You're either poorly attempting to confuse me or else you're simply mentally deficient. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt any longer.,
When exactly did you 'give me the benefit of the doubt' in the first place? always rude, always arrogant, always imperious, nothing has changed.
The problem is that you DID get into this conversation with a person who DOES have a wealth of knowledge about the patent system so the only person present available to be embarrassed is yourself.
Once again you present yourself as the end all expert on patents. Frankly, I don't see it. Besides a couple of vague references to case law, which you present without any real discussion about it's merits, most of your posts are just a collection of insults.
You have lots of bravado, but very little substance, just like the Bush administration.
That was a link to a salary table from 9 years ago
That was your link, not mine. I found that it was particularly funny that you didn't even read it at all. I don't know how much they pay you, and I don't care. It was far more about showing that you didn't even read the page which you linked. VERY poor research, perhaps you are a patent examiner as you seem to claim.
You quoted me making a declarative statement. Then you said, "...I'll answer." Since there was no question posed, what in the fuck are you rambling about?
Again, with that 'point'; As you are still asking for clarification, I'll spell it out clearly, in words simple enough even you might understand; I was ribbing you, baiting you, and fucking with you in general. You are a graceless, witless, inurbane loon, who cannot carry on a decent conversation, that in the end is my point.
I think that I've made that point time and time again, but I've got to thank you for being so helpful in my efforts.
How true, you are most cool only if people don't know what you're doing or talking about. However there is a window that you can be super cool, yet still people understand, but you have to be sure to drop it as it hits it peak. I'm guessing that it will be about Tuesday at noon.
Your 'looking glass self' is so distorted a fun house mirror would be clearer.
It'll be like a presidential town hall meeting - I'll have a tool following me around lobbing softball comments my way. This is going to be great.
Actually, the administration doesn't allow people like me into their events. A 'softball' comment doesn't take many paragraphs to answer. They are just like you, they think that they are always right, and unwilling to entertain any discussion. They lambaste critics, and dismiss discussion they are not winning. They seem to believe that they can control reality by controlling the discussion of what is really happening. How is that different from you? Seriously, you should feel a kinship with the President and his staff.
Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a bunch of people who don't know anything about patents.
But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.
I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.
Yes, but only if 'the topic at hand' is about calling me a tool and other insults. The only thing you 'hung' is your 'reputation', but I suspect that you're a long standing troll on this site, and likely 'well known' by other handles.
You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?
So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.
thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.
This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".
I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.
Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?
Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here to impress 'others', I'm here to l
why don't you ASK for some clarification instead of some bullshit "I'm rubber and you're glue" nonsense?
You 'sir' started the insults, hell, you even brought my mother into it.
Besides, am I supposed to just sit back and take your bullshit? Are you the "BACK_PAGES", man-god, expecting to throw out insults into the ether without reply?
You're wrong on all counts there, Killer. While you're on a streak, what on Earth is a patent clerk? They don't have those at the USPTO, so you must be talking about something else.
Well then you better get wikipedia to remove Patent Clerk entry, as you believe it doesn't exist (and that's all that really counts right?). Perhaps you should look-over this entry as well.
On the subject of patents, Slashdot is nothing but a magnet for ignorant, baseless ego-stroking for those who scream the groupthink.
It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.
Just today, I heard a neo-con talking head say something like 'the liberal majority court ruled that so it doesn't count'. While he was wrong (and in so many ways), he was right about one thing, our legal system is adaptable, full of opinion, and not always right.
Simply quoting the existing laws, and selected cases to defend your position, may be proper in a court of law.
However it is not germane to the discussion of whether or not those laws are correct, and only loosely related to the discussion over poor implementation of those laws, as a often maligned court decision created business method patents in the first place. I believe that I am channeling Slashdot's 'dreaded' group think when I say that 'we believe the patent system is currently faulty'. You seem to believe that it is perfect, most of us don't, but you don't give anything more than 'because they say it is', well, that is not good enough for me; I've heard enough good arguments otherwise. If you do work for the USPTO (which I doubt), your arrogance alone is a clear indication of it's problems, and it will eventually be fixed. The question is 'how much damage will be done first?'
Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself. Unlike you I never claimed to be an EXPERT on patents, but I am entitled to my opinion, and you have given me nothing to change it, besides a couple of vague references.
It is irrefutable. People who act like "obvious" equals "simple" are demonstrably ignorant of the US patent system.
And people who act like the discussion is over once they spout out their opinion, are really not a good fit for a democracy (like the current administration).
You're WAY out of your element when talking about the patent system and any third party who reads this thread will immediately recognize how you've let yourself be manipulated by your anger.
Really?
Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.
Someone who spouts out insults as a way to introduce themselves to a thread, is supposed to be the calm one?
Priceless.
Pompous claims of expertise may make you a 'winner' in the chat rooms, but in forums such as this, those efforts eventually end with scorn. However I fear that you have already learned this and I won't have the opportunity to follow you to another patent discussion to 'add' the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A PATENT CLERK IS !!!!. And I was SO looking forward to it.
How's this for a mind-fuck, you are so arrogant that you would attempt to spite me any way you ca
Again a new low, what's next physical threats? Seriously, see a therapist, no better yet, see a doctor, you need pills. Look as far as I can tell you are some guy who works destop support for an IP firm. You are no expert, yet you try to carry yourself off as one, IP professional my ass, you don't even claim to be a patent clerk, and even if you were you have at best 2 years experience in the industry.
I'm sure in life you've found that tone and attitude gets you a certain amount of respect from those who are naturally submissive, but that's not me.
For the record you replied to me with with a rude, thoughtless statement, and unlike you I was never forced to respond; Fools like you are a toy to be played with, a weed to be cut down, or a child to be scolded, but not a compelling force in my life. I make the choice to relpy to you. but you claim differently. Perhaps the reason why you were 'forced to reply' was that 'you yearn for direction from a stronger will'. Well, here is some direction: leave the adult conversations to those who are capable of carrying on a civil discussion.
As you might have guessed I also have no need to be kind to you.
If that passes for a zinger in your household, be careful with your sharp wit. I wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.
Again, you show a complete lack of kindness, intelligence, and relevance to the discussion. On some levels you have again proven your assertion that 'Ignorance is in abundance', however, I suspect that it is an unintended consequence.
Actually that would make Mcdonald's patent example a better real world example, as many of these granted business model patents are just as disputable, as prior art seems to be often overlooked. Many claim that they often violate the novelty, and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law as well.
Over the course of six hours I was repeatedly introduced to a guy in his early twenties, who would then ask me to write out code on a white-board for a problem that you might find in the study guide for a 200-level computer science class.
I'm quessing that the reason why they are comfortable with those examples is , they were teaching it to undergrads just a few years before. It's likely that the company hired these fools right out of college (or their first job) to be architects, which is likely the job you are looking for. They have little to no project experience, and the only coding they have done is examples rather than real world solutions. We've had a group like this in our company for a couple of years now, besides costing millions every year, all they seem to do is cause headaches for those of us who do the programing.
The planes that were crashed into the WTC where hijacked with carpet cutters.
No, the problem wasn't the weapon, it was the attitude; if someone hijacked a plane, give it to them was the 'standard of the time'. The heroes of flight 93 showed us how to end that threat. The problem is the covert bomber, who packs just enough explosives to rip a hole at high altitude. The 'shoe bomber' was the first of this type of threat, fortunately he wasn't well rehersed and bungled his aweful task.
Sorry, I was using "Hacker" in the sense of... Not in the criminal sense. I had hoped [with my usage],... that would be apparent.
That would only be apparent to someone who has already learned that the mass media has corrupted that term. For some time now there has been a need to change the negative to 'cracker' (which also could mean a 'sorta redneck white guy'), or 'black hat hacker'. 'white hat hacker' is generally considered the 'positive' or legal hacker, but it just doesn't roll out of the mouth well. I'd suggest using 'fixer', like as in 'Linux fixer', or 'network fixer'.
It's funny that the religions which seem to fight the most are branches of Judaism which cannot agree on who was God's last prophet: John the Baptist, Muhammad, or the current president of the Mormon Church.
That Google had started Google Checkout.
