Again, I didn't say he doesn't have a right to an opinion. Nor did I say he cant say it. Where I go ballistic, is when he includes himself, amongst those pursuing this war.
One of the terrible disgraces of this war, and to some extant Vietnam, is that, no, We haven't gone to war as a country. The fact is we have had our taxes CUT, we don't support out soldeirs, we don't give them adequate HealthCare, we don't give them sufficient post-injury support or career re-training, we dont have even a tenth of the psychological support they need (after WWII you had 2-3 months, after combat, to decompress, talk with people in non-threatening enviornmets, before you could get home. Today? 2 days after gearing up for a patrol, you are home) available to them. We haven't given them a command structure (how is it possible that a couple of seargants and corporals are the ones "responsible" for what happened at Abu Ghraib? Look, the chain of command means that I have to listen to my commanders. But, it also means, they are responsible for me. In large measure, they are responsible for what I do. Systemic Torture happens in a prison, and that HAS to be the fault of at MINIMUM a Colonel. The fact that no Captain/Major was supervising these soldiers, is a disgrace, and thoroughly absolves them of most of their responsibilities. Soldiers, are for the most part little boys and little girls, far from home, who are scared. That isn't a knock on them. For an army to work, its front line needs to be made up of people who will do what they are told. You leave them unsupervised, that is YOUR fault. I am not saying they should be completely absolved. But they were NOT provided with the support structure they needed. That isn't their fault. Excpecting them to cope, is absurd.). We (STIL!!!) aren't giving them body armor. We (STILL!!!!) are sending them on patrol in un-armored Hummers. When we, as a country, are failing our soldiers so terribly, cutting taxes, enriching oil companies, and private contractors, while turning our collective backs on our soldiers, no-one who isn't either a soldier, or actually involving themselves in supporting the VA, has ANY business describing themselves as part of the group who is at war. We are in no way, in this was as a country. This is largely our administrations fault.
I wholly support congress for telling the president "you cannot keep our troops deployed indefinitely". Bush has been abusing our soldiers for 4 years. The monies that are getting spent, the hundreds of billions of dollars, that are getting spent, well, I cant tell you where they are going. But it isnt to the soldiers.
Again, I wasn't in the American Army, but, well, the ceramic plates that we wore (we had the short ones, the USA is STILL trying to get our troops the long ones) ran ~$400/plate. The long ones are supposed to be ~$800/plate. 2 plates for front and back. ~$1600/soldier.
So we have 150k soldiers in Iraq? So we need there 150k*$1600? Say 200k * $2000. Half a Billion Dollars? And we still haven't outfitted every soldier with full body armor?
Listen. We went into this war WAY understaffed. To be there, we are STILL way understaffed. If the president called for putting 450k troops on the ground, he might get my support. I think at this point, it is too late for that. I think Iraq is having a civil war, and I don't think we can stop it. There is no way we can stop it with the troop levels we have there. I have seen nothing which suggests that anyone in this administration takes seriously the terrors of what war means. They disdain this administration heaps on our soldiers, in actions, if not in words, is truly obscene. At this point, my feeling is very much, just get them home. They aren't being given the tools they need. The "surge" is a joke. Raise the Troop level by 20%? Bringing it back to where it was in 2005? It wasn't enough then, why should it be enough now?
Listen, if it were important to this administration to WIN, they would send in enough troo
Listen. It isn't the same "mistake" at all. The IAEA was saying "we need time, we don't see any evidence of them having WMA. We cant rule out his having them, but we don't think so." Part of why we invaded Iraq, is cause we knew we could win (and, we did win, against the Iraqi Army. That wasn't a huge problem.). Part of the problem with Iran, (and similarly with N. Korea) is that we DON'T know that we could hadily win the war (against their Army).
Listen. Saddam wasn't delcaring war against the US. Iran, has been calling us the Great Satan. They call for the destruction of "the little Satan" (that would be Israel). They are actively involved in supporting, equipping and training various groups in Iraq and Lebanon. Comparing Iran, who is well funded, militarily viable, actively supporting militias in foreign countries, and likely building a nuclear weapon (they don't need reactors for enegry, and they rejected an offer for a reactor that would have sealed fuel, which would get returned to Russia when it was spent) to Iraq, who was, relatively quiet. Well, that is... a little foolish. Look, I hate war. I do. But, there are things that are, unfortunate, but needful. I am not yet Convinced that Iran is one of them. But, to say that Iran is just like Iraq. Well, it was wrong 4 years ago, and its wrong now. Iran was much more dangerous than Iraq, and still is.
He has a right to an opinion. As long as he was just stating an opinion, I made a point of just describing how he was wrong.
The vulgarity was invoked when he started talking, as though he were in fact doing something, in support of this chosen war. See, the vast, VAST majority of people who talk about how "we have to fight it there, or else we will have to fight it here", aren't, in fact, doing SQUAT to support the war. See, when you aren't doing a thing to support a war, or the soldiers in that war, then, it is obscene to put yourself in the group that is suffering in the pursuit of that war. Look, if he is a soldier, or, heck, even if he makes a point of supporting his local VA or some such, then hey, I was out of line. However. In this country, the people actually suffering because of the war have very little voice (there aren't soldier PAC's, and, in many ways, there shouldn't be. For an army to work, it is problematic, if the soldiers in that army are politically active, because, well, there really needs to be a strict chain of command, and politically active people...tend to have strong allegiances to their organizations. Which often conflicts with their orders. And for an army to work, soldiers have to mostly just obey orders). And for someone, who isn't actually part of that group, to claim membership in that group, when they systematically ignore that group. Well, that is pretty obscene. And I will (rightly) call such a person an arrogant self-serving pathetic little shit.
As to the bit about Kerry. I didn't call them stupid. Neither did Kerry. Kerry said, that at this point, you would have to BE stupid to join the army. I think what he said was pretty dumb. I mean, I agree with him, but I think it was stupid to say it. The way we treat soldiers is disgusting. But, I didn't say they are stupid. I said they are poor and uneducated. And, well, that is just true. I don't think there is anything wrong with coming from a poor family. I think people who try to work their way out of poverty by joining the army are probably doing the best they can. Do you think there is something wrong with being poor and uneducated? What isn't cool is that the burden of this war is placed on the poor and uneducated. What isn't cool is that if you work for private contractors, driving Trucks in Iraq, you are making $120k+, and who knows what that contractor is billing the government. That working for Blackwater, you can make $300k, again, who knows what the Gov. is being billed. But, if you are actually a soldier, you are making $30k. That isn't cool. That if you are a soldier, and you get wounded, the army doesn't take care of your family. They don't make it possible for your family to be with you while recover.
You want to attack my invective? That is fine. But know, that while you are attacking how I say something, you are ignoring the obscenity that is happening. You want to attack how I say something? What about responding to what I said? What about responding to the horror that is war? How we treat our soldiers is disgusting. What we make them do is disgusting. (yes. Sending soldier insufficiently supported into urban areas, where they don't speak the language is putting them in positing where they are going to make a LOT of mistakes. And when a soldier makes a mistake, people die. Look, war is terrible. I don't think that is a reason not to engage in war. But to be so goddamn flippant about it, is gross. And lets not pretend the pursuit f this war has been much, other than flippant. Not sending enough soldiers into an urban area is Flippant. Not making sure those soldiers are at least proficient in the language is not taking the realities of urban "warfare" seriously. You need a LOT of soldiers, to hold an urban area. We had 400+ soldiers to secure ~8 square blocks in Hebron. Well, other areas were also marginally in our patrol area. And at least 30 of those 400 were proficient in Arabic. And ALL of us had 20+ phrases we could use ("SHUT UP" "ARMS UP" "PULL
Wow. See, the thing is, when I read your post, I laughed. I thought you were being funny. Then I continued reading, and realized you were serious. That made me laugh harder.
Lets go through, point by point:
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
We are morally justified in fighting with them (whoever "they" are in Iraq. I don't really know, do you? Oh, right, yes, the "Insurgents". That makes it so much clearer. Please, before you say something else stupid, read soldiers talking about how THEY don't know who they are fighting, which is part of the reason why things like Haditha keep happening), cause we could have claimed their country as ours, and then we would be fighting them in OUR land. I mean, we could say the same thing about France (were we to invade). "Well we could just make FRANCE our 51st state, so we are justified in fighting them, cause if we had they would have fought with us, so they are fighting with us now, so it is the EXACT SAME THING". (that is the line that made me laugh.
