What they should have done is just broadcast the time left on the red light. Cars could sense the distance and if capable and reasonable, shut off.
Instead they likely did think of what you suggested, and bloated the protocol more by adding a REQUIRED section to make sure the driver can override this. And probably to auto-start the cars to let them move if an emergency vehicle needs to get through, etc.
And then, to get any benefit almost all cars must use the system which means legislation which means a monopoly for this protocol. Then it'll need more complexification, which means new versions and high-priority updates to our vehicles' firmware, etc.
It sounds like the intelligence in the system is in the server, it knows which car it's talking to, where in the queue it is, and will attempt to know the best time for it to start.
At that, sounds like a loser to me.
What they should do is simply broadcast the time left on the light in a way that lets you easily read the distance as well, that way your car can take the data and do what suits it best.
Of course your car doesn't know to check its power draw before auto-offing so there's work there too...
the miscarriage of justice here [...] [is] the initial conviction.
Yeah, if the person wasn't sane, why jail instead of a mental institute (even if it's essentially a jail at least we'd see them as needing help), and if they're sane why aren't they okay to release.
I support civil commitment for people with genuine mental defects that make them a danger to themselves and others
I support, of course, the voluntary confinement of anyone who chooses it. Beyond that I think commitment to an institution should only happen in a full court where the defendant can call their own witnesses, experts, etc. If we choose to jail people for fear of what they might do the law needs to spell a consistent standard for sanity. (I'd like to see that - would they try to make exceptions to allow religious delusions?)
Every example I've seen of this sort of thing has required criminally little proof of a problem. The opinion of one professional, in the right place, is enough to commit and medicate people. At that point they've got no hope of ever mounting a proper or concerted defense.
I think this is a very tough call.
I think it's a pretty easy one. It's illegal and grossly unjust. We must not.
If we want to do this we have a lot of work to do first to ensure we aren't hurting more innocent people than we're saving. Importantly though, it can't be enacted on past actions.
For current offenders (as opposed to ones after a new law was enacted) we might simply need to place them under more surveillance. We can justify surveillance - it's us watching you because of what you did - we can't justify unlawful confinement.
You are obviously someone who has never had a good meal in his life.
There's no such thing as a meal good enough to warrant 1/16th of my waking life. (1 hour cooking/eating per day, a low estimate.)
Given the choice between some good labor intensive peasant food (I'm Polish) and "utilitarian food," I'm going to be loading the plate up with some pierogis thanks.
Yes, and so would I. But would you spend the time to make it, on a regular basis? I doubt it...
It's only when you can ignore the labor that you can say that.
Saying that eating should only be for nutrition is like saying sex should only be for reproduction. I reject your outlook. It is without enjoyment. It is spartan for the sole reason of utility. It is a dour, rainy day in late November.
Are you sure he's not saving the time for better things? I know what I'd want to be doing on a dour late-November day and it's not cooking...
I've got a good sense of taste, fine discriminatory senses, but I simply don't care as much about the pleasure of eating food as having sex, reading a good book, talking about something interesting, hiking, coding, etc. Going out to dinner, for me, is all about the company - the night won't be ruined even if the food isn't great.
If there was Hacker Chow (and it was healthful) I'd eat it 90% of the time, all the days I'm busy, or lazy, etc. As much fun as a great meal could be I don't want to have to stop what I'm doing three or more times a day and play gourmet simply to survive.
I mean, you certainly would enjoy not eating something you dislike more, but why would you go out of your way to add a cut of fish whose primary characteristic is tastelessness when you could just leave it off?
Words are primarily for communication and singing is possible without words. Yes, it's at least secondary and realistically it is unnecessary - look at everyone who doesn't do it. If it were necessary they wouldn't be alive.
And yeah, sex is for reproduction primarily. Performing it so much or in such a way as to cause problems equivalent to those gluttony causes would be perverse.
For me, the smell of sautéing onions and garlic is one of the simpler pleasures in life.
Sure, but that's because it's simple. If it took three hours to achieve it wouldn't be worth it.
Presumably you'd get bored of this eventually though, the OP has just gotten bored sooner than you.
No, you've gone out of your way to take his explanation, that you asked for, as if he's presenting it as a reason you must feel the same way.
It's called trolling.
No, it's not. Trolling isn't people with unpopular opinions not shutting up when you want.
