made practically impossible to implement by a meddlesome and conflicted congress.
Sorry, but no. You don't get to blame the Executive failures on the Legislative branch. Nope, you do not — certainly not until you can cite clear examples of such "meddling" in the day-to-day development of the web-site...
No, the problem is, neither Obama nor anyone in his immediate circle has any experience as a, well, Executive... The opposition were crying about this point in 2008 — Obama never ran anything (except for a small failed charity) — but were drowned by the pertinent questions from the man's supporters, like: "Can Obama be even more awesome?"
Whatever his other merits (or lack thereof), having never been an executive — neither of a private corporation nor of government entity (such as a town mayor, State governor) — Obama is simply not equipped to deal with running the government.
The NSA’s new data-storage center in Utah has suffered a series of mysterious meltdowns in the past year.
Officials told the Wall Street Journal that 10 fiery explosions, known as arc-fault failures, have ripped apart machinery, melted metal and destroyed circuits. The repeated meltdowns have delayed the opening of the one-million square foot facility by 12 months.
But the Anonymous GP may be right suspecting, the failure is deliberate... Obama's personal favorite healthcare model — as well as that of the rest of the Left — is "single-payer" (a.k.a. "Medicare for all"). Perhaps, it was calculated by our benevolent and sophisticated Democratic overlords, that the failure of Obamacare will make introducing the outright Socialist construct more palatable to the electorate.
Man-made global warming is "promoted" by scientists with hard evidence
Three words: Hide The Decline. However you spin that, the credibility of "hard evidence" is in pieces even if you didn't know, that the most famous promoter of the idea has recently purchased a major piece of real estate on the coast — rather than in, say, Colorado mountains. When he sells that and moves higher in-land, wake me up to reconsider.
Meanwhile, scratching the surface of any remaining promoter of the idea, that "something must be done" — like giving the government ever more control over our lives — is bound to reveal a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...
Green on the outside, red on the inside — watermelons...
Sounds like she's just upset that she isn't drilling her own ideology into the students.
Does it? To me it seems quite the opposite — she is upset, that anyone is able to drill an ideology into students. Because no one should be in that position — except the student's parents...
An earlier edition of the "Social Studies Extended Response" stated the following (emphasis mine):
Thus, poor countries are often home to terrorist groups that are free to plan and carry out attacks on the rich, industrialized nations, without fear of being stopped. This is in fact what happened on 9/11 when terrorists from Afghanistan hijacked planes and carried out attacks on the United States.
If the chef at a restaurant doesn't know his stuff, you're gonna eat a steak that's overdone, if your ophthalmologist doesn't know his stuff, then you're blind for life.
You may else remain blind for life, if the doctor, who could've saved your vision chose not to bother with the tedium and odium of recertification and decided to become an engineer (or a politician) instead.
with three days notice I can be board certified by the National Board of AreYouFuckingInsane Surgery
The certifying bodies themselves can compete with each other. If a particular one develops the reputation of certifying too many charlatans, it will lose business and close down. For example, I trust Consumer Reports, but not Consumer Digest currently — why can't professionals (like lawyers, doctors, or plumbers and electricians) be certified by competing bodies?
Don't worry dude, I"m like, totally qualified. I saw it on TV once.
And a fool falling for your pitch would deserve what happens to him just as a buyer of a crappy TV deserves electric shocks and bad picture. He would still be able to sue you for negligence, however, and is likely to win. His vision may not be restored, but you would not be able to pull the same stunt again...
But all of this is off-topic. All I said was, that Rand Paul passed the certification of the Board of Opthalmology, which is testament to his ability to read rather well. That his certification "expired" 10 years later is irrelevant to the subject.
Rand Paul isn't board certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology--at least he hasn't been since 2005.
That's because the Board has changed its own rules of certification. Whereas the certifications used to last for a lifetime, they are now only good for 10 years.
But that's not relevant to the argument, that Rand Paul's reading comprehension is perfectly fine and above that of an average American.
I think this is one of the biggest problems with software patents
Neither the/. summary, nor TFA itself contain the word "software"... Business methods are mentioned, yes, but simply describing those (as in the patent application) would be equivalent to drawing.
We have a reasonable system already — and the means to augment it. The article — and the discussion — are about the "trolls" abusing it, not whether or not it should be changed altogether.
There should be some rather short limits on the patent timeframes.. say 5 years.
Except, maybe, with software, 5 years is very short. Most inventors would find selling their idea very hard — because the would-be buyer may choose to simply wait for the patent to expire (very soon). And even if the inventor chooses to start making a product based on it himself, he is unlikely to have recouped his investment within 5 years, when the already established companies will be allowed to use the idea themselves.