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Well, now that IS true. Not particularly Relevant, but true. I mean, if you were talking about Israel Invading Iraq, THEN it would make sense. But, well, I mean, Person C hit Person D. That Gives Person U the right to beat the living crap out of C? And before you say "well, that is just the terrorism I mentioned. There were others." Why don't you mention them in the first place. I mean, when someone brings and irrelevant prooftext, it makes me think they dont have a relevant one.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
The second part I wholly agree with. I am not sure I should, consider, for instance, the IRA. But, I do. Actually, though, the vast majority of terrorism is very local. 9/11 is not a proof to the contrary, it is a horrific exception. Where was Timothy McVeigh from? Oklahoma you say? Those Suicide Bombers In Israel? Why, as soon as the seperation fence went up, their numbers dropped dramatically. I don't really know enough about Indonesia, or Spain.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
This is a war we started. By Choice. And, in so doing we de-stabalized a fairly stable, non-threatening state. Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us. What do you think losing is, if not what we are doing now? Bleeding our troops, exhausting them, wrecking their battle-readiness. Oh, and bleeding our economy at a rate of, 200? 300 BILLION dollars a year?
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
This is the one that really pisses me off. Makes me want to say something like, you stupid arrogant FUCK. Now, if you have served in the army, if you have lived in a tent, and not seen your family or loved ones for months or years at a time, then, really I apologize, and you really have a right to say that. Otherwise, you probably, like the vast majority of Americans, don't do a damn thing. I am just guessing, that you, like our president, don't know a fucking THING about what it mean to fight them there (I, just in case you are intersted, HAVE been in the army, though not the American one (I have Dual citizenship with and was drafted in Israel), and DO know what it is to spend months in the dessert in a
Ok, how does this legislation change that? If I have an Idea, and I dont have the money to patent it (for an individual, patenting something, for the first go round (the first 5? 7? years) ) in the united states runs about $1500) how am I currently protected? If I publish, I cant, and no-one else can patent it. That isnt effected by the current legislation. If I don't publish, and someone else patents it, I can sue, to get the patent (If I file before their patent is published/granted) but, otherwise, They will get the patent. If I don't file, and someone else does, they will get the patent. That doesnt change. The major changes are just if two people independently file. How does this change the "small guys" protection?
the fact that the government pays for SOME research doesn't impact much on my argument. Now, if you were to show me that the government pays for most research that turns into usable products, that might well catch my attention. Or, if you wanted to argue that any research that is government sponsored, should not be patentable (a thing I would probably support, though I haven't really thought it through enough), that would certainly be interesting. But, simply saying "hey the government supports some medical research", as far as I can tell, doesn't impact the viability of market forces, or individual commitment, to determine what R&D is valuable.
I didn't say Adam Smith liked patents, merely that with a patent system the invisible hand of the economy drives research.
Also, you have to understand, when Adam Smith doesn't like patents, he is talking about something very different that our current patent system. Under that patent Law, of the English Crown, at the time he was writing, a patent was a limited monopoly, given out by the king, in a given region, almost arbitrarily (well, to whoever paid the king the most for it). Parliament had been adopting some moderation on the kings abilities to grant patents, (and one of the restrictions that came into being was that the king should only give patents on new things, or he should only extend already existing patents. That limitation on the kings rights eventually grew into a general right that everyone had, as it was seen to foster development, and publication of those developments -- part of a patent, remember, is the description). So what Adam Smith was objecting to was the king profiting off of limited competition. I don't think he talks about the issues involved in Intellectual property, per se (although it has been 8 years since I read The Wealth of Nations, so I could be forgetting) And it is hard to know what he would have had to say about it (unless he did, specifically, in which case I look kinda silly). Bu, it is worth being aware that when he says "patents" what he is talking about is quite different from what we think of as patents.
Again, Sorry, but the people rating you insightful didn't bother to understand the legislation. So, if they wanted to rate you "+1 funny" that would make sense. Alternately, you should be just "-1 wrong".
The Proposed Legislation has nothing to do with prior art. Prior art, will still invalidate a patent. ANY publication of an Idea, including your personal web-blog, releasing it as an open source project on SourceForge, describing the idea in a Slashdot comment, even just talking about it with potential investors if you don't get an NDA from them, ANY public disclosure, prior to the filing of a patent (by anyone), will render a patent invalid. It may be granted, if the examiner doesn't know of the prior art, but, in a court case, if you can show that prior art, and you can show that the prior art was published before the invention was filed (in any country, there are treaties about if I have filed in one country, but not yet in the USA, then I can get depending on what I do, up to 3 years to file in the US, after I have filed in another country), then that invention is not patentable.
What the proposed legislation changes is (I give an example):
Person A, and Person B, both independently come up with an invention, and both file, with no public disclosure, to receive a patent.
Under the current law, the USPTO has to figure out, between A and B, who though of the Idea, first. This is a nearly impossible task, and generally comes down to who does a better job documenting.
Under the proposed law, with neither side having publicly disclosed anything (any such disclosure will make the idea unpatentable, for BOTH A, and B, and anyone else with the same idea), the patent office looks at the filing date (and time, if it comes to that), and based on when the patent was filed, determines who gets the Patent. That is IT. NOTHING to do with prior art, nothing to do with the validity of patents.
Without patents, who the hell would find out the AZT is effective against AIDS? Who would sit and do test after test after test to find out that a previously known compound, which was originally developed to treat Cancer, but, didn't work, and has nasty side effect, helps to treat Aids?
You want to trust the government to do all the research? That the government should decide what research is worth pursuing, and what research isn't?
Sure, without the patent system, a lot of things will get invented, because of need. But many of those things (more so with the more useful ones) will never see the light of day. I will make more money by hoarding my nifty new way to do something, and selling it in small quantities, than I will by allowing wider distribution, knowing full well that wider distribution will make it known how to do my nifty new thing. I find out Drug A works against disease X? Well, I wont sell you Drug A, I will allow you to come to my office, and I will administer it to you.
Big Pharma makes lots of money, and overcharge for their drugs. They promote them to doctors. 17 years from now, those drugs will be in the public domain. Harsh now? Yes. Driver of innovation? They need new Drugs every 17 years! Drug trials often take 10's of years!!! Your "need" would find those drugs, with no research? Or you would have all reaserch sponsored by the Government? How long would that have taken, with a governmet that Barely recognized Aids until 1989, and then thought "it's Just a Gay Man's Disease"?
Are there Major problems with the Pharmaceutical Industry? Sure. Are patents the root of all evil? I think there is more to it, then just a commmunistic (not a sarcastic usage, more that, under communism there isn't private property, and you want to do away with the notions of IP property altogether) knee jerk reaction of "all information wants to be free".
Right. Sure. And who is paying for the research? With the patent system, essentially, Adam Smith's invisible hand pays for the Reaserch. Under your system- ? who? The Government? Who decides what research to Pursue? Can Anyone Get a grant for Anything? Right now, if I think I have a good Idea, I pursue it, and get a patent on it, and can then use my Idea, for 17 years, without competition. I believe in My Idea, so I work at it. Under your system, I ask... somone... for money, and if they think it is a good idea, they give me money to do research. I get paid, as long as I haven't completed my idea. There is no incentive to finish my research, as, once it is done, I stop getting paid (well, we could make a tiered system. The more research you complete, the more your get paid. Well, I would just "complete" my reasech and find out the idea wasnt very good. Well, no, you get paid more for successful Ideas. Successful according to who? To the guy doaling out the research bucks in the first place?)
No. There are things, which are, factually WRONG. Not Morally Wrong. Not positions I disagree with. Just simply factually wrong. An Example:
The GGGP ( The GP of my original post): "if filing first is all you need to do. Just steal somebody else's idea and file it first." OK. So he is using a question to make a statement. Yay. His statement is just so terribly misleading. Look, If I have a friend who tells me in confidence about his Idea, then his scenario is Plausible. I would be committing theft, if I did it, and sometimes theft is hard to prove. The proposed legislation does nothing to affect this situation. His next comment (again, a Suggestive Question, the recourse of cowards and lazy Journalists) is very simple. The Patent would get thrown out. In both cases, his proposed scenarios are irrelevant, or stupid, and unfortunately, problematically suggestive, to someone not versed in patent Law. Take For example the post I commented on. He takes the GGGP's post, and goes with the GGGP's train of thought: "A smart person would scrub open source for patent ideas and start patenting away. Shoot, scrub commercial products for innovations that exist that others may have not seen previously." Well, no, that would already be prior Art. Wouldn't work. Just wrong.
Now, the GGP Does say something interesting, namely: "Now, if someone could lift out some patents from MS products, Amazon, etc that the respective companies hadn't thought of." Well, If I can come up with a specific way of using your product, in a non-obvious, but Useful way, then yes, I can Get a patent on it. Somewhat the way AZT is patented for its use in treating AIDS. AZT was created sometime in the 50's. However its use to treat Aids was discovered in the late 80's Early 90's. Some Drug company did Millions and millions of tests on known compouds, and found that one had a use, no-one had previously known about. And then AZT got patented for use in treating AIDS. Note that shortly AZT will fall into the public domain (if it isn't already). Also, consider that tens of millions of Dollars were spent investigating various existing chemichals, that would not have been spent, if a company couldnt recoup those expenditures. So, in Having a patent system, somone went and found out AZT was useful against AIDS.