He's not pretending not to understand you, he's not presenting his opinion as fact, he's not being intentionally misleading...
It seems perverse to me that you think people shouldn't treat themselves from time to time and eat food they like and enjoy themselves.
That's not what he said. He said "It's that I think food is intrinsically uninteresting". He's not saying people shouldn't enjoy themselves, but that he doesn't understand why they do it here specifically.
I find it perverse that people can play the spreadsheet known as World of Warcraft, slaughtering enough fluffy wamblers to unlock the next drudgery. Especially for those analogous with gluttons - the addicted players who can't comfortably leave.
That doesn't mean I don't understand enjoyment, just that I don't understand deriving it from that.
You equate this with gluttony, and I find this sad
It is associated. Food and gluttony. Foolish Owl didn't just make it up.
Go into a grocery store with a child, 99% of what they point to will not be good for them. It is sad.
In general I don't trust any individual food bloggers. [...] Or they just like to bitch. Or they just don't like the race of the proprietor.
So read their words. If they say the food arrived cold it probably did. Make your own judgments. I'd forgive cold food if they dealt with it properly, but I wouldn't tolerate mixing up orders and blaming the customer. Just my own peeves.
It's the numbers I don't trust. By that standard one person who either wants to reward his friend's restaurant, or who got short-changed at the till and wants revenge, has the same weight as someone who makes a detailed examination of the food/service.
You will have the time to set up your photographic equipment correctly and take good photos not some spur of the moment flash crap
You do know that the settings the camera comes up with aren't random, right? If you know what you want it doesn't take much time to get a good shot.
that makes the stuff look like roast corpse.
You're eating meat, what should it look like? A fun frolicking lamb?
I would not take a camera to a little Mexican hole in the wall I know as the patrons might complain
Wah. I've seen people complain about breastfeeding near them, I didn't give their opinion any weight there either.
People act like food pictures are all going to include the other diners... Most food pictures I see are of a plate, on a table, with food on it. People are hardly ever in the photos.
If you're not going to go clandestine set up a private room and explain who you are and why you're coming.
Oh yeah, that way you'll get exactly the same service/food as anyone else. Review fail.
Once the blogger has their food they don't need to hide their purpose and thus can take pictures after food delivery.
Presentation implies care was taken in preparing your food.
I've never worked in the food industry but my friends who have either have a very fatalistic attitude about eating out or cook their own meals...
I think the issue is that the food should come first, and be the only priority. If after you're done making it as good as possible you can also dress it up, then sure why not. But so many places go with looks instead of quality.
As an insightful sibling comment mentioned, chefs take a much more reasoned approach to food. Proper portions, good taste, and proper balance of nutritional elements.
The chef I know is round. Butter is his main ingredient. It tastes quite good.
I rarely see food in a restaurant that makes me think anyone examined the ingredients at all (in a meal-planning sense.) What was it that one dish had, 7g of salt!? 35g of trans-fat.
When food takes a half hour to an hour to cook, then a lot more attention is paid to what food's purpose is, rather than pulling up to the drive through and having it handed to you.
Seems I'd have an extra 29 minutes to read the labels while you're working. And then that much more free time than you, every day.
I actually eat home-cooked meals mostly (almost exclusively) but resent the time spent cooking. It's not that any piece of it is terrible but that I have to do this or I won't eat, day in, day out. It's such a drag.
Implying that running around cleaning, chopping, cooking gives you a better understanding of what's in your food is silly. You may be more in touch with seasonal produce, but you still won't have any clue what it's good for unless you put the reading in.
The problem with this position is that the "gourmet" approach is often one and the same as the utilitarian approach.
There's a utilitarian approach that involves spending three times longer than required?
Spending tons of time preparing ox-tails for an ounce of meat isn't efficient, the true utilitarian way to use an entire animal is rendering it down. Jello is far more efficient (ick, ick, ick) than gourmet cooking.
So, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish your goal is actually to encourage the aesthetic, artistic, "gourmet" approach of the foodie, rather than rejecting our tastes.
Most people already eat with no concern for anything but their taste buds. How is encouraging that going to help them eat healthfully?
I might still be missing it then. Are you saying that this is how the GPLv2 works? And that presumably we should use the GPLv3 instead of complaining?
