Video games might have been a factor without being a cause. From the reports I've heard (which, admittedly, might still be pure speculation), he saw his shooting body count as a "score" and was trying to top the "high score" set by the Norwegian shooter. Of course, your average gamer into games of that nature might try to top a "high body count" score within the game, but isn't likely to try to replicate this outside of the game.
He also trained at shooting ranges for this so it's not like video games were his only "target practice." Is anyone calling for shooting ranges to be shut down because they're "obviously training killers"?
This was likely a case of a mental illness causing fantasy and reality to blur. People like this should steer clear of violent video games and seek help to manage their conditions. Sadly, too many fall through the cracks or aren't diagnosed at all (until they go on a rampage). Banning violent video games to keep a small population of mentally vulnerable people from turning into killers is like banning peanut butter from all stores lest someone with a severe peanut allergy ingest it.
Having not seen all of the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot (I know, I really should see it), I choose to envision Spock Prime as what happened once Spock obtained the Matrix of Leadership. "Federation... It is only logical to roll out!"
No, you need to keep it generic: "... using a computing device." Now your re-patented idea applies on Windows PCs, Macs, Linux PCs, desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones (iOS/Android/etc), and anything else that could generically be called "a computing device". (Even if your originally envisioned "computer device" was a big desktop PC with a dial up connection to a dedicated, non-Internet connected server.)
Or they describe a solution that existed before in the physical world and then tack on "But do that on the Internet" or "But do that using computers." Taking an offline process and doing the same thing online isn't a new invention worthy of patent protection.
If you get sued and ignore the lawsuit, you will have a judgement issued against you. It won't be a fair one, either, because the other side will give their side of the story and you'll be seen as the type of person/group that ignores lawsuits. (Not looked favorably upon by judges.)
If you ignore the judgement and just continue on, you risk further injunction by the court including jail time for contempt.
Ignoring lawsuits is bad. Ignoring judgments from lawsuits is even worse.
Whenever Republicans complain about how raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will lead to economic collapse, I think of this table showing the historical rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
From 1965 through 1980, if you made $200,000 (around $500,000 - $1.4 million in today's money) or more you paid 70% income tax. (Think that's bad? Check out how much people making $200,000 or more paid in the late 1940's.) Now, many people making $400,000 or more are complaining about going from 35% to 39.6%. I know that nobody likes taxes going up, but compared to the historical rate this is still very low.
"Man, I hope payday comes soon. My wallet is empty. I'm out of #monkey." "Oops... Typo. Meant, I'm out of #money." (Monkey has been charged to your account.)
I do that with a "blog/social media name" that I use. (My Slashdot account pre-dates this pseudonym.) The problem is that as I get in touch with more and more people online under my pseudonym (especially as I go to conferences and the like), more and more people know my real name. Which means that any one of them can reveal it online (whether out of malice or just not thinking). My pseudonym will be publicly linked with my real name someday. It's inevitable. My only home is to delay that for as long as possible.
How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).
(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)
I nearly learned the hard way years back that whenever you host a site anywhere, you need to make sure you have local backups. In my case, it was a web host who was "struck by a worm" that took their servers down for a week. The fix to the worm was: 1) reboot server, 2) apply patch, 3) reboot again. So a week+ to fix their servers seemed fishy to me. I was lucky and managed to access the SQL servers and get a local backup. Others weren't so lucky when the company just vanished a couple of weeks later.
I now have a few self-hosted WordPress sites. Of course, even these aren't immune to this kind of attack. If the reputation management company stole my content and tried to knock my post offline, my host could go in and delete my site. Of course, if they did, I'd just restore my backup and my post would be back online. (I'd then leave that host, of course.)
How is it that you dig up these fossils of massive beasts easily more impressive than humans in every feature save the brain and yet you never wonder why God didn't tell whoever wrote the Book of Genesis about this amazing history of the Earth and Universe?
My favorite explanation for this comes from Isaac Asimov: http://sumware.com/creation.html
They could decide not to hire me or, if I choose to allow them to run a credit report, I can thaw it out for a set time to allow them to run a check. After the thaw time ends, the file re-freezes automatically.
Actually, without a freeze, the credit agencies will pretty much let any company run a credit check on you. (That's how you get tons of "sign up for our credit card" mailings.) These check requests get put on the credit report, but by that point the company already has accessed your credit file. Of course, freezing your credit locks them out and you don't get these mailings anymore. (I consider it a big side benefit to freezing my credit.)
Anyone can freeze their credit file. It's the law in most states and the District of Columbia. (Only Alabama and Michigan have no law and a few states limit it to ID theft victims.) The credit agencies have "voluntarily" offered to freeze credit for anyone who wants it frozen. (Translation: They were forced to by law in most states so they might as well offer it in the remaining ones.) The only difference that a police report makes is that (depending on state law), it might make your freeze free instead of charged for.
