Truth? What is that? Surely you cannot propose that a system of justice can infallibly determine the truth. A lawyer of course is much less capable than that.
There have been plenty of legal cases where it seems obvious from the facts available that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Except he is not.
Your lawyer is not there to judge your guilt. He is there to advocate your position in court as part of the process of hopefully finding the truth.
The system may be broken, in particular by the way your pocketbook can influence the results.
But while the system we have sucks, it sucks less than all the others.
All you have to do is change the patent system so that inventors always retain rights to their inventions rather than having all these contracts that give the inventions to employers.
I am against software patents because I think software patents all cover algorithms which are fundamentally unpatentable material.
The farce that software patents must include an implementation component, that is a computer is transparently baloney. Computers are a general purpose computing device for which there are no known algorithmic limits. It is like saying that an algorithm is patentable because it can be executed on a general purpose mathematical universe. It is not a fundamental distinction.
> However, in the case of software patents, the inventor discloses nothing, hides the source code, and keeps the binary protected by copyright. So the deal is completely one-sided. That is what's wrong with software patents.
If that were true, software patents could be invalidated by any competent patent lawyer because they simply do not satisfy the statutory requirement for disclosure of the best known means of practicing the invention.
However that isn't true. Patents are not copyrights. They don't cover the expression of the idea which would be the source code. They cover the implementation. So long as the patent describes the implementation of the idea sufficiently well for someone to be able to re-implement the idea the disclosure is adequate.
One is based on the idea that we get truths from some Holy Book (of which there are many inconsistent instantiations, you pick one because some guy says this is the right one, and go to war if some other guys say no ours is the right one) or you get truths from empirical observation. No Magic Book, just hard work.
These are mutually exclusive views of what to base thought on. You cannot weasel around it. One or the other.
> I don't recall the official Catholic dogma involving a literal Adam from which we're all descended, at least not these days.
Pope Pius XII's encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis
"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12â"19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1â"4)
I know there has been some discussion on changing this, but as far as I can tell it is still official policy.
> For example, if you look at the creation account in Genesis, and take into account that the word that translates as "Day" can also mean "period of time",
You also have to be elastic about the order of events, such as stars being created after planets, etc.
But yes if you are willing to be that elastic about the Bible you can make it work.
There are other problems though. For example how do you reconcile the idea that we are all descended from Adam, that there is evolution of the brain, etc etc.
This is where Catholics and evolution come into conflict.
Ultimately you just have to throw out any idea that the Bible is historical and accept that it is offering a myth. Which is in fact the case if you get into a critical study of the roots of the Old Testament.
>There's also no reason for software NOT to be patentable.
Well, one could certainly argue that software is just algorithms which are not patentable, so that's one reason.
Then there is the little matter of which one of the basic four categories that is embodied in patent law that software is under. To wit: USC 35 section 101
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
How is any of this malarkey leading to the Progress of Science?
Any nation on earth would be plenty pissed if someone were to plaster state secrets online and also engage in neener neener like taunting after the act.
In the olden days the witches were hunted when something bad happened like crops failing or two head cattle were borne. Witches were the scapegoat because that was no other known cause for the bad thing happening.
Well that's not the case here. The cause is well known.
So the idea that it's a 'witch hunt' seems unreasonable. If it's any kind of hunt the person is known, and so is his location.
So yes there are no charges issued yet. I don't think the legal process in Sweden is going to permit extradition without charges, any more then the UK one will.
The alternative is extraordinary rendition. Well there isn't any particular evidence that this has to happen in Sweden any more that the UK.
So still I still don't see the point of all this must not go to Sweden thing is unless the point is to avoid rape charges etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Truth? What is that? Surely you cannot propose that a system of justice can infallibly determine the truth. A lawyer of course is much less capable than that.
There have been plenty of legal cases where it seems obvious from the facts available that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Except he is not.
Your lawyer is not there to judge your guilt. He is there to advocate your position in court as part of the process of hopefully finding the truth.
The system may be broken, in particular by the way your pocketbook can influence the results.
But while the system we have sucks, it sucks less than all the others.
They are advocates. That's what they are supposed to do.
If they took your money but not your cause that would be dishonest.
All you have to do is change the patent system so that inventors always retain rights to their inventions rather than having all these contracts that give the inventions to employers.
Engineers are people who make engines. Back in 1325 or so the work was first used for folks who made catapults and other war engines.
The modern usage of the work is at the point where it is completely context sensitive and as such is just a place holder.
The Churchâ"Turing thesis states that any function that is algorithmically computable can be computed by a Turing machine.
In other words if you have an algorithm for it, it will run on a computer.
I am against software patents because I think software patents all cover algorithms which are fundamentally unpatentable material.
The farce that software patents must include an implementation component, that is a computer is transparently baloney. Computers are a general purpose computing device for which there are no known algorithmic limits. It is like saying that an algorithm is patentable because it can be executed on a general purpose mathematical universe. It is not a fundamental distinction.
