You are assuming that nothing being patentable is an inherently wrong idea without supporting that statement, which is a logical flaw and a strong indication of irrational bias.
You are also assuming that being able to be described mathematically is somehow equivalent to being able to be performed mathematically. Math can model a rocket going to Mars, but it can't send a rocket to Mars by itself.
Since you are throwing down the latin gauntlet, I'll have to formally lay down an argument old school.
For the purposes of patent law, all the things you just mentioned are indeed 'just data.' Whether they are 'just data' in other legal contexts is a different issue, although there may be very similar overlaps. Precisely, the legally relevant meaning of 'just data' is that no part of software is not data, no part of data is not math, and that if there is no part of an invention that is not math, it is not patent eligible subject matter.
and that's a door that technically doesn't exist. One, software doesn't do anything. It's merely data. Two, everything that is done on the computer itself could be performed by any universal Turing machine, including a human brain.
It's abstract because it doesn't have a specific physical presence. Simplicity is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is abstract, while the International Space Station is concrete.
And then he goes off the rails. It's a republic, for Pete's sake, and it's the Internet of whomever builds it. The interconnection of many and varied private networks is the model that has led to the most successful technological innovation in history. Mess with that at your great peril. Yes, the too-big-to-fail fascist/corporate model is attractive to miscreants, but fix that, don't wreck the Internet
Except for the places where they use different models than the US, and also seem to have faster speeds and less bullshit.
So you think it is a label for "high functioning individuals"
It is a label that excludes below average intelligence, and is a similar yet distinct diagnosis from high-functioning autism (at least prior to the latest DSM). How much it affects their lives depends upon the individual and the severity of their case as well as the degree of compassion and understanding of those around them and how early they are taught ways to understand and adapt. But the relevant point would be that in many cases, people with Asperger's can be aware that they have Asperger's.
and should be "a badge of honor"?
No, I said that it's not worn as a badge of honor by most individuals that have Asperger's. By that, I meant that people who actually have Asperger's probably aren't going to advertise it, since it is likely a subject that has involved a great deal of pain, shame, and/or patronizing pity. In other words, people who actually have Asperger's typically aren't going to brag to every corner of the internet that they have Asperger's.
Care to cite? Show me your proof that this isn't a major stumbling block for the boy. Elsewise, shut your fucking sewer and understand that not everyone has the same values that you do.
Read more carefully what I'm saying. There's an IF in there. IF there are other conditions that are responsible for lowering his QoL, THEN removing autism symptoms won't change those. If he has an IQ south of 70 and autism, and he no longer has autism for all intents and purposes, he still has an IQ south of 70, and that may be the real problem.
Well there appears to be a number of testimonials in this very thread from people who are in the same boat as the OP who have voiced a slightly different opinion of the situation. You're talking about holding back the winds with your hands and these people are just looking for a way to tolerate the wind a little better. Guess which one I see as being more practical and progressive?
I'm saying that the problem is that society is structured towards neurotypical mindsets. That doesn't mean the best solution is necessarily all going to be on the side of changing society. Left handed people often learn to do various tasks right-handed, and that is the most practical solution in many cases. Even if accommodations are made for them often, they will probably be in situations where said accommodations are not available (having known a few southpaw musicians, almost all of them who take it even kind of seriously can get by on right handed instruments) . However, understanding that left handed people are left handed and may have more difficulty learning to do things right handed makes that process a lot easier than assuming that the lefty just has poor motor skills. It also lets us know that trying to force a left handed person to be right handed is somewhat of a cruel action, and forcing someone who is gay to be straight is a very cruel action.
Autism has also probably been with us for a very long time too, and if it's actually present in mice, it would have been with us MUCH longer than centuries.
No, Asperger's is a diagnosis for high functioning individuals, so having Asperger's would not prevent you from saying you have Asperger's. The reason that claiming to have Asperger's can be an indicator against having Asperger's is that someone with Asperger's has probably been ostracized enough that they don't always treat it like a badge of honor.
If you teenage nephew had no symptoms of autism but had the same IQ and generally the same mental capacity, how much would his quality of life really change? Autism often has company, especially in the most visible cases, and if you the symptoms that lower his QoL are the ones that are not Autism, making him no longer autistic is not going to solve the problem.
Also, you seem to be more of the one pushing your agenda. He's not asking you to join his club, or to stop people from leaving his club, but rather, to leave it to the individual whether they are comfortable with being autistic. You make comparisons to Parkinson's and Bipolar, but others might compare it to being left-handed or homosexual. There are certainly QoL issues there as well, but the healthy among us tend to see the difficulties they face as being primarily issues of how our society is structured instead of an underlying inferiority.
More of a gray market, although I don't think it's available without a prescription, and it's a bit hard to fake parasites (two of the primary uses of this drug)
The bulk — if not all — of that is already committed, no doubt
It probably is, but bills like that are pretty common. Given the number of people on the Autistic spectrum, it's not going to be hard to get that amount of money if this drug shows promise. NIH and similar sources drop about half the money already, and about half of the drugs are low priority me too drugs. So, all we need is an impassioned plea form the wife of a Senator with an autistic child and the grant for this can be fast-tracked.
Ignoring the money raised through walks and such, Autism Speaks noted that a bill with $230 million for autism research was passed a few years back, and Big Pharma would probably consider funding it worthwhile just to shut Jenny Mccarthy up, plus the great PR this would have.
It shouldn't be patentable, but our patent system is a huge disaster. However, assuming this shows legitimate promise, one of those autism related charities should be able to front the bill.