But, at least, it seems, our disagreement is merely quantitative, rather than qualitative.
That way patents would not stifle innovation like they do today.
I'd say, citation needed.
But, more to the point, whether the innovation really is or is not "stifled" by the patents, the system is fair: whoever thought of something first, gets a reward. You seem to think, the reward is too big, but I don't...
Their wins are perfectly devastating to the losers already. Unfortunately, their losses are quite damaging to the winners too.
My proposal would help the winners — thus encouraging others to fight, instead of settling. Because currently even the eventual win might mean bankruptcy (unless someone like EFF or ACLU step in).
So a criminal case that fails means the government needs to pay the accused Lawyers?
Assuming you meant to write "the lawyers of the accused", yes.
Oh Save me from idiots as that's what already happens with the public defender.
Public defenders are paid by the government regardless of whether or not they (their client) lose the case. They are also only available to the poor. The wealthier (middle class and up) are guaranteed to lose money, if the government feels like charging them — a system prone to, and, indeed, undergoing, regular abuse.
All that would happen is that their wouldn't be any Defense lawyers for you and me as the Wealthy sure as hell can afford them.
I'm sorry, your logic seems even more puzzling than your capitalization. Why wouldn't there be a lawyer eager to help me defend myself, if he stands (upon winning) to be paid not the measly compensation of a "public defender", but reasonable fees of a seasoned attorney?
Of course, this also means that if a small inventor sues a giant company for patent infringement, all the company has to do is hire the most expensive legal team around and run up costs as much as possible, to make the possibility of a loss so terrifying for the inventor that they'll settle.
For me the danger of losing a million dollars really is not much different from losing a billion — I'll be bankrupt anyway. And the court is likely to see through the attempts to inflate the cost and rule, that I need not pay it — my proposal allows the judge to make exceptions... BTW, I don't see, why the smaller guy can't (attempt to) inflate his costs, while the "giant company" remains honest, so your attempt to make this about "inequality" or some such has failed...
As mentioned elsewhere under this thread, this is a solved problem — many (most?) other countries have exactly such a system — loser pays.
Are you saying that the loser should pay the winner's cost there?
Yes, of course. You seem to suggest, that, despite the court's decision to the contrary, the loser was really in the right... That, for example, an employee bringing up a harassment case against their employer can not possibly be wrong — even if the lose their case, there must've been "something in there"...
No, it seems best, to let the court determine what is an equitable allocation of the costs
"Equitable allocation"? Am I conversing with a lawyer (concerned, perhaps, that their source of income might dwindle?). Never mind...
Yes, if you read carefully, my proposal still allows the court to decide. What would be different is the default... If currently the winner needs to explicitly ask the court to tack their expenses to the judgement (sometimes even having to file a wholly separate suit to recoup legal fees), my way this would be automatic — unless the loser presents a compelling argument against it.
whoever has the most money to throw into lawyers while the case is going on will win
That disparity is exactly the situation today. My proposal will, at least, help the less-monied side avoid bankruptcy if they win — which all too often is a real danger today. Worse, such guaranteed financial loss, even if you win, often forces people to give up on perfectly valid complaints — allowing various abuses to go on:
— Yes, you have a good case, but the maximum judgement would be X, which is not going to cover the attorney fees.
I wonder, if the NSA (with their own bugs) has anonymously helped FTC prosecute this case the way they help ATF, DEA, and even local police prosecute theirs.
That means you can pay arbitrarily high fees to a lawyer to sue someone as long as you think you'll win.
The "arbitrary" part can be checked by the judge. They already do that, when the winner asks for their fees to be paid by the loser. My proposal would simply eliminate the asking part (which is often costly in itself).
Violate a patent - be bankrupted by someones lawyer fees.
That would be a good thing. A fairly large part of humanity thinks, theft not only should bankrupt the thief, but cost them an actual limb!
It really seems like a windfall for patent lawyers though.
Not particularly — only if the case is a sure bet and only if the judge does not think, the fees are inflated...
Never then... Because smart people, who think stuff up, ought to be able to get paid for their ideas. And it should not matter, whether one decided to implement the idea himself, or to sell it to the highest bidder.
The patent trolls with their vague (yet costly) claims are abusing the system, but there is nothing wrong with the basic premise behind the patents.
require the loser in a suit to pay attorney's fees and costs
I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default. Currently the court may make them responsible, but the winner typically needs to specifically ask for it — and it should be the opposite. In all cases: civil and criminal (if the accused is acquitted, the prosecuting office needs to cough up).
At least, this should apply (whether the subject is patent or not), when the losing the side is the one, that initiated the proceedings in the first place.
force trolls to reveal anyone who has a 'financial interest' in the case, making them possibly liable for damages.