If so, I'd largely agree. But I think we should complain at the same time because tivoization is a very unfriendly thing and shows the company's friendly face to be a lie. Not pointing out the lies (as forcefully as needed) is letting the company get away with false advertising.
All this means is that unless you are literally punching someone with an eggshell skull, or are extremely strong, you just aren't going to do any damage at all.
Spoken like someone who has neither taken nor thrown a punch in his life.
My thoughts exactly.
My friend (not FOAF) lost an eye when punched once lightly (it was aimed at the back of his head and he turned). I've heard credible stories about people having their neck broken by mild punches. Eardrums can be ruptured. A falling person could suffer almost unlimited damage.
In fact, if you punch someone in the head directly from behind you'll likely encounter vertebrae instead of skull.
you are not a lawyer. Bad news: I am.
That is bad news, for society in general. Not that you're a bad one, but that lawyers are precisely what keep people from looking at this and seeing the plain truth of the matter.
The bully attacked first, he got creamed. That is all. Lessons were explained in the only way they'll be heard.
You mention the eggshell skull rule [...] but [...] you use it to apply precisely the opposite logic to that which it governs
No, I'm using it right, but I'm discussing your claim of how the bully merely hit him once and not a damage-causing blow. I'm saying that's not a reasonable assumption for either party. The victim can't magically know he's safe any more than the bully could know his attack would be harmless.
It also applies to the beating of the bully, but that wasn't done intentionally and then justified.
The issue here is the proportional response. The thug posed no serious threat to the trained wrestler, and made no seriously dangerous actions.
It only wasn't appropriate to the doctor-on-the-wall and in retrospect. In the heat of the moment I'd rate any blow to my head as very dangerous as would most people.
In response, the original poster beat him into unconsciousness. Unless OP had reason to believe that he or someone else was in imminent danger, why would you possibily license him with the right to use whatever force he happened to choose at the time?
Because he didn't choose to beat him, he acted out of fear and instinct.
Your electric fence analogy is also inapplicable. Fences are objects and have no choice about how much force they apply;
Same with scared kids.
I'm not trying to license him to do whatever he wants, I'm trying to be realistic.
OP chose to continue to punch the thug beyond what was necessary to deter him from counterattacking.
And a fence will continue to zap you, to death, which is why you shouldn't play in it.
A person in fear of their life, without training in street-fighting (wrestling doesn't get the fear up at all) isn't going to know the danger they're in, the damage they could inflict, and is going to keep hitting long after their attacker stops - it's what happens. It's why you don't randomly hit people; both in a social and a practical sense.
The decision to fight with an schoolyard bully is, as the original article maintains, a social choice.
And as discussed here there wasn't a choice, it happened by instinct and by the time choice was involved the bully was already unconscious.
But if you choose to fight, you must be prepared to accept the consequences. "He started it" is not a valid argument, especially in this case, where there was no danger to the defender.
You claim there was no damage to the defender, yet just twenty lines ago you understood the principle of an eggshell skull. It's also a medical concept...
Also, that's ridiculous. The moral right to self defense clearly isn't on your sufferance only. The law is only half the issue here, also at issue are the limits of legally mandate-able behavior and the usefulness of the law even once passed.
You can mandate the punishment of the victims, like the destruction of the fence, but it's not the root of the issue and won't help anyone.
I am not really sure who I am talking to.
I've got a few semesters of pre-college law, in another country. You?
I will continue using a layman's rationale, since it doesn't sound like you want to discuss intentional torts with me.
Please do. Even where I could follow along I'm not sure I'd find it relevant. I'm discussing the usefulness of punishing the victim - you might be able to show a mandate that the tide stay back but I doubt it has much bearing on the issue at hand as most of society would see it.
You do realize that claim 14 of that patent depends on claim 11, so claim 14 really is: [...]
You do realize claim 11 doesn't say anything, right? I'll annotate it for you.
A method for ordering an item using a client system
And who'd be doing the ordered? A client? And you'd USE THEIR SYSTEM!? Wow!
displaying information identifying the item and displaying an indication of a single action that is to be performed to order the identified item
So to sell something you'd have to show it to them. And provide an element of UI.
in response to only the indicated single action being performed,
Our idea is - minimal UI.
sending to a server system a request to order the identified item
How else could this EVER happen?
whereby the item is ordered independently of a shopping cart model
We fulfill stuff in a hurry if the customer preselected 'hurry'.