> However, in the case of software patents, the inventor discloses nothing, hides the source code, and keeps the binary protected by copyright. So the deal is completely one-sided. That is what's wrong with software patents.
If that were true, software patents could be invalidated by any competent patent lawyer because they simply do not satisfy the statutory requirement for disclosure of the best known means of practicing the invention.
However that isn't true. Patents are not copyrights. They don't cover the expression of the idea which would be the source code. They cover the implementation. So long as the patent describes the implementation of the idea sufficiently well for someone to be able to re-implement the idea the disclosure is adequate.
Yes, but vehicle mileage in this range is not a scientific problem. We already know how to build these.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/ford-fiesta-diesel-its-most-fuel-efficient-car-ever-43574.html
As a counter example I offer up the Republican members of the House Committee on Science and Technology.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/house-committee-science/
Of course they are mutually exclusive.
One is based on the idea that we get truths from some Holy Book (of which there are many inconsistent instantiations, you pick one because some guy says this is the right one, and go to war if some other guys say no ours is the right one) or you get truths from empirical observation. No Magic Book, just hard work.
These are mutually exclusive views of what to base thought on. You cannot weasel around it. One or the other.
Choose.
There wasn't anything to do any observing. This is a straight chronology.
> I don't recall the official Catholic dogma involving a literal Adam from which we're all descended, at least not these days.
Pope Pius XII's encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis
"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12â"19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1â"4)
I know there has been some discussion on changing this, but as far as I can tell it is still official policy.
> Belief in a creator does not negate the scientific endeavor.
Yes it does. Science is based on empiricism, not in belief in a 'Holy Book' without questioning.
If you train your children to accept things from authority on faith, you are off to a bad start.
> For example, if you look at the creation account in Genesis, and take into account that the word that translates as "Day" can also mean "period of time",
You also have to be elastic about the order of events, such as stars being created after planets, etc.
But yes if you are willing to be that elastic about the Bible you can make it work.
There are other problems though. For example how do you reconcile the idea that we are all descended from Adam, that there is evolution of the brain, etc etc.
This is where Catholics and evolution come into conflict.
Ultimately you just have to throw out any idea that the Bible is historical and accept that it is offering a myth. Which is in fact the case if you get into a critical study of the roots of the Old Testament.
He suffers from the social equivalent of the Dunningâ"Kruger effect.
Boot From System Recovery Disk
Backup data files to DVD
Reinstall BIOS
NUKE MBR
Zero the hard drive
Reinstall everything.
-or-
Boot From System Recovery Disk
Backup data files to DVD
Zero Hard Drive
Put Computer in Trash
>There's also no reason for software NOT to be patentable.
Well, one could certainly argue that software is just algorithms which are not patentable, so that's one reason.
Then there is the little matter of which one of the basic four categories that is embodied in patent law that software is under. To wit: USC 35 section 101
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Software is which?
When I was 40 I got up in the morning and ran 2 miles every day. It was great.
I am 62 right now and I'm enjoying life quite a bit however I have slowed down and no longer run in the morning because it hurts my joints.
My father is 86 and is suffering from mild dementia and and severe arthritis. His wife of 60 years is gone.
If this is the trajectory I certainly wouldn't want to live to 120.
However if the trajectory were to be the current decline only stretched out I'd go for 120. Maybe 150.
$10K is 7 times more than $1.5K.
I am listed as an inventor on 12 US patents, and 10 EU patents. Also a variety of these were extended to other nations such as Japan, Australia, etc.
I am working on an application for another US patent currently.
I know quite a bit about it.
Do you know what "useful arts" means?
It is the processes of making things, such as manufacturing processes.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/KindsElg-II.pdf
Icons? Bounce-back scrolling? Rounded corners?
The Constitution makes this statement:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
How is any of this malarkey leading to the Progress of Science?
Don't you have public education in Europe?
The not middle class half of India's population still makes for a lot of street sleepers.
Also with a per capita GDP of about 1,500 USD your definition of middle class is pretty low-end.
Any nation on earth would be plenty pissed if someone were to plaster state secrets online and also engage in neener neener like taunting after the act.
In the olden days the witches were hunted when something bad happened like crops failing or two head cattle were borne. Witches were the scapegoat because that was no other known cause for the bad thing happening.
Well that's not the case here. The cause is well known.
So the idea that it's a 'witch hunt' seems unreasonable. If it's any kind of hunt the person is known, and so is his location.
So yes there are no charges issued yet. I don't think the legal process in Sweden is going to permit extradition without charges, any more then the UK one will.
The alternative is extraordinary rendition. Well there isn't any particular evidence that this has to happen in Sweden any more that the UK.
So still I still don't see the point of all this must not go to Sweden thing is unless the point is to avoid rape charges etc.