This bit also seems generic — if such a disclosure is a good idea (and I am not sure), then why limit it to just patent cases?
Although could you tell me the Russian equivalents of the English "Online" and "Site"?
There really aren't (single-word) equivalents, which is why the English words are now so widely used for the purpose even by the purists and the anti-Americans (of whom there are very many among Russians nowadays)...
The best I can come up with would be "na linii" ("on line") and "mesto" ("place"), but neither are quite exact a match for the English terms...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but no. You don't get to blame the Executive failures on the Legislative branch. Nope, you do not — certainly not until you can cite clear examples of such "meddling" in the day-to-day development of the web-site...
No, the problem is, neither Obama nor anyone in his immediate circle has any experience as a, well, Executive... The opposition were crying about this point in 2008 — Obama never ran anything (except for a small failed charity) — but were drowned by the pertinent questions from the man's supporters, like: "Can Obama be even more awesome?"
Whatever his other merits (or lack thereof), having never been an executive — neither of a private corporation nor of government entity (such as a town mayor, State governor) — Obama is simply not equipped to deal with running the government.
But the Anonymous GP may be right suspecting, the failure is deliberate... Obama's personal favorite healthcare model — as well as that of the rest of the Left — is "single-payer" (a.k.a. "Medicare for all"). Perhaps, it was calculated by our benevolent and sophisticated Democratic overlords, that the failure of Obamacare will make introducing the outright Socialist construct more palatable to the electorate.
Three words: Hide The Decline. However you spin that, the credibility of "hard evidence" is in pieces even if you didn't know, that the most famous promoter of the idea has recently purchased a major piece of real estate on the coast — rather than in, say, Colorado mountains. When he sells that and moves higher in-land, wake me up to reconsider.
Meanwhile, scratching the surface of any remaining promoter of the idea, that "something must be done" — like giving the government ever more control over our lives — is bound to reveal a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...
Green on the outside, red on the inside — watermelons...
Does it? To me it seems quite the opposite — she is upset, that anyone is able to drill an ideology into students. Because no one should be in that position — except the student's parents...
Not just "friend and ally", but also a very wealthy country — whereas the text was implying, the hijackers came from an impoverished one...
An earlier edition of the "Social Studies Extended Response" stated the following (emphasis mine):
I grew the pumpkins over the summer in my own garden. They aren't very big, but we carved them into decent scares and put candles inside each.
I struggle to understand, what can possibly be remotely controlled about them...
You may else remain blind for life, if the doctor, who could've saved your vision chose not to bother with the tedium and odium of recertification and decided to become an engineer (or a politician) instead.
The certifying bodies themselves can compete with each other. If a particular one develops the reputation of certifying too many charlatans, it will lose business and close down. For example, I trust Consumer Reports, but not Consumer Digest currently — why can't professionals (like lawyers, doctors, or plumbers and electricians) be certified by competing bodies?
And a fool falling for your pitch would deserve what happens to him just as a buyer of a crappy TV deserves electric shocks and bad picture. He would still be able to sue you for negligence, however, and is likely to win. His vision may not be restored, but you would not be able to pull the same stunt again...
But all of this is off-topic. All I said was, that Rand Paul passed the certification of the Board of Opthalmology, which is testament to his ability to read rather well. That his certification "expired" 10 years later is irrelevant to the subject.
That's because the Board has changed its own rules of certification. Whereas the certifications used to last for a lifetime, they are now only good for 10 years.
But that's not relevant to the argument, that Rand Paul's reading comprehension is perfectly fine and above that of an average American.
Eh, they just wanted the bar set so Rand Paul could understand the site. Mitch McConnell is SOL though.
Rand Paul graduated college and medical school, and passed certification of American Board of Ophthalmology — before running for Senate and winning.
I'd wager, his reading comprehension is above that of most people — yourself included.
McConnel has "only" a bachelor degree of formal education, but that's still well above most people... Whatever your beef with your political opponents, sneering at their education only makes you look ridiculous.
"[T]he content was written at a sixth-grade reading level so it would be as easy to understand as possible."
They really are setting the bar high in Kentucky.
Despite per-pupil costs of public schools quadrupling over the last 50 years (inflation-adjusted), mere 30% of 8th-graders nation-wide are deemed "proficient" in reading. Kentucky did the web-site right, even though their average is slightly above national.
We are now all set for our healthcare to become the same sort of dizzying success, that the public schools already are.
Neither the /. summary, nor TFA itself contain the word "software"... Business methods are mentioned, yes, but simply describing those (as in the patent application) would be equivalent to drawing.
So, I'm not sure, what it is you talking about...