Nothing attached to this has any inventiveness at all.
When claim 14 says "oh, and it's on the internet", they're not patenting the internet. They're patenting using their invention via the internet.
That's why I mean it when I say claim 14 is my favorite because it shows how silly the whole system is.
Obviously if there were an invention in 11 it'd be there regardless of the 14s - that the system requires this is a sign it's fatally broken. The idea that someone could lose out for lack of a claim 14 is a bigger joke than the system in the first place.
[R&D] - That's a fair criticism. The interests of litigators are in having patent specifications as vague as possible, but that's at odds with the interests of engineers and scientists,
... and the public who foots the bill for the system. In whose name it's all being done...
You've shown better than I could claim how the system, by necessity, gets this complex. It's a system of monopoly grants run by, and for lawyers - it's going to approach infinite complexity.
It doesn't serve the people and should be scrapped.
We all stand on the shoulders of those who come before - it's hubris to claim otherwise.
Exactly. So unless you paid your English-license (most of which goes to pay the creators of other languages), your Math license with Arabic-Numerals license, etc, I don't don't to hear about you licensing your slight additions. (Does the guy who invented the system of kickbacks himself get kickbacks on all the kickbacks?)
That's the hubris - to think putting a back on a stool (with a hammer invented by someone else, training on how not to hit your fingers by someone else delivered in a language you didn't invent, etc) should give you a monopoly on the area.
The more patents we have to avoid, the less free.
That's only a legitimate criticism if you're not actually innovating. If you are doing something new, then those existing patents merely serve to limit the scope of your patent to what you invented... which, I would think, anti-patent people would prefer.
Not at all. Imagine a world before the first patent. Anything can be invented or tweaked. Now patent number one is the chair-back on a stool. Now anything except people retainers on seating systems is open.
People in that field risk inventing the same thing and not only not getting a patent but not being able to use their own invention. If they look at the patent they can avoid running in to it later but it still trumps their independent discovery. Once they've looked at it they can try to innovate around it, in the first minefield. Presumably a system of straps would be different enough, but if not they're not only hit for damages but triple damages because they're assumed to have infringed willfully.
Without patents we wouldn't be worried about limiting their scope either...
But the bill should be footed by the person applying for the patent, not by the taxpayer.
So only the richest corporations can afford patents, giving them yet another way to lord over everyone else.
This is just one of the indicators that patents are broken. Society shouldn't foot the bill for these games and inventors shouldn't have to play games to get any rewards we think they're due.
Hey, I'm all for removing patent laws entirely. But if we do, let's do so openly; let us not pervert law so that they still exist but are too expensive to use.
You mean like they already are? But yes, I agree. Let's not break them further and risk being stuck with that.
As is they're essentially worthless to R&D (lawyers profit from them, but I doubt that was the spirit of the law), they cause a ton of trouble, and they're based on a morally indefensible monopoly grant that keeps independent creators from using their own work. (As seen here.)
I saw a similar story (though of a much smaller scale). A tow-truck towed the wrong car, badly, and then abandoned it ruined on the side of the road when the error was discovered. By the time the owner found their vehicle a few hours later the towing company was dissolved. When the show investigated the owner had had many such companies.
This is why I advocate removing the so-called corporate veil. I feel that unless you actively pursue honest dealings in your company (forward all transactions to auditors, audit processes for holes, etc) that you should go down with the company if it's found to have committed a crime. All the way up to the shareholders. Investing in a company not sufficiently open for you to be sure it's really clean should get you in trouble if it's not, like buying a TV for a too-good-to-be-true price.
If these patent trolls were unwound after failure and traced back to their owners, which were similarly unwound, all the way to the people who ordered their illegal actions I wouldn't have half the problem with patents that I do.
They don't have to prove nobody is using it, just that nobody is talking about it - the first would be impossible. Perhaps the doctor thought it was obvious, or taught it first-hand and there was no literature.
This is the problem with patents though. The government gives out a monopoly on entire ideas (as carefully divorced from a set of actions as a lawyer can manage). Woe unto anyone and everyone else as the economy suffers under the dead-weight of all these trolls. They were a bad idea when introduced and the pace of advancement has made them ridiculous.
Bullshit. The method was easy enough that multiple people have independently discovered it and it is now locked down so that nobody else can use it, at least without paying a worthless person who didn't even invent anything.