If, for instance, I found a way to use Microsoft Excel, to turn my laptop into a cheap Radio Telescope, I could absolutely patent that. Anyone wanting to use my method of making the Excel Radio Telescope would have to get liscenced from me, AND Microsoft. In fact, I couldnt use my method, without paying for my copy of excel (well, I just use OOMath. When I bother with spreadsheets. Which I dont do. Mostly I use PostgreSQL and some PHP.). However, you could do that. Patenting Excel to make a spreadsheet, however, wouldn't work at all, as that is what is was made to do.
In short. Some things, that are based on facts, can be wrong. To say "there should be no wrong, everything is just an opinion, and all opinions should be respected eaqually" sounds real nice, but is, in fact a bunch of crap. The proposed legislation doesn't affect what is patentable, and to suggest that it does, is simply "wrong".
Wow. I don't know where to begin. The proposed law isn't talking about what makes something patentable, rather, how we decide who should get a patent, between 2 different competing parties. Currently the US tries to figure out "when was it "invented"". The rest of the world says "when did you file". When did you file, is so much easier to answer.
On to the rest. The reason you cant file "overly broad" claims, is that, in general, an "overly broad" claim, will cover something that is prior art. If a claim covers something that is prior art, that claim is thrown out.
Ones goal, as a patent writer (and this is the reason you hire a Patent Agent/Patent Attorney) is to write the claims in such a way, that they carve out the largest chunk of intellectual space possible, while hitting NO prior art.
Listen, there are a whole bunch of parts to any given patent, but generally, one is interested in the 2 meaty ones, Namely: 1. The Description of the Invention 2. The Claims
The description of the invention is the part where the inventor describes in sufficient detail, such that someone who knows about the general technology the patent relates to, could implement the patented Idea. There are rules about how full a description must be, and in general, one isn't worried about them (unless they are incomplete).
The Claims. These are the things with legal weight to them. They have to be written in a single (often Very Long with many subclauses) sentence, which describe the components of, and relational elements of, your invention. Until you understand that they claims are the Meat of a patent, you shouldnt complaing about overly broad patents.
And you cant patent E=MC**2. Or what a chromosome does. You can patents ways of USING that information. You could patent a method of releasing nuclear energy. You would have to describe your method, and then, no-one could use that method (or, you could patent an apparatus capable of using that energy).
You bring up the problems of "innovative" and non-obvious. And these really are problems. Here is an issue. Many, Really Good Ideas, in hindsight, seem obvious. One example is the disposable razor. It is cheap, stays sharp, and is easy to manufacture. The technology to make disposable razors had been around for a while. It seems like such an obvious Idea. And Yet, Gillette came up with them. Got a patent, and build a company, which brought these things to Market. Today, we have many companies making disposable razors.
The problem is, who gets to decide obvious? The Patent office's general answer is, courts/Juries. It isn't a good answer, as courts and Juries are terribly fickle. However, how do you standardize what is Obvious? Well, there are a couple of things that ARE standard (simply combining two different technologies, is not, usually, sufficient to get a patent, which is why you don't see patents on CameraPhone's, although, if you had a novel way to do it, which had some unexpected benefit, then you probably could get one. However, if your MECHANISM for combining them is, interesting or useful, then you could probably patent that). But what is a better answer? Having the individual patent agents decide? Well, to some extent they do, but, usually only within certain guidelines, and believe you me, that Patent attorney's know those guidelines cold, and are very adept at writing around them. How would you handle "obvious". What seems obvious to you? What seems obvious to one "well versed in the Art"? Which well versed in the Art person, cause I guarantee you the plaintiff and defendant of an expensive infringement case are both going to have Armies of expert witnesses, saying opposite things. This is why, the Patent office relies so heavily on prior art. Prior are is quantifiable. Who is going to decide on your criteria of "overly Broad"? Listen, if I have a general Idea, which can be implemented 2M ways, then I can get a patent on the Idea, provided my idea is novel. Just because there are millions of ways of doing something, you would say that should invalidate a patent? I mean, you are using lots of pretty words, and noble ideas. (well, some would thing them noble). But how do you implement those Ideas?
I have mod points, and was looking for some-one to point out that the parent and grandparent are not insightful, just wrong. There really needs to be a -1 wrong Mod.
Anyhow. This legislation makes it much MUCH easier for open source projects. Instead of having to write something, and then find out someone else claims to have invented it, and they filed a patent before you published, you just have to search filed patents. If it isn't there, publish your general idea, and write your open source project.
Similarly, both the parent and grandparent seem to totally miss that you most definitely cannot patent something from an open source project, as, anything which is available as open source, is already published.
Here is the thing. Any public disclosure (prior to filing) invalidates a patent. Now, I am allowed to talk with a friend, to further developement, but, to cover your ass, you really should get him/her to sign an NDA before talking about it, because simply talking about it constitutes a public disclosure. Proving that public disclosure can be an issue.
Now, what this legislation does is, it says that between 2 people (corporations, groups, committees, whatever) who have the same idea, and both try to patent it, provided that neither has published anything, and it is a useful, non-obvious idea, we will give the patent to the one who files first. This eliminates confusion about who should gt it, with both parties "no, I had the idea first. So, for the most part, to avoid infringement, you just have to search relevant patents. There is still some time, between when a provisional patent is filed, and when the USPTO accepts (and publishes) it that you could have various "submarine" patents get into an open standard, or your open source project, but this legislation doesnt make it possible, at all, for some-one to take your OS project, and start filing patents based on it. Parent and GP are crying wolf, without understanding what they are talking about.
Forgive me for being obtuse. I see how this is a win for the curtailing of an mafia like organization. But, What I don't see, assuming that this letter is accurate, is how is this a win for the middle aged couple being sued?
The letter says the RIAA would pay their attorneys fees ~$7k.
They could have settled for ~$3.5k.
So, unless it does go to court, and the RIAA pay for the couples attorney's fees, how was it better for the couple to go to a lawyer, than just to settle out of court?
I grant, that is what the RIAA wants us to think, and I thank the couple for their trouble. But, aren't they worse off, for having gone through this, rather than just settling?
Torture, in many circumstances, DOES work. It depends very much on how it is applied, but it can be a terribly effective interrogation technique. A reference in principle would be the Stockholm Syndrome. It is true, that when torture is just an excuse for letting your lower ranks use violence against people who are helpless, that that may not lead to very good actionable intelligence, (although, again, depending on the situation, that CAN be used, to good effect, provided you have someone overseeing the random violence and terror inflicted upon your prisoners).
Many people don't object to torture because it doesn't work. It can, and in the right situation, does work. If your only objection to torture is that it doesn't work, I invite you to to join an intelligence service that uses torture, get sufficient clearance, and find out what actionable intelligence was developed, using it. Compare that with the intelligence they got through other means. Look for the amount of false information that was developed, both through torture, and compare that to the false information developed through other human assets. Once you have made a real comparison, I think you will find that many torture techniques are terribly effective, and compare quite well other intelligence gathering techniques. (dont bother with university studies. Universities dont really torture people that much, and, contrary to public opinion, intelligence services, by and large, do a good job of keeping their secrets). And well, if your only objection to torture, is that it doesn't work, I think you will find that you suddenly support at least certain techniques wholeheartedly.
A reason many (informed) people object to torture is that it is too easily abused, and when not used properly, harms the psychological makeup of the soldiers inflicting it (many, possibly most, cases of PTSD are a result not of merely watching terrible things happen to the sufferer of PTSD, but rather in participating in doing terrible things, or witnessing terrible things being done by the sufferers "side", and taking no action against them).
Another reason might be, that, again, when used on "prisoners" in general, it will yield terrible information.
Another possible objection is that, when your side becomes generally known to use torture, it becomes a rally call for the opposition (when used moderately. When used in seriously massive quantities, so that torture is not just something you had a cousins best friend knew someone tortured, but rather your cousin has actually experienced it, torture is again devastatingly effective against a local population. See Stalinist Russia, for an example).
Some people object to torture because it is "just wrong". I invite those people to weigh the hypothetical, of harm caused to someone known to be planning violence against others, versus the harm that that person is causing, to others. Don't tell me "not all torture is that way", or "how do you know he is planning harm against others". It is my hypothetical, I am using it to challenge the absolute "torture is wrong". Sure it is. But so what? The world is often a choice of the lesser of evils. Does something being wrong mean you should never do it?
Some people object to torture because it invites our enemies to do the same. I would ask those people to look at what many of our enemies are willing to do, and again, ask, do you really think that if we don't torture, they wont?
