably widespread publication, and claim patent protection? We would only need experts to review the worthiness of patents when there is some sort of dispute -- and the civil court system has been set up to handle these sorts of expert-witness-based trials for years. (Granted, this aspect of the civil court system leaves a lot to be desired, but it still sounds like it'd be more effective than the bloated, bureaucratic bottleneck we have today.)
-- 77IM
http://www.keybashing.com
97% of brain - replaced with Folgers(R) Instant Crystals! Can you tell the difference?
"For my ally is the Strong Nuclear Force, and a powerful ally it is."
If you browse using Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock on Linux behind a two user-configured firewalls and are somewhat up-to-date on the state of Linux viruses, then yes, you are a computer expert.
-- 77IM
Why not just have a system where publishing the description of an invention automatically patents it? If there's any dispute, let the civil courts handle it.
This way, we don't need a massive and slow bureaucracy -- the government only gets involved when there is a claim of infringement. It seems to work OK for copyright (and by OK, I mean it's a total clusterfuck, but at least you don't need to convince some "copyright clerk" at the copyright office that your work is original before you publish it). Of course there would need to be some guidelines about how and where to publish the description of the invention, but this reinforces the original intent of patent law, which was to encourage people to share information by publishing their inventions.
-- 77IM
Let's send captain Cirocco Jones and the crew of the DSV Ringmaster to check it out!
You'd think with their brand name, premium rates, and large customer base, they'd have the budget to architect and administer a superior hosting solution, rather than the substandard packages they offer now. Instead they are milking it, dwindling, and will eventually go tits-up.
"There is an old story, something about a golden goose; I can't remember the particulars." -- Tycho (Penny Arcade)
-- 77IM
Metal Slug was a good game and all, but where the hell is Samurai Showdown???
The vendor refused to acknowledge it was a security issue.
Then it's either a feature or a regular old non-security-related bug, and I don't see the problem with announcing it to everybody. Right?
-- 77IM
Tyrannosaurus rex
Boa constrictor
To my way of thinking, Monsanto gave him their patented technology by allowing it to float around pollinating his crop. Genes spread -- everybody knows this, especially biotech companies. If a Monsanto-owned organism escapes its controlled environment, they better be prepared to pay for all the clean-up (like replacing that guy's contaminated wheat), or else give up their rights to it.
-- 77IM
Really? When I was in public elementary school ~20 years ago, we learned fractions in 3rd grade, and decimals and negative numbers in 4th. By 7th grade we had algebraic formulas. This was the highest-level math class but it wasn't super-advanced (basically the top 25% math students -- it wasn't some top 1% magnet school or anything).
Has math education really gotten dumbed down so much in the intervening years? Granted the early math had a ton of memorization of times tables and I hated that part, but that will always be there.
-- 77IM
I thought they were supposed to do this to a cat?
We had a War on Poverty, and poverty increased.
We had a War on Drugs, and drugs increased.
We had a War on Terror, and terror increased.
So, yeah, let's have a War on Cyber, and maybe cyber will increase too. Cybernetics? Cyborgs? Cyberspace? Cybering? I guess you take the good with the bad.
-- 77IM
He's not just a member of the club, he's the Officer of Redundancy Officer.
When you welcome your new overlords, they will graciously thank you for your hospitality.
Why do we worry about missiles when it is so easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US inside of drug shipments? The enemy wouldn't even need to be a suicide bomber. They could just rent an apartment, put the thing on a 3-week timer, and leave the country. This is not a problem that can be solved by better lasers.
-- 77IM
Maybe you're on the wrong thread? It's a review of a book about unit testing, not error handling. The two are only moderately related, as far as programming concerns go.
-- 77IM
You're right! Hitler SHOULD be remembered as an ok painter. Doesn't matter if he did a thing or two later on that got some bad press.
And Godwin has done a lot more for the Internet than codify that one law!
-- 77IM
Actually, it's not the is-ought problem, it's the naturalistic fallacy. Confusing the two is a common mistake.
I think it's cool that you are trying to teach people better critical-thinking skills but if you are going to use the fancy official terms you should probably get them right. There are several (possible) solutions to the is-ought problem, but I've never heard the naturalistic fallacy described as anything other than a specific sort of unproven assertion.
-- 77IM
Correlation is not causation!!!!!
Wait, that doesn't even make sense here.
-- 77IM
DAMN, replied to wrong post! Curse you, threaded comments! The above post should have been for the GP...
Failed my Preview saving throw...
-- 77IM
Wrong -- pen-and-paper RPGs are selling better today than at any previous point in history (well, actually I think the high point was 2008, but we can probably blame this slump on the economy). And it's not all just nostalgic 30-somethings (my demographic) either. There are a LOT of high-school and middle-school kids getting into the hobby.
Remember, these kids grew up on Pokemon, which is both a CRPG and a collectible card game, and WoW and LotR make them very familiar with the source material. It's not a far leap for them to try out a little D&D. (Everybody's doing it. It'll make you feel good... Your first hit's free!)
If you bemoan childhood development due to the lack of role-playing and the prevalence of 3D movies, imagine how horrified YOUR parents were when they realized you were going to stop reading books and spend all your time watching TV.
-- 77IM