A simple, usable method for something was easily available and in use, now it is not. The public lost, and big.
People worldwide can now build on that technology, either through licensing of it or by trying to find work-arounds.
What kind of retard are you that you think it's going to be easier? The easy method is now taken, to work-around it they're going to have to needlessly complicate what should be a simple task. Pre-patent they'd have just looked in the lit, found who was doing it and asked him to explain his technique.
Patents should automatically be voided if anyone ever (before or after) independently invents the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
And when you do get a new car it should be the one making the safety-critical decisions like this, not the traffic light.
What they should have done is just broadcast the time left on the red light. Cars could sense the distance and if capable and reasonable, shut off.
Instead they likely did think of what you suggested, and bloated the protocol more by adding a REQUIRED section to make sure the driver can override this. And probably to auto-start the cars to let them move if an emergency vehicle needs to get through, etc.
And then, to get any benefit almost all cars must use the system which means legislation which means a monopoly for this protocol. Then it'll need more complexification, which means new versions and high-priority updates to our vehicles' firmware, etc.
It sounds like the intelligence in the system is in the server, it knows which car it's talking to, where in the queue it is, and will attempt to know the best time for it to start.
At that, sounds like a loser to me.
What they should do is simply broadcast the time left on the light in a way that lets you easily read the distance as well, that way your car can take the data and do what suits it best.
Of course your car doesn't know to check its power draw before auto-offing so there's work there too...
Which is why the GPLv3 was created and you should use it anywhere you'd use the GPL.
the miscarriage of justice here [...] [is] the initial conviction.
Yeah, if the person wasn't sane, why jail instead of a mental institute (even if it's essentially a jail at least we'd see them as needing help), and if they're sane why aren't they okay to release.
I support civil commitment for people with genuine mental defects that make them a danger to themselves and others
I support, of course, the voluntary confinement of anyone who chooses it. Beyond that I think commitment to an institution should only happen in a full court where the defendant can call their own witnesses, experts, etc. If we choose to jail people for fear of what they might do the law needs to spell a consistent standard for sanity. (I'd like to see that - would they try to make exceptions to allow religious delusions?)
Every example I've seen of this sort of thing has required criminally little proof of a problem. The opinion of one professional, in the right place, is enough to commit and medicate people. At that point they've got no hope of ever mounting a proper or concerted defense.
I think this is a very tough call.
I think it's a pretty easy one. It's illegal and grossly unjust. We must not.
If we want to do this we have a lot of work to do first to ensure we aren't hurting more innocent people than we're saving. Importantly though, it can't be enacted on past actions.
For current offenders (as opposed to ones after a new law was enacted) we might simply need to place them under more surveillance. We can justify surveillance - it's us watching you because of what you did - we can't justify unlawful confinement.
You are obviously someone who has never had a good meal in his life.
There's no such thing as a meal good enough to warrant 1/16th of my waking life. (1 hour cooking/eating per day, a low estimate.)
Given the choice between some good labor intensive peasant food (I'm Polish) and "utilitarian food," I'm going to be loading the plate up with some pierogis thanks.
Yes, and so would I. But would you spend the time to make it, on a regular basis? I doubt it...
It's only when you can ignore the labor that you can say that.
Saying that eating should only be for nutrition is like saying sex should only be for reproduction. I reject your outlook. It is without enjoyment. It is spartan for the sole reason of utility. It is a dour, rainy day in late November.
Are you sure he's not saving the time for better things? I know what I'd want to be doing on a dour late-November day and it's not cooking...
You got a lot of flack for this, but I agree.
I've got a good sense of taste, fine discriminatory senses, but I simply don't care as much about the pleasure of eating food as having sex, reading a good book, talking about something interesting, hiking, coding, etc. Going out to dinner, for me, is all about the company - the night won't be ruined even if the food isn't great.
If there was Hacker Chow (and it was healthful) I'd eat it 90% of the time, all the days I'm busy, or lazy, etc. As much fun as a great meal could be I don't want to have to stop what I'm doing three or more times a day and play gourmet simply to survive.
If it's bland, do you enjoy it?
I mean, you certainly would enjoy not eating something you dislike more, but why would you go out of your way to add a cut of fish whose primary characteristic is tastelessness when you could just leave it off?
Words are primarily for communication and singing is possible without words. Yes, it's at least secondary and realistically it is unnecessary - look at everyone who doesn't do it. If it were necessary they wouldn't be alive.