Speaking from experience, it can be a pain to deal with from time to time, but it is much less of a pain then discovering that someone went on a spending spree on your credit line and you need to repair the damage.
When my identity was stolen (credit card opened in my name by someone with my name/address/SSN/DOB), I froze my credit and my wife's credit. This means that nobody can read our credit files or add to it without our permission. If we want to get a car loan, refinance my mortgage, or open a new credit card, we need to thaw out our credit files. (This costs us $5 per person per agency - of which there are 3 - but this fee varies by state.) If a potential employer wants to run a credit check on me, they'll need to ask for my permission before they can see my credit file.
Because corporations are people and all people are equal. It's just that some people (corporations) are more equal than other people (actual human beings).
Surface? No, but Europa is believed to have an icy surface hiding a massive liquid water ocean. Although it is far from the habitable zone, gravitational interactions with Jupiter generates heat which keeps the oceans liquid. Add in some organic materials (which asteroids might supply) and life could have developed deep under the surface of Europa. Perhaps right now, as I type this, some big Europan fish-like creature is swimming through the cold oceans on the moon. (Or perhaps there are just Europan bacteria... even single celled alien life would be a major find.)
Same was true with my wife when she was teaching. In fact, any "free" period that wasn't filled with meetings was usually filled with giving extra help to kids who were encountering difficulties in the regular lessons.
Oh and those wonderful "summers off" that teachers have? They aren't lounging around doing nothing. They're coming up with lessons for the next year.
I agree with Daniel_Staal. This will lead to a) good, experienced teachers fleeing before they are forced to start from scratch and not take their lesson plans with them, b) inexperienced teachers being trapped into the job they have (and thus getting bitter, ceasing to care, and becoming bad teachers), and c) quality of education declining. Hey, but at least the school board can bring in some additional cash by suing over any lesson plan remotely similar to the ones they own RIAA-style, right?
So let's say a teacher is employed to teach sixth grade science for School A. The teacher teaches for 10 years, building up a series of lesson plans, test questions to use, projects to assign, etc. The teacher then goes to work for School B. Does this teacher need to start from scratch rebuilding everything? What if School B is in the same district? Are the materials owned by the school, the district, or the government (if they are public schools - which the article is about)?
If a teacher moved from School A to School B and recreated some lesson plans from memory, would he/she be open to a copyright infringement lawsuit? Would a teacher who changed schools become a liability for their new school? If so, why not just hire a new teacher out of school with no copyright infringement liability? If put in place, this policy would cripple teachers who tried to move from one teacher job to another.
This could really help third world countries. Right now, vaccines (for the most part) need refrigeration so delivering them to remote areas can be a problem. If these skin patch vaccines don't need refrigeration, it will be easier to transport them. Even if they need to be kept cool, it should be easier to keep a hundred skin patches cold than keeping a hundred needles cold. (Plus the benefit of no used needles to dispose of while in the middle of nowhere.)
Finally, the medical expertise you'd need to apply these is likely minimal. Slap a patch on, wait a few minutes, take the patch off. Done. No need to know just how to safely inject the vaccine into the person.
This could really revolutionize vaccines in third world countries which, in turn, could drastically improve their quality of life.
First of all, drug delivery might be different from vaccine delivery. Sub-dermal injection of a substance might cause different effects than putting the substance in a drink. It might not even have any effect at all.
Secondly, even if there was an effect, there's the question of dosage. How much of Drug X can you cram into one of these patches? It'd be no good as a delivery mechanism if the dosage isn't enough to make the patch-wearer feel any difference. If the patch-wearer has to slap on a dozen patches just to get a mild effect, then this won't be used as a drug delivery system.
With infants, it is easy. They don't know enough to resist. By the time they start crying, it is already over.
With older kids, it can be harder. Especially with my older son who has anxiety issues. Needles and blood are two of his triggers. Even being told that they are about makes him flip out to a degree that he can't be reasoned with. (He knows how important vaccinations are, but when his anxiety acts up reason leaves the building.) And he's nine so forcing him into the room and holding him down is tough. We get the vaccinations done, of course, but they aren't easy. They are fifteen minute long scream-fests.
From the article: “You just apply the patch for a few minutes, take it off and it leaves behind these thin polymer films embedded in the skin”
This doesn't sound like a band-aid that you'd rip off as soon as you left the doctor's office. Instead, you'd have the patch applied, wait a few minutes, and then the doctor would take it off and you'd be done. The polymer film would be embedded in your skin and nearly impossible to remove. (At least not without removing a good chunk of the skin with the polymer.)