I don't like torture. It sickens me. And, I suspect, most of the time it is used, it is being used in uncontrolled situations. And in those situations, it almost certainly causes more harm, then good, to the the side using it. In that respect, torture is pretty terrible, and I would hope my side wouldn't use it. One might go so far as to say, the good yielded through proper use of torture is dwarfed by the harm caused by improper use of torture, and so, it would be better to do away with it entirely, to avoid confusion on the part of scared frightened lonely boys (and girls) far from home, it what are already morally dubious situations.
But not even that means that torture doesn't WORK.
you can assemble a rifle out of a case an hit a target at 400 yards. You have to take a minute, and get your bearings, and check the scope, to really estimate how far away they are. But it can be done.
In fact, many snipers carry their rifles in cases during transit.. The case protects the parts from the elements.
And a decent sniper rifle is accurate to 1000+ yards. (Just saying. If you are going to nitpick, only nitpic on those things which are actually wrong. I dont know handguns so well, so I cant comment on the rest)
Wow. I mean. That is Great. I am curious, have you read much commentary on "anochi Hashem"? There is a fairly famous machloket between Ramban and Rambam, as to whether that is a commandment, or a preface. Ramban Holds that it is a preface, and that without it, you cannot fulfill any of the Mitzvot. Rambam Has it as being a Mitzva, that one can be in violation of.
So according to Rambam, I can still be an observant Jew, and Not believe in God. Granted, I will ommiting the commision of a mitzva, that I am required to do. But that doesnt put me out of the group. I am still Kosher For Eidut.
Now, as it turns out, I do believe in God. So I am All good From ramban, and Rambam. Just a side point.
Now, on to your, terribly ill-informed little rant. According to Rambam, one cannot give reasons for the Torah. Sure, Shabbat is there to remeber creationg (and Yetziat Mitzrayim). So, yes, I say Kiddush, and dont drive et al. I also put on tefilin today. Did you? Whatever. At any rate. Most of Judaism is a function of practice. So, yea, the shul I go to (or dont, when it is snowy, or the rabbi decides to give a lecture about the importance of keeping marrige between a man and woman (I live in Mass.)) is an othodox one.
Now. Lets go on. You are claiming that belief that the world was created in 7 days is a cornerstone of Jewish Being.
I dont think you have a source. The first place one would go to look would be Rambam's 13 attributes. Lets look shall we (I am just reciting them by heart, cause well, I am too annoyed with you to spend my time looking them up. Here is your chance to pounce on me, fool (yes, that is ad hominem, and shouldnt be part of the argument. Merely a statement of my opinion of somone who would pass judgment in a public forum without knowing a damn thing about me).
1. God Exists 2. There is only one God 3. God has no Physical form (an interesting thing to have as a cornerstone of permitted belief's, if you have ever bothered to read Masechet Rosh Hashanna, or simply ezekiel, at that, but who wants to get into that debate) 4. God pre-dates everything 5. he is the master of the universe 6. He has given prophecy to chosen people 7. Moshe was the greatest prophet ever 8. He gave to tora to his people 9. His will is eternal 10.He Knows all our secrets 11.He rewards and punishes justly 12.He will bring Mashiach 13.He will bring the dead back to life
Hmm. So according to rambam, were I not to believe the world was created in 7 days, I would still be well within the fold. You wanna cite something that puts me out? Or do you just prefer to shoot your mouth off in public forums (in case you are wondering, no, I havent memorized the Mishne Tora. But Yigdal is something of a sum up of Rambam's Ikarim).
Now. Lets ask, does Orthodox Judaism believe in Creationism? And the answer to that, is, according to most sources (I say most, cause I havent read all of them, but all the ones I have read on Breshit) there is a sharp divide in history, between the 7 days of creation (yes, the _7_ including getting thrown out of the graden), and the rest of History. So if you bother to study the matter, you will find most Rabbinical sources will say things like "sure the world 5767 years old. Well 5767 + 7 days". See, traditional rabbbinical authority keeps those days, and their history, entriely seperate, from well, the rest of history. Traditionally, we hold that they are true, and that what they say happened, happened, but we dont so much claim to know what they mean. See, christians will typically hold that they know exactly what those words mean. The rabbinical souces I have read on the matter keep those days seperate, and somewhat kabbalistic. So, a studied tradional approach would have that of course the world was created in 7 days, but we dont really know what that means. It certainly doesnt make much sense to talk about the 7 days being 24 hour days, as there was no sunrise or sunset for the first 3-4 (th
Well, here is the thing. I am an orthodox Jew. AND, incidentally, I speak fluent hebrew (my aramaic is passable). And well, I typicaly read Job at least once a year (In hebrew. With 1000+ years of various rabbinical commentary. That and ecclesiasties. On Shavout, if you must know). I would also like to say that I think creationism is fairly silly. Dangerous, sure. But, silly. I happen to think that MOST relegion is fairly silly (my own, included). There are lots of arguments you could use.
But just saying "eveyrone knows it's a metaphor, you dipshit" reduces your comment to. Well:
A. Wrong. Not everyone knows that. There is a lot of rabbinical debate. Some say it is a prophetic vision, others say it was actually God taking him around showing him these things. This debate appears all over in biblical commentary, esp. in regards to phatasmagorical prophetiky things. The only real thing that is constant in Rabbinical debate, is that there is a lot of it. And Pigs arent Kosher.
B. Ad Hominem. And who modded your silly ad hominem up, probably doesnt read hebrew, or know much about rabinical authority.
Look, I am a big fan of telling people "read it in the hebrew". If you had bothered to do that, you would see the passage he is talking about (Job 40:15) should almost certainly be translated (roughly) "here are the animals, that I made, along with you. Grass/Grain it Eats, just like cattle eat." Now, the interesting thing about this passage is the word (transliterated) "b-hay-mote". Hebrew, as lots of people will tell you, is written with consonants. So, the word is BHM#T (the # is something that normally represents an "Oh" or "oo" but can be a "V". A vav for those of you who know hebrew.) Under normal circumstances, you would just translate that as "animals". The problem with that translation, is that this chapter is God, showing Job all sorts of wonderous things of Creation. So why are some random animals so wonderous. That question is what leads to the discussion that the animals in question, are wonderous animals, and the trasliteration of a normal word "B-Hay-Mote" to behemoth. You really have to be reading the passage TRYING to force the word to mean "dinosaurs" for it to come close to that reading.
See, that would be a decent argument. "everyone knows its metaphor you dipshit" is just wrong, and personal.
Also, please dont give me ownership of the Old testament. I like to think my knowledge of it is better than most. But that doesnt mean I own it, any more that a classics professor owns "the Illiad". Other people can still come to these books, read them, and find what they may in them. Some of what they find might be because they want to see it. Sometimes a scholar of these books can show somone why a particular reading isnt likely. But Christians (though I think they are often wrong, because they rarely study the bible in any original source) are not to be dismissed out of hand because they are not "orthodox Jews". Further, why should an Orthodox Jew have any more claim to the bible then I Conservative, or reform Jew. They have the same traditional connection I do, they just choose to make a different reading.
In short, please mod parent down. He is an AC, doesnt really say anything constructive (or even correct), and belongs at 0 where he started.
Does this deffinition do away with the notion of binary planets? Would they both the be considered "Dwarf Planets" because neither cleared the neighborhood around its orbit (even if the system of both had)?
The GGP says that the over 50 crowd is the fastest growing group of new aids cases.
The article says there is a 500% growth in people over 50, who have aids.
There is no correlation between these statements at all. Lets just assume that there is no other demographic group which has grown by 500% over the last 10 years.
All that the article says is that TODAY there are 90k people over 50 with aids. NOT that 90k people over 50 have become infected with aids, but rather that there are 90k people WITH aids.
So, lets say, last year, 89k people who were 49 had aids. This year, they turned 50. Those are not new infections. Those are just infected people getting older.
Why is the disticiton important? Because a vaccine is only useful amongst people who dont yet have aids. I am not saying that there isnt a massive growth in the senior circuit in aids. I really dont know. But the GGP is claiming an article says one thing (People over 50 are the most rapidly growing group of new aids cases) when it says no such thing. Hence I complain about mods, who mod it up, when in fact, they dont read the article. Because his relevant "point" isnt true at all (at least, not from the article he quoted).
I wish mods would check links, before saying "informative". How about "misleading" or "lying". Oh, I know, he only inserted one itty bitty little word. Only 3 letters long.
Yea, that word was "new". What the article he is quoting SAYS is that in the USA, 27% of people with HIV are over 50. It ALSO says that some people over 50 are getting aids. No-where does it say that 27% of people with aids are GETTING it when they are over 50. To say then, that it is the largest growing sector of the population just means that people who got it in their 30's, in the 80's, are now still alive, and are turning 50.
Wow. +5 interesting. I would have thought, 0, or -1 offtopic. How is a story espionage, relevant to a discussion of uranium enrichment? Or is Israel bashing, just generally on-topic?
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I didn't say he doesn't have a right to an opinion. Nor did I say he cant say it. Where I go ballistic, is when he includes himself, amongst those pursuing this war.