And yeah, sex is for reproduction primarily. Performing it so much or in such a way as to cause problems equivalent to those gluttony causes would be perverse.
For me, the smell of sautéing onions and garlic is one of the simpler pleasures in life.
Sure, but that's because it's simple. If it took three hours to achieve it wouldn't be worth it.
Presumably you'd get bored of this eventually though, the OP has just gotten bored sooner than you.
This is known as the straw man.
No, you've gone out of your way to take his explanation, that you asked for, as if he's presenting it as a reason you must feel the same way.
It's called trolling.
No, it's not. Trolling isn't people with unpopular opinions not shutting up when you want.
He's not pretending not to understand you, he's not presenting his opinion as fact, he's not being intentionally misleading...
It seems perverse to me that you think people shouldn't treat themselves from time to time and eat food they like and enjoy themselves.
That's not what he said. He said "It's that I think food is intrinsically uninteresting". He's not saying people shouldn't enjoy themselves, but that he doesn't understand why they do it here specifically.
I find it perverse that people can play the spreadsheet known as World of Warcraft, slaughtering enough fluffy wamblers to unlock the next drudgery. Especially for those analogous with gluttons - the addicted players who can't comfortably leave.
That doesn't mean I don't understand enjoyment, just that I don't understand deriving it from that.
You equate this with gluttony, and I find this sad
It is associated. Food and gluttony. Foolish Owl didn't just make it up.
Go into a grocery store with a child, 99% of what they point to will not be good for them. It is sad.
In general I don't trust any individual food bloggers. [...] Or they just like to bitch. Or they just don't like the race of the proprietor.
So read their words. If they say the food arrived cold it probably did. Make your own judgments. I'd forgive cold food if they dealt with it properly, but I wouldn't tolerate mixing up orders and blaming the customer. Just my own peeves.
It's the numbers I don't trust. By that standard one person who either wants to reward his friend's restaurant, or who got short-changed at the till and wants revenge, has the same weight as someone who makes a detailed examination of the food/service.
You will have the time to set up your photographic equipment correctly and take good photos not some spur of the moment flash crap
You do know that the settings the camera comes up with aren't random, right? If you know what you want it doesn't take much time to get a good shot.
that makes the stuff look like roast corpse.
You're eating meat, what should it look like? A fun frolicking lamb?
I would not take a camera to a little Mexican hole in the wall I know as the patrons might complain
Wah. I've seen people complain about breastfeeding near them, I didn't give their opinion any weight there either.
People act like food pictures are all going to include the other diners... Most food pictures I see are of a plate, on a table, with food on it. People are hardly ever in the photos.
If you're not going to go clandestine set up a private room and explain who you are and why you're coming.
Oh yeah, that way you'll get exactly the same service/food as anyone else. Review fail.
Once the blogger has their food they don't need to hide their purpose and thus can take pictures after food delivery.
Presentation implies care was taken in preparing your food.
I've never worked in the food industry but my friends who have either have a very fatalistic attitude about eating out or cook their own meals...
I think the issue is that the food should come first, and be the only priority. If after you're done making it as good as possible you can also dress it up, then sure why not. But so many places go with looks instead of quality.
As an insightful sibling comment mentioned, chefs take a much more reasoned approach to food. Proper portions, good taste, and proper balance of nutritional elements.
The chef I know is round. Butter is his main ingredient. It tastes quite good.
I rarely see food in a restaurant that makes me think anyone examined the ingredients at all (in a meal-planning sense.) What was it that one dish had, 7g of salt!? 35g of trans-fat.
When food takes a half hour to an hour to cook, then a lot more attention is paid to what food's purpose is, rather than pulling up to the drive through and having it handed to you.
Seems I'd have an extra 29 minutes to read the labels while you're working. And then that much more free time than you, every day.
I actually eat home-cooked meals mostly (almost exclusively) but resent the time spent cooking. It's not that any piece of it is terrible but that I have to do this or I won't eat, day in, day out. It's such a drag.
Implying that running around cleaning, chopping, cooking gives you a better understanding of what's in your food is silly. You may be more in touch with seasonal produce, but you still won't have any clue what it's good for unless you put the reading in.
The problem with this position is that the "gourmet" approach is often one and the same as the utilitarian approach.
