being an examiner has a quasi judical function, that is, if someone claims a device which transmits aproxmimatly between 5mhz and 17mhz, does that mean that if you found prior art at 17.5mhz you could apply it? probably, how about at 18mhz? 22mhz? 100mhz?
the examiner has to determin the metes and bounds of the patent protection
additoinally, examiners apply case law (citing legal precidents), and need to understand the legal language involved in the claim. for example the difference between consiting, and comprising is huge.
also the examiners have to determine if a combination of references is obvious. the legal definiton is very different than the common definiton of obvious. That is, most things look obvious once you actually read it.
for math 2nd grade on there was a regular and honors class
same thing for languages 6 grade on up
then again i went to private school
highschool had 3 tracks as well (with a forth for ap classes), it was common for some students to be multitracked in different subjects. for computing class rankings, your track had a factor, for example b/c track had 1.0, a (honors) 1.1 and AP 1.2
it worked great because if you were skilled in math and science but a lousy writer your needs were met appropriately
Computer crime penalties are already out of whack, that is they are more severe than many physical crimes.
Intent should be taken into account, is someone commiting computer crimes as an intellectual exercise, or are they doing it for terrorism or for monetary gain.
loosing most of the income for the rest of your life seems like a much harshier sentence, than death.
i think you lack a serious understanding of how this went to court.
The patent application was rejected at least twice by the USPTO, and it was appealed all the way to the federal court.
This is how the process is supposed to work, the patent applications being appealed, were not patents, but merely an applicants attempt to get a patent.
a quick google reveals some links to blogs which in turn reference the daily telegraph (make of that what you will) which in turn states something like the following:
"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous."
Since this patent was held valid, after being held invalid by a lower court, the USPTO recieved a large number of applications. Since federal law is in part based off of precident, the Office was bound to issue patents since the initial State Street Decision determined that the claims of that patent passed the rules for determining if an invention was a statutory violation of 35 USC 101.
Lobbying would not likely change the rules. Most likely another court decision would.
Bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay their creditors.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy
While bankruptcy laws may force the sale of assets or the control of ones property through others, creditors are usually paid a % of their debts, and not necessarily the full deb owedt.
Paying 70% of what is owed sounds like bankruptcy to me. If a person or corporation tried to do that they would have serious legal problems.
My self personally, believe that SS should be paid into the general fund, and not as a loan to the government. This would lead to a true number approximating the budget deficit.
Actually when you go bankrupt, you usually pay a percentage to what you owe to creditors.
If SS is paying a percentage of what it is owed, sounds like it will be bankrupt to me.
On a side note, SS rate of return is quite poor, the average worker would make more if they could invest directly in treasury bonds themseleves. (lowest 20% gets a 5% ROI, while the middle 20% gets 1-2%).
actually i understand how SS works, the feds were co-opted into SS about 15 years ago due to the fund becoming insolvent, much like what is being proposed for state government employees who do not participate in the social secuirty system.
the current FERS program consists of 3 parts, a pension based on number or years worked (after 5 years you get 5% of your highest 3 years pay average), TSP which is essentially a 401k and SS. For newer workers it is a better deal since you can take your money with you if you leave the government. You actually have ownership of your own money, not a bunch of IOUs.
TSP G fund (which is treasury bonds) alone yields 6% over the past 10 years, and has a a.1% expense rate which is signifigantly less than SS (and SS's paltry earnings too) http://tsp.gov/rates/fundsheet-gfund.pdf.
So the question is, why does the G fund pay better than SS treasury bonds? Well, they arent the same bonds, so i really don't know. SS is a pretty poor investment, i can buy treasury bonds on my own that pay better!
http://www.frbsf.org/images/pdfcharts/el99-34.pd f (basically 1.5% if you are a middle wage earner).
A more honest solution would be, A, mandated retirement accounts ala TSP, or B, actually list SS what it really is, a flat tax on everyone, and list it as income to the general treasury.
while i have various mutal funds, a roth, etc, i work for the government, and already invest in TSP, basically the equilvent of a government run 401k.
Why can't i invest all of my social security (my share plus employer share) in TSP? I would come out ahead, and be able to take out a loan against it if i needed to do so, plus i would have 28.5% of my monthly income invested (plus an additonal free 5%!), and wouldn't cause any strain on social security.
Anyone who thinks the admisistrative costs are too high for private savings accounts, should really look into TSP.
since atheists are minority in this country, they can disproportinatly force their views on others through lawsuits rather than through representative democracy. thats all i am saying
"If you think atheists are such a powerful force in America, perhaps you can explain why an open atheist would find it all but impossible to successfully run for office virtually anywhere in the US."
Simple, lawyers can't force how people vote,but they can force changes in public policy.
Slashdot Mirror
i work as an examiner
being an examiner has a quasi judical function, that is, if someone claims a device which transmits aproxmimatly between 5mhz and 17mhz, does that mean that if you found prior art at 17.5mhz you could apply it? probably, how about at 18mhz? 22mhz? 100mhz?
the examiner has to determin the metes and bounds of the patent protection
additoinally, examiners apply case law (citing legal precidents), and need to understand the legal language involved in the claim. for example the difference between consiting, and comprising is huge.
also the examiners have to determine if a combination of references is obvious. the legal definiton is very different than the common definiton of obvious. That is, most things look obvious once you actually read it.
for math 2nd grade on there was a regular and honors class
same thing for languages 6 grade on up
then again i went to private school
highschool had 3 tracks as well (with a forth for ap classes), it was common for some students to be multitracked in different subjects. for computing class rankings, your track had a factor, for example b/c track had 1.0, a (honors) 1.1 and AP 1.2
it worked great because if you were skilled in math and science but a lousy writer your needs were met appropriately
again this was a private school
Computer crime penalties are already out of whack, that is they are more severe than many physical crimes.