Slashdot Mirror
Video games might have been a factor without being a cause. From the reports I've heard (which, admittedly, might still be pure speculation), he saw his shooting body count as a "score" and was trying to top the "high score" set by the Norwegian shooter. Of course, your average gamer into games of that nature might try to top a "high body count" score within the game, but isn't likely to try to replicate this outside of the game.
He also trained at shooting ranges for this so it's not like video games were his only "target practice." Is anyone calling for shooting ranges to be shut down because they're "obviously training killers"?
This was likely a case of a mental illness causing fantasy and reality to blur. People like this should steer clear of violent video games and seek help to manage their conditions. Sadly, too many fall through the cracks or aren't diagnosed at all (until they go on a rampage). Banning violent video games to keep a small population of mentally vulnerable people from turning into killers is like banning peanut butter from all stores lest someone with a severe peanut allergy ingest it.
Having not seen all of the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot (I know, I really should see it), I choose to envision Spock Prime as what happened once Spock obtained the Matrix of Leadership. "Federation... It is only logical to roll out!"
No, you need to keep it generic: "... using a computing device." Now your re-patented idea applies on Windows PCs, Macs, Linux PCs, desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones (iOS/Android/etc), and anything else that could generically be called "a computing device". (Even if your originally envisioned "computer device" was a big desktop PC with a dial up connection to a dedicated, non-Internet connected server.)
Or they describe a solution that existed before in the physical world and then tack on "But do that on the Internet" or "But do that using computers." Taking an offline process and doing the same thing online isn't a new invention worthy of patent protection.
If you get sued and ignore the lawsuit, you will have a judgement issued against you. It won't be a fair one, either, because the other side will give their side of the story and you'll be seen as the type of person/group that ignores lawsuits. (Not looked favorably upon by judges.)
If you ignore the judgement and just continue on, you risk further injunction by the court including jail time for contempt.
Ignoring lawsuits is bad. Ignoring judgments from lawsuits is even worse.
Whenever Republicans complain about how raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will lead to economic collapse, I think of this table showing the historical rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
From 1965 through 1980, if you made $200,000 (around $500,000 - $1.4 million in today's money) or more you paid 70% income tax. (Think that's bad? Check out how much people making $200,000 or more paid in the late 1940's.) Now, many people making $400,000 or more are complaining about going from 35% to 39.6%. I know that nobody likes taxes going up, but compared to the historical rate this is still very low.
What happens with typos?
"Man, I hope payday comes soon. My wallet is empty. I'm out of #monkey."
"Oops... Typo. Meant, I'm out of #money."
(Monkey has been charged to your account.)
I do that with a "blog/social media name" that I use. (My Slashdot account pre-dates this pseudonym.) The problem is that as I get in touch with more and more people online under my pseudonym (especially as I go to conferences and the like), more and more people know my real name. Which means that any one of them can reveal it online (whether out of malice or just not thinking). My pseudonym will be publicly linked with my real name someday. It's inevitable. My only home is to delay that for as long as possible.
How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).
(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)
"Hello, IT. Your Constitution isn't working? Have you tried turning it off and on again? Is it plugged in?"
I nearly learned the hard way years back that whenever you host a site anywhere, you need to make sure you have local backups. In my case, it was a web host who was "struck by a worm" that took their servers down for a week. The fix to the worm was: 1) reboot server, 2) apply patch, 3) reboot again. So a week+ to fix their servers seemed fishy to me. I was lucky and managed to access the SQL servers and get a local backup. Others weren't so lucky when the company just vanished a couple of weeks later.
I now have a few self-hosted WordPress sites. Of course, even these aren't immune to this kind of attack. If the reputation management company stole my content and tried to knock my post offline, my host could go in and delete my site. Of course, if they did, I'd just restore my backup and my post would be back online. (I'd then leave that host, of course.)
Are they teenaged, mutants, ninjas, and have a love of pizza?
My favorite explanation for this comes from Isaac Asimov: http://sumware.com/creation.html
They could decide not to hire me or, if I choose to allow them to run a credit report, I can thaw it out for a set time to allow them to run a check. After the thaw time ends, the file re-freezes automatically.
Actually, without a freeze, the credit agencies will pretty much let any company run a credit check on you. (That's how you get tons of "sign up for our credit card" mailings.) These check requests get put on the credit report, but by that point the company already has accessed your credit file. Of course, freezing your credit locks them out and you don't get these mailings anymore. (I consider it a big side benefit to freezing my credit.)
Anyone can freeze their credit file. It's the law in most states and the District of Columbia. (Only Alabama and Michigan have no law and a few states limit it to ID theft victims.) The credit agencies have "voluntarily" offered to freeze credit for anyone who wants it frozen. (Translation: They were forced to by law in most states so they might as well offer it in the remaining ones.) The only difference that a police report makes is that (depending on state law), it might make your freeze free instead of charged for.
http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html
Here's how to place a freeze on your credit file from the 3 major credit bureaus:
https://help.equifax.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/159/noIntercept/1
http://www.transunion.com/personal-credit/credit-disputes/credit-freezes.page
http://www.experian.com/consumer/security_freeze.html
Speaking from experience, it can be a pain to deal with from time to time, but it is much less of a pain then discovering that someone went on a spending spree on your credit line and you need to repair the damage.