One of the terrible disgraces of this war, and to some extant Vietnam, is that, no, We haven't gone to war as a country. The fact is we have had our taxes CUT, we don't support out soldeirs, we don't give them adequate HealthCare, we don't give them sufficient post-injury support or career re-training, we dont have even a tenth of the psychological support they need (after WWII you had 2-3 months, after combat, to decompress, talk with people in non-threatening enviornmets, before you could get home. Today? 2 days after gearing up for a patrol, you are home) available to them. We haven't given them a command structure (how is it possible that a couple of seargants and corporals are the ones "responsible" for what happened at Abu Ghraib? Look, the chain of command means that I have to listen to my commanders. But, it also means, they are responsible for me. In large measure, they are responsible for what I do. Systemic Torture happens in a prison, and that HAS to be the fault of at MINIMUM a Colonel. The fact that no Captain/Major was supervising these soldiers, is a disgrace, and thoroughly absolves them of most of their responsibilities. Soldiers, are for the most part little boys and little girls, far from home, who are scared. That isn't a knock on them. For an army to work, its front line needs to be made up of people who will do what they are told. You leave them unsupervised, that is YOUR fault. I am not saying they should be completely absolved. But they were NOT provided with the support structure they needed. That isn't their fault. Excpecting them to cope, is absurd.). We (STIL!!!) aren't giving them body armor. We (STILL!!!!) are sending them on patrol in un-armored Hummers. When we, as a country, are failing our soldiers so terribly, cutting taxes, enriching oil companies, and private contractors, while turning our collective backs on our soldiers, no-one who isn't either a soldier, or actually involving themselves in supporting the VA, has ANY business describing themselves as part of the group who is at war. We are in no way, in this was as a country. This is largely our administrations fault.
I wholly support congress for telling the president "you cannot keep our troops deployed indefinitely". Bush has been abusing our soldiers for 4 years. The monies that are getting spent, the hundreds of billions of dollars, that are getting spent, well, I cant tell you where they are going. But it isnt to the soldiers.
Again, I wasn't in the American Army, but, well, the ceramic plates that we wore (we had the short ones, the USA is STILL trying to get our troops the long ones) ran ~$400/plate. The long ones are supposed to be ~$800/plate. 2 plates for front and back. ~$1600/soldier.
So we have 150k soldiers in Iraq? So we need there 150k*$1600? Say 200k * $2000. Half a Billion Dollars? And we still haven't outfitted every soldier with full body armor?
Listen. We went into this war WAY understaffed. To be there, we are STILL way understaffed. If the president called for putting 450k troops on the ground, he might get my support. I think at this point, it is too late for that. I think Iraq is having a civil war, and I don't think we can stop it. There is no way we can stop it with the troop levels we have there. I have seen nothing which suggests that anyone in this administration takes seriously the terrors of what war means. They disdain this administration heaps on our soldiers, in actions, if not in words, is truly obscene. At this point, my feeling is very much, just get them home. They aren't being given the tools they need. The "surge" is a joke. Raise the Troop level by 20%? Bringing it back to where it was in 2005? It wasn't enough then, why should it be enough now?
Listen, if it were important to this administration to WIN, they would send in enough troo
Listen. It isn't the same "mistake" at all. The IAEA was saying "we need time, we don't see any evidence of them having WMA. We cant rule out his having them, but we don't think so." Part of why we invaded Iraq, is cause we knew we could win (and, we did win, against the Iraqi Army. That wasn't a huge problem.). Part of the problem with Iran, (and similarly with N. Korea) is that we DON'T know that we could hadily win the war (against their Army).
Listen. Saddam wasn't delcaring war against the US. Iran, has been calling us the Great Satan. They call for the destruction of "the little Satan" (that would be Israel). They are actively involved in supporting, equipping and training various groups in Iraq and Lebanon. Comparing Iran, who is well funded, militarily viable, actively supporting militias in foreign countries, and likely building a nuclear weapon (they don't need reactors for enegry, and they rejected an offer for a reactor that would have sealed fuel, which would get returned to Russia when it was spent) to Iraq, who was, relatively quiet. Well, that is... a little foolish. Look, I hate war. I do. But, there are things that are, unfortunate, but needful. I am not yet Convinced that Iran is one of them. But, to say that Iran is just like Iraq. Well, it was wrong 4 years ago, and its wrong now. Iran was much more dangerous than Iraq, and still is.
He has a right to an opinion. As long as he was just stating an opinion, I made a point of just describing how he was wrong.
The vulgarity was invoked when he started talking, as though he were in fact doing something, in support of this chosen war. See, the vast, VAST majority of people who talk about how "we have to fight it there, or else we will have to fight it here", aren't, in fact, doing SQUAT to support the war. See, when you aren't doing a thing to support a war, or the soldiers in that war, then, it is obscene to put yourself in the group that is suffering in the pursuit of that war. Look, if he is a soldier, or, heck, even if he makes a point of supporting his local VA or some such, then hey, I was out of line. However. In this country, the people actually suffering because of the war have very little voice (there aren't soldier PAC's, and, in many ways, there shouldn't be. For an army to work, it is problematic, if the soldiers in that army are politically active, because, well, there really needs to be a strict chain of command, and politically active people...tend to have strong allegiances to their organizations. Which often conflicts with their orders. And for an army to work, soldiers have to mostly just obey orders). And for someone, who isn't actually part of that group, to claim membership in that group, when they systematically ignore that group. Well, that is pretty obscene. And I will (rightly) call such a person an arrogant self-serving pathetic little shit.
As to the bit about Kerry. I didn't call them stupid. Neither did Kerry. Kerry said, that at this point, you would have to BE stupid to join the army. I think what he said was pretty dumb. I mean, I agree with him, but I think it was stupid to say it. The way we treat soldiers is disgusting. But, I didn't say they are stupid. I said they are poor and uneducated. And, well, that is just true. I don't think there is anything wrong with coming from a poor family. I think people who try to work their way out of poverty by joining the army are probably doing the best they can. Do you think there is something wrong with being poor and uneducated? What isn't cool is that the burden of this war is placed on the poor and uneducated. What isn't cool is that if you work for private contractors, driving Trucks in Iraq, you are making $120k+, and who knows what that contractor is billing the government. That working for Blackwater, you can make $300k, again, who knows what the Gov. is being billed. But, if you are actually a soldier, you are making $30k. That isn't cool. That if you are a soldier, and you get wounded, the army doesn't take care of your family. They don't make it possible for your family to be with you while recover.
You want to attack my invective? That is fine. But know, that while you are attacking how I say something, you are ignoring the obscenity that is happening. You want to attack how I say something? What about responding to what I said? What about responding to the horror that is war? How we treat our soldiers is disgusting. What we make them do is disgusting. (yes. Sending soldier insufficiently supported into urban areas, where they don't speak the language is putting them in positing where they are going to make a LOT of mistakes. And when a soldier makes a mistake, people die. Look, war is terrible. I don't think that is a reason not to engage in war. But to be so goddamn flippant about it, is gross. And lets not pretend the pursuit f this war has been much, other than flippant. Not sending enough soldiers into an urban area is Flippant. Not making sure those soldiers are at least proficient in the language is not taking the realities of urban "warfare" seriously. You need a LOT of soldiers, to hold an urban area. We had 400+ soldiers to secure ~8 square blocks in Hebron. Well, other areas were also marginally in our patrol area. And at least 30 of those 400 were proficient in Arabic. And ALL of us had 20+ phrases we could use ("SHUT UP" "ARMS UP" "PULL
Wow. See, the thing is, when I read your post, I laughed. I thought you were being funny. Then I continued reading, and realized you were serious. That made me laugh harder.
Lets go through, point by point:
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
We are morally justified in fighting with them (whoever "they" are in Iraq. I don't really know, do you? Oh, right, yes, the "Insurgents". That makes it so much clearer. Please, before you say something else stupid, read soldiers talking about how THEY don't know who they are fighting, which is part of the reason why things like Haditha keep happening), cause we could have claimed their country as ours, and then we would be fighting them in OUR land. I mean, we could say the same thing about France (were we to invade). "Well we could just make FRANCE our 51st state, so we are justified in fighting them, cause if we had they would have fought with us, so they are fighting with us now, so it is the EXACT SAME THING". (that is the line that made me laugh.