Intent should be taken into account, is someone commiting computer crimes as an intellectual exercise, or are they doing it for terrorism or for monetary gain.
loosing most of the income for the rest of your life seems like a much harshier sentence, than death.
yeah its almost as old as Q3, but id argue that it was a better FPS than Q3. much more complex, and the team oriented elements were a ton of fun.
RTCW and enemy territory?
arguably superior multiplayer than either quake 3 and doom 3, and a lot more fun and complex than counter strike.
I would love to play a newer version of enemy territory running off of the doom 3 engine.
i guess you don't know much about the episcopal church
its rather liberal by church standards
remove television advertising, but allow television coverage of campaigns.
people might not be as exposed to the cannidates as much, but you really don't learn much from TV campaign ads anyways.
The cost to run a campaign should be less, though it does require one to be more proactive to learn a cannidates position.
um patent applications are pubished 18 months after they are filed
you can see them online at uspto.gov
First to apply is to bring the US system inline with the European and Japanese Patent Offices.
I am a patent examiner.
universal has an HD channel that broadcasts the episodes in HD, just not at the sametime as they are shown on scifi.
so if i don't like your shoes, i should have the right to make you change it?
i think you lack a serious understanding of how this went to court.
The patent application was rejected at least twice by the USPTO, and it was appealed all the way to the federal court.
This is how the process is supposed to work, the patent applications being appealed, were not patents, but merely an applicants attempt to get a patent.
around cherry hill, one is at a NJ national guard place, and the other is in camden, or at least it usually is.
www.basementarcade.com usually has links to all the info you need
I work as a patent examiner, he is most likely reviewing 5-200 existing patents for prior art purposes, not examining 5-200 patents in a day.
The examiners typically examine 3-10 patent applications every 2 weeks based on pay grade/experience.
There are 2 this month in NJ (one this weekend) or wait for the next balitmore one
you can pick up an 80's machine for maybe 300-500 bucks.
a quick google reveals some links to blogs which in turn reference the daily telegraph (make of that what you will) which in turn states something like the following:
"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous."
http://www.kuesterlaw.com/saris.htm
Since this patent was held valid, after being held invalid by a lower court, the USPTO recieved a large number of applications. Since federal law is in part based off of precident, the Office was bound to issue patents since the initial State Street Decision determined that the claims of that patent passed the rules for determining if an invention was a statutory violation of 35 USC 101.
Lobbying would not likely change the rules. Most likely another court decision would.
Bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay their creditors.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy
While bankruptcy laws may force the sale of assets or the control of ones property through others, creditors are usually paid a % of their debts, and not necessarily the full deb owedt.
Paying 70% of what is owed sounds like bankruptcy to me. If a person or corporation tried to do that they would have serious legal problems.
My self personally, believe that SS should be paid into the general fund, and not as a loan to the government. This would lead to a true number approximating the budget deficit.
Actually when you go bankrupt, you usually pay a percentage to what you owe to creditors.
If SS is paying a percentage of what it is owed, sounds like it will be bankrupt to me.
On a side note, SS rate of return is quite poor, the average worker would make more if they could invest directly in treasury bonds themseleves. (lowest 20% gets a 5% ROI, while the middle 20% gets 1-2%).
actually my insurance policies pay me each year, i get a dividend check at the end of the year each year.
my problem with social security is that it pays so poorly, EE bonds pay better for the average tax payer than SS!
you ease it in over a number of years and enable catch up contributions,just like the feds did when transitioning from CERS to FERS.
i gladly loose the money ive put in so far for 10 years, though i wouldprefer some way to transition it over.
actually i understand how SS works, the feds were co-opted into SS about 15 years ago due to the fund becoming insolvent, much like what is being proposed for state government employees who do not participate in the social secuirty system.
.1% expense rate which is signifigantly less than SS (and SS's paltry earnings too) http://tsp.gov/rates/fundsheet-gfund.pdf.
d f
the current FERS program consists of 3 parts, a pension based on number or years worked (after 5 years you get 5% of your highest 3 years pay average), TSP which is essentially a 401k and SS. For newer workers it is a better deal since you can take your money with you if you leave the government. You actually have ownership of your own money, not a bunch of IOUs.
TSP G fund (which is treasury bonds) alone yields 6% over the past 10 years, and has a a
So the question is, why does the G fund pay better than SS treasury bonds? Well, they arent the same bonds, so i really don't know. SS is a pretty poor investment, i can buy treasury bonds on my own that pay better!
http://www.frbsf.org/images/pdfcharts/el99-34.p
(basically 1.5% if you are a middle wage earner).
A more honest solution would be, A, mandated retirement accounts ala TSP, or B, actually list SS what it really is, a flat tax on everyone, and list it as income to the general treasury.
while i have various mutal funds, a roth, etc, i work for the government, and already invest in TSP, basically the equilvent of a government run 401k.
Why can't i invest all of my social security (my share plus employer share) in TSP? I would come out ahead, and be able to take out a loan against it if i needed to do so, plus i would have 28.5% of my monthly income invested (plus an additonal free 5%!), and wouldn't cause any strain on social security.
Anyone who thinks the admisistrative costs are too high for private savings accounts, should really look into TSP.
what conspiracy theory?
lawsuits are known for changing laws
voting for representatives may change laws
since atheists are minority in this country, they can disproportinatly force their views on others through lawsuits rather than through representative democracy. thats all i am saying
"If you think atheists are such a powerful force in America, perhaps you can explain why an open atheist would find it all but impossible to successfully run for office virtually anywhere in the US."
Simple, lawyers can't force how people vote,but they can force changes in public policy.