When my identity was stolen (credit card opened in my name by someone with my name/address/SSN/DOB), I froze my credit and my wife's credit. This means that nobody can read our credit files or add to it without our permission. If we want to get a car loan, refinance my mortgage, or open a new credit card, we need to thaw out our credit files. (This costs us $5 per person per agency - of which there are 3 - but this fee varies by state.) If a potential employer wants to run a credit check on me, they'll need to ask for my permission before they can see my credit file.
Because corporations are people and all people are equal. It's just that some people (corporations) are more equal than other people (actual human beings).
Surface? No, but Europa is believed to have an icy surface hiding a massive liquid water ocean. Although it is far from the habitable zone, gravitational interactions with Jupiter generates heat which keeps the oceans liquid. Add in some organic materials (which asteroids might supply) and life could have developed deep under the surface of Europa. Perhaps right now, as I type this, some big Europan fish-like creature is swimming through the cold oceans on the moon. (Or perhaps there are just Europan bacteria... even single celled alien life would be a major find.)
Same was true with my wife when she was teaching. In fact, any "free" period that wasn't filled with meetings was usually filled with giving extra help to kids who were encountering difficulties in the regular lessons.
Oh and those wonderful "summers off" that teachers have? They aren't lounging around doing nothing. They're coming up with lessons for the next year.
I agree with Daniel_Staal. This will lead to a) good, experienced teachers fleeing before they are forced to start from scratch and not take their lesson plans with them, b) inexperienced teachers being trapped into the job they have (and thus getting bitter, ceasing to care, and becoming bad teachers), and c) quality of education declining. Hey, but at least the school board can bring in some additional cash by suing over any lesson plan remotely similar to the ones they own RIAA-style, right?
So let's say a teacher is employed to teach sixth grade science for School A. The teacher teaches for 10 years, building up a series of lesson plans, test questions to use, projects to assign, etc. The teacher then goes to work for School B. Does this teacher need to start from scratch rebuilding everything? What if School B is in the same district? Are the materials owned by the school, the district, or the government (if they are public schools - which the article is about)?
If a teacher moved from School A to School B and recreated some lesson plans from memory, would he/she be open to a copyright infringement lawsuit? Would a teacher who changed schools become a liability for their new school? If so, why not just hire a new teacher out of school with no copyright infringement liability? If put in place, this policy would cripple teachers who tried to move from one teacher job to another.
This could really help third world countries. Right now, vaccines (for the most part) need refrigeration so delivering them to remote areas can be a problem. If these skin patch vaccines don't need refrigeration, it will be easier to transport them. Even if they need to be kept cool, it should be easier to keep a hundred skin patches cold than keeping a hundred needles cold. (Plus the benefit of no used needles to dispose of while in the middle of nowhere.)
Finally, the medical expertise you'd need to apply these is likely minimal. Slap a patch on, wait a few minutes, take the patch off. Done. No need to know just how to safely inject the vaccine into the person.
This could really revolutionize vaccines in third world countries which, in turn, could drastically improve their quality of life.
First of all, drug delivery might be different from vaccine delivery. Sub-dermal injection of a substance might cause different effects than putting the substance in a drink. It might not even have any effect at all.
Secondly, even if there was an effect, there's the question of dosage. How much of Drug X can you cram into one of these patches? It'd be no good as a delivery mechanism if the dosage isn't enough to make the patch-wearer feel any difference. If the patch-wearer has to slap on a dozen patches just to get a mild effect, then this won't be used as a drug delivery system.
With infants, it is easy. They don't know enough to resist. By the time they start crying, it is already over.
With older kids, it can be harder. Especially with my older son who has anxiety issues. Needles and blood are two of his triggers. Even being told that they are about makes him flip out to a degree that he can't be reasoned with. (He knows how important vaccinations are, but when his anxiety acts up reason leaves the building.) And he's nine so forcing him into the room and holding him down is tough. We get the vaccinations done, of course, but they aren't easy. They are fifteen minute long scream-fests.
From the article: “You just apply the patch for a few minutes, take it off and it leaves behind these thin polymer films embedded in the skin”
This doesn't sound like a band-aid that you'd rip off as soon as you left the doctor's office. Instead, you'd have the patch applied, wait a few minutes, and then the doctor would take it off and you'd be done. The polymer film would be embedded in your skin and nearly impossible to remove. (At least not without removing a good chunk of the skin with the polymer.)