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Well, now that IS true. Not particularly Relevant, but true. I mean, if you were talking about Israel Invading Iraq, THEN it would make sense. But, well, I mean, Person C hit Person D. That Gives Person U the right to beat the living crap out of C? And before you say "well, that is just the terrorism I mentioned. There were others." Why don't you mention them in the first place. I mean, when someone brings and irrelevant prooftext, it makes me think they dont have a relevant one.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
The second part I wholly agree with. I am not sure I should, consider, for instance, the IRA. But, I do. Actually, though, the vast majority of terrorism is very local. 9/11 is not a proof to the contrary, it is a horrific exception. Where was Timothy McVeigh from? Oklahoma you say? Those Suicide Bombers In Israel? Why, as soon as the seperation fence went up, their numbers dropped dramatically. I don't really know enough about Indonesia, or Spain.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
This is a war we started. By Choice. And, in so doing we de-stabalized a fairly stable, non-threatening state. Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us. What do you think losing is, if not what we are doing now? Bleeding our troops, exhausting them, wrecking their battle-readiness. Oh, and bleeding our economy at a rate of, 200? 300 BILLION dollars a year?
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
This is the one that really pisses me off. Makes me want to say something like, you stupid arrogant FUCK. Now, if you have served in the army, if you have lived in a tent, and not seen your family or loved ones for months or years at a time, then, really I apologize, and you really have a right to say that. Otherwise, you probably, like the vast majority of Americans, don't do a damn thing. I am just guessing, that you, like our president, don't know a fucking THING about what it mean to fight them there (I, just in case you are intersted, HAVE been in the army, though not the American one (I have Dual citizenship with and was drafted in Israel), and DO know what it is to spend months in the dessert in a
Ok, how does this legislation change that? If I have an Idea, and I dont have the money to patent it (for an individual, patenting something, for the first go round (the first 5? 7? years) ) in the united states runs about $1500) how am I currently protected? If I publish, I cant, and no-one else can patent it. That isnt effected by the current legislation. If I don't publish, and someone else patents it, I can sue, to get the patent (If I file before their patent is published/granted) but, otherwise, They will get the patent. If I don't file, and someone else does, they will get the patent. That doesnt change. The major changes are just if two people independently file. How does this change the "small guys" protection?
the fact that the government pays for SOME research doesn't impact much on my argument. Now, if you were to show me that the government pays for most research that turns into usable products, that might well catch my attention. Or, if you wanted to argue that any research that is government sponsored, should not be patentable (a thing I would probably support, though I haven't really thought it through enough), that would certainly be interesting. But, simply saying "hey the government supports some medical research", as far as I can tell, doesn't impact the viability of market forces, or individual commitment, to determine what R&D is valuable.
I didn't say Adam Smith liked patents, merely that with a patent system the invisible hand of the economy drives research.
Also, you have to understand, when Adam Smith doesn't like patents, he is talking about something very different that our current patent system. Under that patent Law, of the English Crown, at the time he was writing, a patent was a limited monopoly, given out by the king, in a given region, almost arbitrarily (well, to whoever paid the king the most for it). Parliament had been adopting some moderation on the kings abilities to grant patents, (and one of the restrictions that came into being was that the king should only give patents on new things, or he should only extend already existing patents. That limitation on the kings rights eventually grew into a general right that everyone had, as it was seen to foster development, and publication of those developments -- part of a patent, remember, is the description). So what Adam Smith was objecting to was the king profiting off of limited competition. I don't think he talks about the issues involved in Intellectual property, per se (although it has been 8 years since I read The Wealth of Nations, so I could be forgetting) And it is hard to know what he would have had to say about it (unless he did, specifically, in which case I look kinda silly). Bu, it is worth being aware that when he says "patents" what he is talking about is quite different from what we think of as patents.
Again, Sorry, but the people rating you insightful didn't bother to understand the legislation. So, if they wanted to rate you "+1 funny" that would make sense. Alternately, you should be just "-1 wrong".
The Proposed Legislation has nothing to do with prior art. Prior art, will still invalidate a patent. ANY publication of an Idea, including your personal web-blog, releasing it as an open source project on SourceForge, describing the idea in a Slashdot comment, even just talking about it with potential investors if you don't get an NDA from them, ANY public disclosure, prior to the filing of a patent (by anyone), will render a patent invalid. It may be granted, if the examiner doesn't know of the prior art, but, in a court case, if you can show that prior art, and you can show that the prior art was published before the invention was filed (in any country, there are treaties about if I have filed in one country, but not yet in the USA, then I can get depending on what I do, up to 3 years to file in the US, after I have filed in another country), then that invention is not patentable.
What the proposed legislation changes is (I give an example):
Person A, and Person B, both independently come up with an invention, and both file, with no public disclosure, to receive a patent.
Under the current law, the USPTO has to figure out, between A and B, who though of the Idea, first. This is a nearly impossible task, and generally comes down to who does a better job documenting.
Under the proposed law, with neither side having publicly disclosed anything (any such disclosure will make the idea unpatentable, for BOTH A, and B, and anyone else with the same idea), the patent office looks at the filing date (and time, if it comes to that), and based on when the patent was filed, determines who gets the Patent. That is IT. NOTHING to do with prior art, nothing to do with the validity of patents.
Without patents, who the hell would find out the AZT is effective against AIDS? Who would sit and do test after test after test to find out that a previously known compound, which was originally developed to treat Cancer, but, didn't work, and has nasty side effect, helps to treat Aids?
You want to trust the government to do all the research? That the government should decide what research is worth pursuing, and what research isn't?
Sure, without the patent system, a lot of things will get invented, because of need. But many of those things (more so with the more useful ones) will never see the light of day. I will make more money by hoarding my nifty new way to do something, and selling it in small quantities, than I will by allowing wider distribution, knowing full well that wider distribution will make it known how to do my nifty new thing. I find out Drug A works against disease X? Well, I wont sell you Drug A, I will allow you to come to my office, and I will administer it to you.
Big Pharma makes lots of money, and overcharge for their drugs. They promote them to doctors. 17 years from now, those drugs will be in the public domain. Harsh now? Yes. Driver of innovation? They need new Drugs every 17 years! Drug trials often take 10's of years!!! Your "need" would find those drugs, with no research? Or you would have all reaserch sponsored by the Government? How long would that have taken, with a governmet that Barely recognized Aids until 1989, and then thought "it's Just a Gay Man's Disease"?
Are there Major problems with the Pharmaceutical Industry? Sure. Are patents the root of all evil? I think there is more to it, then just a commmunistic (not a sarcastic usage, more that, under communism there isn't private property, and you want to do away with the notions of IP property altogether) knee jerk reaction of "all information wants to be free".
Right. Sure. And who is paying for the research? With the patent system, essentially, Adam Smith's invisible hand pays for the Reaserch. Under your system- ? who? The Government? Who decides what research to Pursue? Can Anyone Get a grant for Anything? Right now, if I think I have a good Idea, I pursue it, and get a patent on it, and can then use my Idea, for 17 years, without competition. I believe in My Idea, so I work at it. Under your system, I ask ... somone ... for money, and if they think it is a good idea, they give me money to do research. I get paid, as long as I haven't completed my idea. There is no incentive to finish my research, as, once it is done, I stop getting paid (well, we could make a tiered system. The more research you complete, the more your get paid. Well, I would just "complete" my reasech and find out the idea wasnt very good. Well, no, you get paid more for successful Ideas. Successful according to who? To the guy doaling out the research bucks in the first place?)
No. There are things, which are, factually WRONG. Not Morally Wrong. Not positions I disagree with. Just simply factually wrong. An Example:
The GGGP ( The GP of my original post): "if filing first is all you need to do. Just steal somebody else's idea and file it first." OK. So he is using a question to make a statement. Yay. His statement is just so terribly misleading. Look, If I have a friend who tells me in confidence about his Idea, then his scenario is Plausible. I would be committing theft, if I did it, and sometimes theft is hard to prove. The proposed legislation does nothing to affect this situation. His next comment (again, a Suggestive Question, the recourse of cowards and lazy Journalists) is very simple. The Patent would get thrown out. In both cases, his proposed scenarios are irrelevant, or stupid, and unfortunately, problematically suggestive, to someone not versed in patent Law. Take For example the post I commented on. He takes the GGGP's post, and goes with the GGGP's train of thought: "A smart person would scrub open source for patent ideas and start patenting away. Shoot, scrub commercial products for innovations that exist that others may have not seen previously." Well, no, that would already be prior Art. Wouldn't work. Just wrong.
Now, the GGP Does say something interesting, namely: "Now, if someone could lift out some patents from MS products, Amazon, etc that the respective companies hadn't thought of." Well, If I can come up with a specific way of using your product, in a non-obvious, but Useful way, then yes, I can Get a patent on it. Somewhat the way AZT is patented for its use in treating AIDS. AZT was created sometime in the 50's. However its use to treat Aids was discovered in the late 80's Early 90's. Some Drug company did Millions and millions of tests on known compouds, and found that one had a use, no-one had previously known about. And then AZT got patented for use in treating AIDS. Note that shortly AZT will fall into the public domain (if it isn't already). Also, consider that tens of millions of Dollars were spent investigating various existing chemichals, that would not have been spent, if a company couldnt recoup those expenditures. So, in Having a patent system, somone went and found out AZT was useful against AIDS.