No, they don't have to be as awesome as Jack Daniels was, but a solution could have easily been worked that was better for both parties than what we actually got.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that nothing being patentable is an inherently wrong idea without supporting that statement, which is a logical flaw and a strong indication of irrational bias.
You are also assuming that being able to be described mathematically is somehow equivalent to being able to be performed mathematically. Math can model a rocket going to Mars, but it can't send a rocket to Mars by itself.
Since you are throwing down the latin gauntlet, I'll have to formally lay down an argument old school.
For the purposes of patent law, all the things you just mentioned are indeed 'just data.' Whether they are 'just data' in other legal contexts is a different issue, although there may be very similar overlaps. Precisely, the legally relevant meaning of 'just data' is that no part of software is not data, no part of data is not math, and that if there is no part of an invention that is not math, it is not patent eligible subject matter.
and that's a door that technically doesn't exist. One, software doesn't do anything. It's merely data. Two, everything that is done on the computer itself could be performed by any universal Turing machine, including a human brain.
On the other hand, we have managed to totally defeat smallpox, rinderpest, and if we play our cards right, polio will soon join those ranks.
Oversight which they manage to pretty much completely evade if said parties aren't already conspirators.
It's abstract because it doesn't have a specific physical presence. Simplicity is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is abstract, while the International Space Station is concrete.
Concrete mathematics is an oxymoron.
He probably did contribute a lot to this mess, but that doesn't mean he's no correct here.
Except for the places where they use different models than the US, and also seem to have faster speeds and less bullshit.
It is a label that excludes below average intelligence, and is a similar yet distinct diagnosis from high-functioning autism (at least prior to the latest DSM). How much it affects their lives depends upon the individual and the severity of their case as well as the degree of compassion and understanding of those around them and how early they are taught ways to understand and adapt. But the relevant point would be that in many cases, people with Asperger's can be aware that they have Asperger's.
No, I said that it's not worn as a badge of honor by most individuals that have Asperger's. By that, I meant that people who actually have Asperger's probably aren't going to advertise it, since it is likely a subject that has involved a great deal of pain, shame, and/or patronizing pity. In other words, people who actually have Asperger's typically aren't going to brag to every corner of the internet that they have Asperger's.
I was just thinking that if the employers learned how to make the most of autistic employees, the problem would be resolved.
And which party is in the wrong there?
Read more carefully what I'm saying. There's an IF in there. IF there are other conditions that are responsible for lowering his QoL, THEN removing autism symptoms won't change those. If he has an IQ south of 70 and autism, and he no longer has autism for all intents and purposes, he still has an IQ south of 70, and that may be the real problem.
I'm saying that the problem is that society is structured towards neurotypical mindsets. That doesn't mean the best solution is necessarily all going to be on the side of changing society. Left handed people often learn to do various tasks right-handed, and that is the most practical solution in many cases. Even if accommodations are made for them often, they will probably be in situations where said accommodations are not available (having known a few southpaw musicians, almost all of them who take it even kind of seriously can get by on right handed instruments) . However, understanding that left handed people are left handed and may have more difficulty learning to do things right handed makes that process a lot easier than assuming that the lefty just has poor motor skills. It also lets us know that trying to force a left handed person to be right handed is somewhat of a cruel action, and forcing someone who is gay to be straight is a very cruel action.
Autism has also probably been with us for a very long time too, and if it's actually present in mice, it would have been with us MUCH longer than centuries.
No, Asperger's is a diagnosis for high functioning individuals, so having Asperger's would not prevent you from saying you have Asperger's. The reason that claiming to have Asperger's can be an indicator against having Asperger's is that someone with Asperger's has probably been ostracized enough that they don't always treat it like a badge of honor.
Furthermore, not everyone in the world considers the latest version of the DSM to be the ultimate authority on the subject.
If you teenage nephew had no symptoms of autism but had the same IQ and generally the same mental capacity, how much would his quality of life really change? Autism often has company, especially in the most visible cases, and if you the symptoms that lower his QoL are the ones that are not Autism, making him no longer autistic is not going to solve the problem.
Also, you seem to be more of the one pushing your agenda. He's not asking you to join his club, or to stop people from leaving his club, but rather, to leave it to the individual whether they are comfortable with being autistic. You make comparisons to Parkinson's and Bipolar, but others might compare it to being left-handed or homosexual. There are certainly QoL issues there as well, but the healthy among us tend to see the difficulties they face as being primarily issues of how our society is structured instead of an underlying inferiority.
More of a gray market, although I don't think it's available without a prescription, and it's a bit hard to fake parasites (two of the primary uses of this drug)
It probably is, but bills like that are pretty common. Given the number of people on the Autistic spectrum, it's not going to be hard to get that amount of money if this drug shows promise. NIH and similar sources drop about half the money already, and about half of the drugs are low priority me too drugs. So, all we need is an impassioned plea form the wife of a Senator with an autistic child and the grant for this can be fast-tracked.
This supposedly treats symptoms of autism, not internet diagnosis of autism that often include behaviors that have nothing to do with autism.
Ignoring the money raised through walks and such, Autism Speaks noted that a bill with $230 million for autism research was passed a few years back, and Big Pharma would probably consider funding it worthwhile just to shut Jenny Mccarthy up, plus the great PR this would have.
It shouldn't be patentable, but our patent system is a huge disaster. However, assuming this shows legitimate promise, one of those autism related charities should be able to front the bill.
[citation needed]
I see the site has been around for 8 years, but no indication that there have been any communication with IKEA until recently.
No, they don't have to be as awesome as Jack Daniels was, but a solution could have easily been worked that was better for both parties than what we actually got.
No, you missed the point. The site is about hacking ikea, or at least ikea and ikea-like furniture. Nothing wrong with calling a duck a duck.