Perhaps since it's new eBay will be sure to give it a 'really close look' before they approve it, you know, for the benefit of the (ummm) users. You can trust them, they have a lot of good in house knowledge of Internet payment.
Did you even listen to that link, at no point does the AOL rep infer that it is not his account. While the guy might be a loser who lives with his dad (I had heard that he's 30), AS he states in the call, it is his account and his credit card. The AOL rep who asked for his Dad was just doing anything to get a retention bonus, some might even be ineffectual enough not to carry though with it. Heck many people just back down at the sight of a confontation, I can only wonder how many are paying AOL $26/month, just because "maybe, that email address really is useful as they keep telling me".
I once canceled an BYOA AOL account, and I had a very similar problem, the only difference was that I gave the guy a reason, and my usage was near zero, so my call 'only' lasted 5 minutes.
getting it on slashdot, he's going to make another few hundred $ in ad views.
Personally I found that site to be interesting, and was a little disappointed that the peep-hole reverser was linked to a 'buy-it-now' button. Guess that I'll actually have to search for it independently (the horror!!).
True, it is kind annoying when some dumb amateur writes a decent article, manages to catch the editor's interest on a slow-news-day, and ACTUALLY PROFITS from it, SHOCKING!! A website which profits from the placement of advertisements, wow, perhaps I should patent it (sadly, if I worded it right, the patent might be accepted).
I believe that one can and should should be critical of articles which are 'weak' or just wrong, but this guy wrote a fairly 'nice' recap of some cool technology. Instead you just criticize him for not being a pro, are you an astroturfer for 'old media' interests?
Perhaps he is a windbag, perhaps he is a fool, perhaps he has poor hygine (well that's more legendary), but long after we all turn to dust and bigman2210 rules the Earth, Richard Stallman will be remembered.
Actually, I believe that you are using my comment to bitch about your industry. While many times people use government connections to make money, many regulations are written in blood:
Coconut Grove Fire
Sure, as you point out, insurance companies have an interest in these codes and can (should) offer valuable input, but the fact is many people died to produce examples.
On of the biggest problems with our quickly moving technological society is that needed regulation can fall well behind technological innovation. When that happens people die.
Next time you get behind the wheel of a car, remember that nearly every safety feature of the car, the highway, and the rules of the road, were 'inked' from spilt blood. The next time you take a plane ride, just think of jumbo jets with exploding fuel tanks, metal fatuge, or terrorist bombings.
I just don't want to be part of a generation which has to the example for the regulation of GM foods.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the administration doesn't allow people like me into their events. A 'softball' comment doesn't take many paragraphs to answer. They are just like you, they think that they are always right, and unwilling to entertain any discussion. They lambaste critics, and dismiss discussion they are not winning. They seem to believe that they can control reality by controlling the discussion of what is really happening. How is that different from you? Seriously, you should feel a kinship with the President and his staff.
But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.
Yes, but only if 'the topic at hand' is about calling me a tool and other insults. The only thing you 'hung' is your 'reputation', but I suspect that you're a long standing troll on this site, and likely 'well known' by other handles.
So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.
thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.
I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.
Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here to impress 'others', I'm here to l
You 'sir' started the insults, hell, you even brought my mother into it.
Besides, am I supposed to just sit back and take your bullshit? Are you the "BACK_PAGES", man-god, expecting to throw out insults into the ether without reply?
Well then you better get wikipedia to remove Patent Clerk entry, as you believe it doesn't exist (and that's all that really counts right?). Perhaps you should look-over this entry as well.
It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.
Just today, I heard a neo-con talking head say something like 'the liberal majority court ruled that so it doesn't count'. While he was wrong (and in so many ways), he was right about one thing, our legal system is adaptable, full of opinion, and not always right. Simply quoting the existing laws, and selected cases to defend your position, may be proper in a court of law. However it is not germane to the discussion of whether or not those laws are correct, and only loosely related to the discussion over poor implementation of those laws, as a often maligned court decision created business method patents in the first place. I believe that I am channeling Slashdot's 'dreaded' group think when I say that 'we believe the patent system is currently faulty'. You seem to believe that it is perfect, most of us don't, but you don't give anything more than 'because they say it is', well, that is not good enough for me; I've heard enough good arguments otherwise. If you do work for the USPTO (which I doubt), your arrogance alone is a clear indication of it's problems, and it will eventually be fixed. The question is 'how much damage will be done first?'
Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself. Unlike you I never claimed to be an EXPERT on patents, but I am entitled to my opinion, and you have given me nothing to change it, besides a couple of vague references.
And people who act like the discussion is over once they spout out their opinion, are really not a good fit for a democracy (like the current administration).
Really?
Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.
Someone who spouts out insults as a way to introduce themselves to a thread, is supposed to be the calm one?
Priceless.
Pompous claims of expertise may make you a 'winner' in the chat rooms, but in forums such as this, those efforts eventually end with scorn. However I fear that you have already learned this and I won't have the opportunity to follow you to another patent discussion to 'add' the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A PATENT CLERK IS !!!!. And I was SO looking forward to it.
How's this for a mind-fuck, you are so arrogant that you would attempt to spite me any way you ca
Next up for 'improvement': The Honeymooners in Color. Where will it end?
I'm sure in life you've found that tone and attitude gets you a certain amount of respect from those who are naturally submissive, but that's not me. For the record you replied to me with with a rude, thoughtless statement, and unlike you I was never forced to respond; Fools like you are a toy to be played with, a weed to be cut down, or a child to be scolded, but not a compelling force in my life. I make the choice to relpy to you. but you claim differently. Perhaps the reason why you were 'forced to reply' was that 'you yearn for direction from a stronger will'. Well, here is some direction: leave the adult conversations to those who are capable of carrying on a civil discussion. As you might have guessed I also have no need to be kind to you.
It's funny that the religions which seem to fight the most are branches of Judaism which cannot agree on who was God's last prophet: John the Baptist, Muhammad, or the current president of the Mormon Church.
That Google had started Google Checkout. Perhaps since it's new eBay will be sure to give it a 'really close look' before they approve it, you know, for the benefit of the (ummm) users. You can trust them, they have a lot of good in house knowledge of Internet payment.
Did you even listen to that link, at no point does the AOL rep infer that it is not his account. While the guy might be a loser who lives with his dad (I had heard that he's 30), AS he states in the call, it is his account and his credit card. The AOL rep who asked for his Dad was just doing anything to get a retention bonus, some might even be ineffectual enough not to carry though with it. Heck many people just back down at the sight of a confontation, I can only wonder how many are paying AOL $26/month, just because "maybe, that email address really is useful as they keep telling me".
I once canceled an BYOA AOL account, and I had a very similar problem, the only difference was that I gave the guy a reason, and my usage was near zero, so my call 'only' lasted 5 minutes.
True, it is kind annoying when some dumb amateur writes a decent article, manages to catch the editor's interest on a slow-news-day, and ACTUALLY PROFITS from it, SHOCKING!! A website which profits from the placement of advertisements, wow, perhaps I should patent it (sadly, if I worded it right, the patent might be accepted).
I believe that one can and should should be critical of articles which are 'weak' or just wrong, but this guy wrote a fairly 'nice' recap of some cool technology. Instead you just criticize him for not being a pro, are you an astroturfer for 'old media' interests?
...It's a suppository!
or are you just glad to see me?
Looks like the good folks over at In-Touch Technical *really* need to update their computers page
Perhaps he is a windbag, perhaps he is a fool, perhaps he has poor hygine (well that's more legendary), but long after we all turn to dust and bigman2210 rules the Earth, Richard Stallman will be remembered.
I haven't seen the cartoons (I'd like to...), but if they cannot repoduce his image, how do they know what he looks like?
Sure, as you point out, insurance companies have an interest in these codes and can (should) offer valuable input, but the fact is many people died to produce examples.
On of the biggest problems with our quickly moving technological society is that needed regulation can fall well behind technological innovation. When that happens people die.
Next time you get behind the wheel of a car, remember that nearly every safety feature of the car, the highway, and the rules of the road, were 'inked' from spilt blood. The next time you take a plane ride, just think of jumbo jets with exploding fuel tanks, metal fatuge, or terrorist bombings.
I just don't want to be part of a generation which has to the example for the regulation of GM foods.