If, for instance, I found a way to use Microsoft Excel, to turn my laptop into a cheap Radio Telescope, I could absolutely patent that. Anyone wanting to use my method of making the Excel Radio Telescope would have to get liscenced from me, AND Microsoft. In fact, I couldnt use my method, without paying for my copy of excel (well, I just use OOMath. When I bother with spreadsheets. Which I dont do. Mostly I use PostgreSQL and some PHP.). However, you could do that. Patenting Excel to make a spreadsheet, however, wouldn't work at all, as that is what is was made to do.
In short. Some things, that are based on facts, can be wrong. To say "there should be no wrong, everything is just an opinion, and all opinions should be respected eaqually" sounds real nice, but is, in fact a bunch of crap. The proposed legislation doesn't affect what is patentable, and to suggest that it does, is simply "wrong".
Wow. I don't know where to begin. The proposed law isn't talking about what makes something patentable, rather, how we decide who should get a patent, between 2 different competing parties. Currently the US tries to figure out "when was it "invented"". The rest of the world says "when did you file". When did you file, is so much easier to answer.
On to the rest. The reason you cant file "overly broad" claims, is that, in general, an "overly broad" claim, will cover something that is prior art. If a claim covers something that is prior art, that claim is thrown out.
Ones goal, as a patent writer (and this is the reason you hire a Patent Agent/Patent Attorney) is to write the claims in such a way, that they carve out the largest chunk of intellectual space possible, while hitting NO prior art.
Listen, there are a whole bunch of parts to any given patent, but generally, one is interested in the 2 meaty ones, Namely:
1. The Description of the Invention
2. The Claims
The description of the invention is the part where the inventor describes in sufficient detail, such that someone who knows about the general technology the patent relates to, could implement the patented Idea. There are rules about how full a description must be, and in general, one isn't worried about them (unless they are incomplete).
The Claims. These are the things with legal weight to them. They have to be written in a single (often Very Long with many subclauses) sentence, which describe the components of, and relational elements of, your invention. Until you understand that they claims are the Meat of a patent, you shouldnt complaing about overly broad patents.
And you cant patent E=MC**2. Or what a chromosome does. You can patents ways of USING that information. You could patent a method of releasing nuclear energy. You would have to describe your method, and then, no-one could use that method (or, you could patent an apparatus capable of using that energy).
You bring up the problems of "innovative" and non-obvious. And these really are problems. Here is an issue. Many, Really Good Ideas, in hindsight, seem obvious. One example is the disposable razor. It is cheap, stays sharp, and is easy to manufacture. The technology to make disposable razors had been around for a while. It seems like such an obvious Idea. And Yet, Gillette came up with them. Got a patent, and build a company, which brought these things to Market. Today, we have many companies making disposable razors.
The problem is, who gets to decide obvious? The Patent office's general answer is, courts/Juries. It isn't a good answer, as courts and Juries are terribly fickle. However, how do you standardize what is Obvious? Well, there are a couple of things that ARE standard (simply combining two different technologies, is not, usually, sufficient to get a patent, which is why you don't see patents on CameraPhone's, although, if you had a novel way to do it, which had some unexpected benefit, then you probably could get one. However, if your MECHANISM for combining them is, interesting or useful, then you could probably patent that). But what is a better answer? Having the individual patent agents decide? Well, to some extent they do, but, usually only within certain guidelines, and believe you me, that Patent attorney's know those guidelines cold, and are very adept at writing around them. How would you handle "obvious". What seems obvious to you? What seems obvious to one "well versed in the Art"? Which well versed in the Art person, cause I guarantee you the plaintiff and defendant of an expensive infringement case are both going to have Armies of expert witnesses, saying opposite things. This is why, the Patent office relies so heavily on prior art. Prior are is quantifiable. Who is going to decide on your criteria of "overly Broad"? Listen, if I have a general Idea, which can be implemented 2M ways, then I can get a patent on the Idea, provided my idea is novel. Just because there are millions of ways of doing something, you would say that should invalidate a patent? I mean, you are using lots of pretty words, and noble ideas. (well, some would thing them noble). But how do you implement those Ideas?
I have mod points, and was looking for some-one to point out that the parent and grandparent are not insightful, just wrong. There really needs to be a -1 wrong Mod.
Anyhow. This legislation makes it much MUCH easier for open source projects. Instead of having to write something, and then find out someone else claims to have invented it, and they filed a patent before you published, you just have to search filed patents. If it isn't there, publish your general idea, and write your open source project.
Similarly, both the parent and grandparent seem to totally miss that you most definitely cannot patent something from an open source project, as, anything which is available as open source, is already published.
Here is the thing. Any public disclosure (prior to filing) invalidates a patent. Now, I am allowed to talk with a friend, to further developement, but, to cover your ass, you really should get him/her to sign an NDA before talking about it, because simply talking about it constitutes a public disclosure. Proving that public disclosure can be an issue.
Now, what this legislation does is, it says that between 2 people (corporations, groups, committees, whatever) who have the same idea, and both try to patent it, provided that neither has published anything, and it is a useful, non-obvious idea, we will give the patent to the one who files first. This eliminates confusion about who should gt it, with both parties "no, I had the idea first. So, for the most part, to avoid infringement, you just have to search relevant patents. There is still some time, between when a provisional patent is filed, and when the USPTO accepts (and publishes) it that you could have various "submarine" patents get into an open standard, or your open source project, but this legislation doesnt make it possible, at all, for some-one to take your OS project, and start filing patents based on it. Parent and GP are crying wolf, without understanding what they are talking about.
Forgive me for being obtuse. I see how this is a win for the curtailing of an mafia like organization. But, What I don't see, assuming that this letter is accurate, is how is this a win for the middle aged couple being sued?
The letter says the RIAA would pay their attorneys fees ~$7k.
They could have settled for ~$3.5k.
So, unless it does go to court, and the RIAA pay for the couples attorney's fees, how was it better for the couple to go to a lawyer, than just to settle out of court?
I grant, that is what the RIAA wants us to think, and I thank the couple for their trouble. But, aren't they worse off, for having gone through this, rather than just settling?
Torture, in many circumstances, DOES work. It depends very much on how it is applied, but it can be a terribly effective interrogation technique. A reference in principle would be the Stockholm Syndrome. It is true, that when torture is just an excuse for letting your lower ranks use violence against people who are helpless, that that may not lead to very good actionable intelligence, (although, again, depending on the situation, that CAN be used, to good effect, provided you have someone overseeing the random violence and terror inflicted upon your prisoners).
Many people don't object to torture because it doesn't work. It can, and in the right situation, does work. If your only objection to torture is that it doesn't work, I invite you to to join an intelligence service that uses torture, get sufficient clearance, and find out what actionable intelligence was developed, using it. Compare that with the intelligence they got through other means. Look for the amount of false information that was developed, both through torture, and compare that to the false information developed through other human assets. Once you have made a real comparison, I think you will find that many torture techniques are terribly effective, and compare quite well other intelligence gathering techniques. (dont bother with university studies. Universities dont really torture people that much, and, contrary to public opinion, intelligence services, by and large, do a good job of keeping their secrets). And well, if your only objection to torture, is that it doesn't work, I think you will find that you suddenly support at least certain techniques wholeheartedly.
A reason many (informed) people object to torture is that it is too easily abused, and when not used properly, harms the psychological makeup of the soldiers inflicting it (many, possibly most, cases of PTSD are a result not of merely watching terrible things happen to the sufferer of PTSD, but rather in participating in doing terrible things, or witnessing terrible things being done by the sufferers "side", and taking no action against them).
Another reason might be, that, again, when used on "prisoners" in general, it will yield terrible information.
Another possible objection is that, when your side becomes generally known to use torture, it becomes a rally call for the opposition (when used moderately. When used in seriously massive quantities, so that torture is not just something you had a cousins best friend knew someone tortured, but rather your cousin has actually experienced it, torture is again devastatingly effective against a local population. See Stalinist Russia, for an example).
Some people object to torture because it is "just wrong". I invite those people to weigh the hypothetical, of harm caused to someone known to be planning violence against others, versus the harm that that person is causing, to others. Don't tell me "not all torture is that way", or "how do you know he is planning harm against others". It is my hypothetical, I am using it to challenge the absolute "torture is wrong". Sure it is. But so what? The world is often a choice of the lesser of evils. Does something being wrong mean you should never do it?
Some people object to torture because it invites our enemies to do the same. I would ask those people to look at what many of our enemies are willing to do, and again, ask, do you really think that if we don't torture, they wont?
I don't like torture. It sickens me. And, I suspect, most of the time it is used, it is being used in uncontrolled situations. And in those situations, it almost certainly causes more harm, then good, to the the side using it. In that respect, torture is pretty terrible, and I would hope my side wouldn't use it. One might go so far as to say, the good yielded through proper use of torture is dwarfed by the harm caused by improper use of torture, and so, it would be better to do away with it entirely, to avoid confusion on the part of scared frightened lonely boys (and girls) far from home, it what are already morally dubious situations.