Whether this really happens a lot or rarely, it sounds like abuse of the system, rather than a fatal flaw warranting complete abolition.
Huh?! What private property is affected by patents on procedures?
We have a reasonable system already — and the means to augment it. The article — and the discussion — are about the "trolls" abusing it, not whether or not it should be changed altogether.
Except, maybe, with software, 5 years is very short. Most inventors would find selling their idea very hard — because the would-be buyer may choose to simply wait for the patent to expire (very soon). And even if the inventor chooses to start making a product based on it himself, he is unlikely to have recouped his investment within 5 years, when the already established companies will be allowed to use the idea themselves.
But, at least, it seems, our disagreement is merely quantitative, rather than qualitative.
I'd say, citation needed.
But, more to the point, whether the innovation really is or is not "stifled" by the patents, the system is fair: whoever thought of something first, gets a reward. You seem to think, the reward is too big, but I don't...
Their wins are perfectly devastating to the losers already. Unfortunately, their losses are quite damaging to the winners too.
My proposal would help the winners — thus encouraging others to fight, instead of settling. Because currently even the eventual win might mean bankruptcy (unless someone like EFF or ACLU step in).
Assuming you meant to write "the lawyers of the accused", yes.
Public defenders are paid by the government regardless of whether or not they (their client) lose the case. They are also only available to the poor. The wealthier (middle class and up) are guaranteed to lose money, if the government feels like charging them — a system prone to, and, indeed, undergoing, regular abuse.
I'm sorry, your logic seems even more puzzling than your capitalization. Why wouldn't there be a lawyer eager to help me defend myself, if he stands (upon winning) to be paid not the measly compensation of a "public defender", but reasonable fees of a seasoned attorney?
For me the danger of losing a million dollars really is not much different from losing a billion — I'll be bankrupt anyway. And the court is likely to see through the attempts to inflate the cost and rule, that I need not pay it — my proposal allows the judge to make exceptions... BTW, I don't see, why the smaller guy can't (attempt to) inflate his costs, while the "giant company" remains honest, so your attempt to make this about "inequality" or some such has failed...
As mentioned elsewhere under this thread, this is a solved problem — many (most?) other countries have exactly such a system — loser pays.
My proposal makes things better, than they currently are for the less-monied side. And it makes it more fair in all cases.
Yes, of course. You seem to suggest, that, despite the court's decision to the contrary, the loser was really in the right... That, for example, an employee bringing up a harassment case against their employer can not possibly be wrong — even if the lose their case, there must've been "something in there"...
"Equitable allocation"? Am I conversing with a lawyer (concerned, perhaps, that their source of income might dwindle?). Never mind...
Yes, if you read carefully, my proposal still allows the court to decide. What would be different is the default... If currently the winner needs to explicitly ask the court to tack their expenses to the judgement (sometimes even having to file a wholly separate suit to recoup legal fees), my way this would be automatic — unless the loser presents a compelling argument against it.
That disparity is exactly the situation today. My proposal will, at least, help the less-monied side avoid bankruptcy if they win — which all too often is a real danger today. Worse, such guaranteed financial loss, even if you win, often forces people to give up on perfectly valid complaints — allowing various abuses to go on:
Sounds familiar?
I wonder, if the NSA (with their own bugs) has anonymously helped FTC prosecute this case the way they help ATF, DEA, and even local police prosecute theirs.
The "arbitrary" part can be checked by the judge. They already do that, when the winner asks for their fees to be paid by the loser. My proposal would simply eliminate the asking part (which is often costly in itself).
That would be a good thing. A fairly large part of humanity thinks, theft not only should bankrupt the thief, but cost them an actual limb!
Not particularly — only if the case is a sure bet and only if the judge does not think, the fees are inflated...
Never then... Because smart people, who think stuff up, ought to be able to get paid for their ideas. And it should not matter, whether one decided to implement the idea himself, or to sell it to the highest bidder.
The patent trolls with their vague (yet costly) claims are abusing the system, but there is nothing wrong with the basic premise behind the patents.
I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default. Currently the court may make them responsible, but the winner typically needs to specifically ask for it — and it should be the opposite. In all cases: civil and criminal (if the accused is acquitted, the prosecuting office needs to cough up).
At least, this should apply (whether the subject is patent or not), when the losing the side is the one, that initiated the proceedings in the first place.
This bit also seems generic — if such a disclosure is a good idea (and I am not sure), then why limit it to just patent cases?
There really aren't (single-word) equivalents, which is why the English words are now so widely used for the purpose even by the purists and the anti-Americans (of whom there are very many among Russians nowadays)...
The best I can come up with would be "na linii" ("on line") and "mesto" ("place"), but neither are quite exact a match for the English terms...