Prior art still applies. Prior art must be public. The situation resolved by the new system is this: Two corps have a secret patent effort. They race to get a patent:
Old system: long court case to prove who invented it first. New system: first to file wins.
Under both systems, public prior art for the patent invalidates the patent.
Yeah, the one he was wrong about was artisans. That's the whole goal of automation, turn everyone into an artisan. Liberate humans to do nothing mundane, unleash all of humanity to use their creativity instead.
As a society, we've conflated education, socialization, and certification in the college/university experience. If we really want to consider moving to a future where online education is considered viable, we need to break those 3 components out, and understand which if any we care about as employers and human beings. Most employers actually want all 3, which is why college/university isn't really likely to go away. Somewhere around 25% of the jobs, though, really only care about education, but need certification to verify it because they can't figure out how to interview to verify it (and realistically, the kind of interviewing program that could verify it might be too expensive to set up on an employer by employer basis). For those jobs, our society really could use a certification program that verifies to a reasonable degree that you've learned X, independent of whether you learned X on site at a college/university. If all you are going to do for your work life is turn some knobs or shuffle papers alone in a cubicle, you don't need to have gotten a university socialization along with your education.
I'd urge you to spend some time reading art of war, the prince, etc. Learn how to manipulate people more effectively. There is no reason that incompetent boobs in positions above you should prevent your good ideas from being implemented, in fact, with the right skills on your part that should make things easier.
+1. The real way to effect change is not to put your opponent's back up, but instead to get him to invest in the idea himself. Confrontation in this kind of scenario is going to be a losing proposition for half of the people involved, at least.
Are you claiming the Amazon offices are worse than Googles? That's just sad. Google's offices are like 30 years old, dingy and ugly. The space is so crammed with people they're adapting the space in weird (and uncomfortable looking) ways too. I've never seen Amazon's, but it's hard to imagine any major tech company being in a worse situation than Google (and I understand how Google got there through too-fast growth, but that's just making excuses.)
And back on topic: my interviews at Google convinced me that this rant is right on. The sense of technical direction is utterly missing, no one knows how their efforts will contribute to Google's success, and it feels like no one knows how to get the attention of those above to try to inspire any change. (Whereas at my current job, I email the CEO about six times a year, and I get a considered reply every time).
And the lesson is, you need to ask more questions about the place you are interviewing. You wound up in an egregiously bad one because you didn't ask those questions. Remember in the future that at least one quarter of the interview should be devoted to you asking them questions, and if their interview practice doesn't allow for that, run away.
I think the legal enforcement / authority aspect of it is essentially different, and that is what creates all of the differences you are labeling nonessential.
Well, if you aren't afraid of robotic fortresses but are still sleeping too well at night, consider the rate at which the price of building a custom virus that kills everyone missing some (e.g. family) genetic marker is falling.
By the time it had coalesced into a party with a name, their desires were clearer. But conveniently forgetting the people for whom it was all about resisting Obama's gun control measures doesn't change the reality of what happened.
I would be shocked if the wealthy were not trying to trim the numbers of the poor by the end of the century, to be replaced (where needed) by robotic labor.
You're definitely misremembering the startup of the tea party. As one example, do you recall all the people who thought it was the party of gun rights?
Slashdot Mirror
You got A and B backward.
And 100% of those with severe delusional disorders don't consider themselves sick. That's not the right argument for psychopathy not being illness.
Feel free to make a valid argument at any time, or perhaps take a basic statistics class.
Prior art still applies. Prior art must be public. The situation resolved by the new system is this:
Two corps have a secret patent effort. They race to get a patent:
Old system: long court case to prove who invented it first.
New system: first to file wins.
Under both systems, public prior art for the patent invalidates the patent.
But since he made an ass of himself by not being able to tell the difference at 10 feet anyway ... why not take the risk? There was no downside.
Yeah, the one he was wrong about was artisans. That's the whole goal of automation, turn everyone into an artisan. Liberate humans to do nothing mundane, unleash all of humanity to use their creativity instead.
As a society, we've conflated education, socialization, and certification in the college/university experience. If we really want to consider moving to a future where online education is considered viable, we need to break those 3 components out, and understand which if any we care about as employers and human beings. Most employers actually want all 3, which is why college/university isn't really likely to go away. Somewhere around 25% of the jobs, though, really only care about education, but need certification to verify it because they can't figure out how to interview to verify it (and realistically, the kind of interviewing program that could verify it might be too expensive to set up on an employer by employer basis). For those jobs, our society really could use a certification program that verifies to a reasonable degree that you've learned X, independent of whether you learned X on site at a college/university. If all you are going to do for your work life is turn some knobs or shuffle papers alone in a cubicle, you don't need to have gotten a university socialization along with your education.
Well then let's not bother proposing the free market as a solution to a problem if it's actually impossible to implement.
I'd urge you to spend some time reading art of war, the prince, etc. Learn how to manipulate people more effectively. There is no reason that incompetent boobs in positions above you should prevent your good ideas from being implemented, in fact, with the right skills on your part that should make things easier.
+1. The real way to effect change is not to put your opponent's back up, but instead to get him to invest in the idea himself. Confrontation in this kind of scenario is going to be a losing proposition for half of the people involved, at least.
Are you claiming the Amazon offices are worse than Googles? That's just sad. Google's offices are like 30 years old, dingy and ugly. The space is so crammed with people they're adapting the space in weird (and uncomfortable looking) ways too. I've never seen Amazon's, but it's hard to imagine any major tech company being in a worse situation than Google (and I understand how Google got there through too-fast growth, but that's just making excuses.)
And back on topic: my interviews at Google convinced me that this rant is right on. The sense of technical direction is utterly missing, no one knows how their efforts will contribute to Google's success, and it feels like no one knows how to get the attention of those above to try to inspire any change. (Whereas at my current job, I email the CEO about six times a year, and I get a considered reply every time).
Credit where due to the daily show for that one.
I think you mean Tony Boloney.
They'll do nuclear weapon simulations as usual.
And the lesson is, you need to ask more questions about the place you are interviewing. You wound up in an egregiously bad one because you didn't ask those questions. Remember in the future that at least one quarter of the interview should be devoted to you asking them questions, and if their interview practice doesn't allow for that, run away.
There's a bit of a nuke shortage for that strategy.
I think the legal enforcement / authority aspect of it is essentially different, and that is what creates all of the differences you are labeling nonessential.
Certainly not without a warrant, are you crazy?
Well, if you aren't afraid of robotic fortresses but are still sleeping too well at night, consider the rate at which the price of building a custom virus that kills everyone missing some (e.g. family) genetic marker is falling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
All kinds of different ideas.
Exactly. Right now you have to find poor people willing to kill other poor people. Soon you won't need any poor people.
By the time it had coalesced into a party with a name, their desires were clearer. But conveniently forgetting the people for whom it was all about resisting Obama's gun control measures doesn't change the reality of what happened.
Yep, I foresee the deadlock worsening for sure, which is, sadly, exactly what the elite want. But it seems pretty inevitable.
I would be shocked if the wealthy were not trying to trim the numbers of the poor by the end of the century, to be replaced (where needed) by robotic labor.
You're definitely misremembering the startup of the tea party. As one example, do you recall all the people who thought it was the party of gun rights?