But not even that means that torture doesn't WORK.
umm...pg_query_params()
you can assemble a rifle out of a case an hit a target at 400 yards. You have to take a minute, and get your bearings, and check the scope, to really estimate how far away they are. But it can be done.
In fact, many snipers carry their rifles in cases during transit.. The case protects the parts from the elements.
And a decent sniper rifle is accurate to 1000+ yards.
(Just saying. If you are going to nitpick, only nitpic on those things which are actually wrong. I dont know handguns so well, so I cant comment on the rest)
Wow. I mean. That is Great. I am curious, have you read much commentary on "anochi Hashem"? There is a fairly famous machloket between Ramban and Rambam, as to whether that is a commandment, or a preface. Ramban Holds that it is a preface, and that without it, you cannot fulfill any of the Mitzvot. Rambam Has it as being a Mitzva, that one can be in violation of.
So according to Rambam, I can still be an observant Jew, and Not believe in God. Granted, I will ommiting the commision of a mitzva, that I am required to do. But that doesnt put me out of the group. I am still Kosher For Eidut.
Now, as it turns out, I do believe in God. So I am All good From ramban, and Rambam. Just a side point.
Now, on to your, terribly ill-informed little rant. According to Rambam, one cannot give reasons for the Torah. Sure, Shabbat is there to remeber creationg (and Yetziat Mitzrayim). So, yes, I say Kiddush, and dont drive et al. I also put on tefilin today. Did you? Whatever. At any rate. Most of Judaism is a function of practice. So, yea, the shul I go to (or dont, when it is snowy, or the rabbi decides to give a lecture about the importance of keeping marrige between a man and woman (I live in Mass.)) is an othodox one.
Now. Lets go on. You are claiming that belief that the world was created in 7 days is a cornerstone of Jewish Being.
I dont think you have a source.
The first place one would go to look would be Rambam's 13 attributes. Lets look shall we (I am just reciting them by heart, cause well, I am too annoyed with you to spend my time looking them up. Here is your chance to pounce on me, fool (yes, that is ad hominem, and shouldnt be part of the argument. Merely a statement of my opinion of somone who would pass judgment in a public forum without knowing a damn thing about me).
1. God Exists
2. There is only one God
3. God has no Physical form (an interesting thing to have as a cornerstone of permitted belief's, if you have ever bothered to read Masechet Rosh Hashanna, or simply ezekiel, at that, but who wants to get into that debate)
4. God pre-dates everything
5. he is the master of the universe
6. He has given prophecy to chosen people
7. Moshe was the greatest prophet ever
8. He gave to tora to his people
9. His will is eternal
10.He Knows all our secrets
11.He rewards and punishes justly
12.He will bring Mashiach
13.He will bring the dead back to life
Hmm. So according to rambam, were I not to believe the world was created in 7 days, I would still be well within the fold. You wanna cite something that puts me out? Or do you just prefer to shoot your mouth off in public forums (in case you are wondering, no, I havent memorized the Mishne Tora. But Yigdal is something of a sum up of Rambam's Ikarim).
Now. Lets ask, does Orthodox Judaism believe in Creationism? And the answer to that, is, according to most sources (I say most, cause I havent read all of them, but all the ones I have read on Breshit) there is a sharp divide in history, between the 7 days of creation (yes, the _7_ including getting thrown out of the graden), and the rest of History. So if you bother to study the matter, you will find most Rabbinical sources will say things like "sure the world 5767 years old. Well 5767 + 7 days". See, traditional rabbbinical authority keeps those days, and their history, entriely seperate, from well, the rest of history. Traditionally, we hold that they are true, and that what they say happened, happened, but we dont so much claim to know what they mean. See, christians will typically hold that they know exactly what those words mean. The rabbinical souces I have read on the matter keep those days seperate, and somewhat kabbalistic. So, a studied tradional approach would have that of course the world was created in 7 days, but we dont really know what that means. It certainly doesnt make much sense to talk about the 7 days being 24 hour days, as there was no sunrise or sunset for the first 3-4 (th
Well, here is the thing.
I am an orthodox Jew. AND, incidentally, I speak fluent hebrew (my aramaic is passable). And well, I typicaly read Job at least once a year (In hebrew. With 1000+ years of various rabbinical commentary. That and ecclesiasties. On Shavout, if you must know). I would also like to say that I think creationism is fairly silly. Dangerous, sure. But, silly. I happen to think that MOST relegion is fairly silly (my own, included). There are lots of arguments you could use.
But just saying "eveyrone knows it's a metaphor, you dipshit" reduces your comment to. Well:
A. Wrong. Not everyone knows that. There is a lot of rabbinical debate. Some say it is a prophetic vision, others say it was actually God taking him around showing him these things. This debate appears all over in biblical commentary, esp. in regards to phatasmagorical prophetiky things. The only real thing that is constant in Rabbinical debate, is that there is a lot of it. And Pigs arent Kosher.
B. Ad Hominem. And who modded your silly ad hominem up, probably doesnt read hebrew, or know much about rabinical authority.
Look, I am a big fan of telling people "read it in the hebrew". If you had bothered to do that, you would see the passage he is talking about (Job 40:15) should almost certainly be translated (roughly) "here are the animals, that I made, along with you. Grass/Grain it Eats, just like cattle eat." Now, the interesting thing about this passage is the word (transliterated) "b-hay-mote". Hebrew, as lots of people will tell you, is written with consonants. So, the word is BHM#T (the # is something that normally represents an "Oh" or "oo" but can be a "V". A vav for those of you who know hebrew.) Under normal circumstances, you would just translate that as "animals". The problem with that translation, is that this chapter is God, showing Job all sorts of wonderous things of Creation. So why are some random animals so wonderous. That question is what leads to the discussion that the animals in question, are wonderous animals, and the trasliteration of a normal word "B-Hay-Mote" to behemoth. You really have to be reading the passage TRYING to force the word to mean "dinosaurs" for it to come close to that reading.
See, that would be a decent argument. "everyone knows its metaphor you dipshit" is just wrong, and personal.
Also, please dont give me ownership of the Old testament. I like to think my knowledge of it is better than most. But that doesnt mean I own it, any more that a classics professor owns "the Illiad". Other people can still come to these books, read them, and find what they may in them. Some of what they find might be because they want to see it. Sometimes a scholar of these books can show somone why a particular reading isnt likely. But Christians (though I think they are often wrong, because they rarely study the bible in any original source) are not to be dismissed out of hand because they are not "orthodox Jews". Further, why should an Orthodox Jew have any more claim to the bible then I Conservative, or reform Jew. They have the same traditional connection I do, they just choose to make a different reading.
In short, please mod parent down. He is an AC, doesnt really say anything constructive (or even correct), and belongs at 0 where he started.
Does this deffinition do away with the notion of binary planets? Would they both the be considered "Dwarf Planets" because neither cleared the neighborhood around its orbit (even if the system of both had)?
The GGP says that the over 50 crowd is the fastest growing group of new aids cases.
The article says there is a 500% growth in people over 50, who have aids.
There is no correlation between these statements at all. Lets just assume that there is no other demographic group which has grown by 500% over the last 10 years.
All that the article says is that TODAY there are 90k people over 50 with aids. NOT that 90k people over 50 have become infected with aids, but rather that there are 90k people WITH aids.
So, lets say, last year, 89k people who were 49 had aids. This year, they turned 50. Those are not new infections. Those are just infected people getting older.
Why is the disticiton important? Because a vaccine is only useful amongst people who dont yet have aids. I am not saying that there isnt a massive growth in the senior circuit in aids. I really dont know. But the GGP is claiming an article says one thing (People over 50 are the most rapidly growing group of new aids cases) when it says no such thing. Hence I complain about mods, who mod it up, when in fact, they dont read the article. Because his relevant "point" isnt true at all (at least, not from the article he quoted).
wow, way to Karma Whore. +8 on one post. I am totally impressed (it's called the preview button....)
I wish mods would check links, before saying "informative". How about "misleading" or "lying". Oh, I know, he only inserted one itty bitty little word. Only 3 letters long.
Yea, that word was "new". What the article he is quoting SAYS is that in the USA, 27% of people with HIV are over 50. It ALSO says that some people over 50 are getting aids. No-where does it say that 27% of people with aids are GETTING it when they are over 50. To say then, that it is the largest growing sector of the population just means that people who got it in their 30's, in the 80's, are now still alive, and are turning 50.
Informative? Please. Try "deceitful".
No. It cant. Although it is a good ploy to get somone to GIVE you their SS#. I wonder who has yours....
Wow. +5 interesting. I would have thought, 0, or -1 offtopic. How is a story espionage, relevant to a discussion of uranium enrichment? Or is Israel bashing, just generally on-topic?