There's a utilitarian approach that involves spending three times longer than required?
Spending tons of time preparing ox-tails for an ounce of meat isn't efficient, the true utilitarian way to use an entire animal is rendering it down. Jello is far more efficient (ick, ick, ick) than gourmet cooking.
So, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish your goal is actually to encourage the aesthetic, artistic, "gourmet" approach of the foodie, rather than rejecting our tastes.
Most people already eat with no concern for anything but their taste buds. How is encouraging that going to help them eat healthfully?
I might still be missing it then. Are you saying that this is how the GPLv2 works? And that presumably we should use the GPLv3 instead of complaining?
If so, I'd largely agree. But I think we should complain at the same time because tivoization is a very unfriendly thing and shows the company's friendly face to be a lie. Not pointing out the lies (as forcefully as needed) is letting the company get away with false advertising.
If not, try again.
All this means is that unless you are literally punching someone with an eggshell skull, or are extremely strong, you just aren't going to do any damage at all.
Spoken like someone who has neither taken nor thrown a punch in his life.
My thoughts exactly.
My friend (not FOAF) lost an eye when punched once lightly (it was aimed at the back of his head and he turned). I've heard credible stories about people having their neck broken by mild punches. Eardrums can be ruptured. A falling person could suffer almost unlimited damage.
In fact, if you punch someone in the head directly from behind you'll likely encounter vertebrae instead of skull.
you are not a lawyer. Bad news: I am.
That is bad news, for society in general. Not that you're a bad one, but that lawyers are precisely what keep people from looking at this and seeing the plain truth of the matter.
The bully attacked first, he got creamed. That is all. Lessons were explained in the only way they'll be heard.
You mention the eggshell skull rule [...] but [...] you use it to apply precisely the opposite logic to that which it governs
No, I'm using it right, but I'm discussing your claim of how the bully merely hit him once and not a damage-causing blow. I'm saying that's not a reasonable assumption for either party. The victim can't magically know he's safe any more than the bully could know his attack would be harmless.
It also applies to the beating of the bully, but that wasn't done intentionally and then justified.
The issue here is the proportional response. The thug posed no serious threat to the trained wrestler, and made no seriously dangerous actions.
It only wasn't appropriate to the doctor-on-the-wall and in retrospect. In the heat of the moment I'd rate any blow to my head as very dangerous as would most people.
In response, the original poster beat him into unconsciousness. Unless OP had reason to believe that he or someone else was in imminent danger, why would you possibily license him with the right to use whatever force he happened to choose at the time?
Because he didn't choose to beat him, he acted out of fear and instinct.
Your electric fence analogy is also inapplicable. Fences are objects and have no choice about how much force they apply;
Same with scared kids.
I'm not trying to license him to do whatever he wants, I'm trying to be realistic.
OP chose to continue to punch the thug beyond what was necessary to deter him from counterattacking.
And a fence will continue to zap you, to death, which is why you shouldn't play in it.
A person in fear of their life, without training in street-fighting (wrestling doesn't get the fear up at all) isn't going to know the danger they're in, the damage they could inflict, and is going to keep hitting long after their attacker stops - it's what happens. It's why you don't randomly hit people; both in a social and a practical sense.
The decision to fight with an schoolyard bully is, as the original article maintains, a social choice.
And as discussed here there wasn't a choice, it happened by instinct and by the time choice was involved the bully was already unconscious.
But if you choose to fight, you must be prepared to accept the consequences. "He started it" is not a valid argument, especially in this case, where there was no danger to the defender.
You claim there was no damage to the defender, yet just twenty lines ago you understood the principle of an eggshell skull. It's also a medical concept...
Also, that's ridiculous. The moral right to self defense clearly isn't on your sufferance only. The law is only half the issue here, also at issue are the limits of legally mandate-able behavior and the usefulness of the law even once passed.
You can mandate the punishment of the victims, like the destruction of the fence, but it's not the root of the issue and won't help anyone.
I am not really sure who I am talking to.
I've got a few semesters of pre-college law, in another country. You?
I will continue using a layman's rationale, since it doesn't sound like you want to discuss intentional torts with me.
Please do. Even where I could follow along I'm not sure I'd find it relevant. I'm discussing the usefulness of punishing the victim - you might be able to show a mandate that the tide stay back but I doubt it has much bearing on the issue at hand as most of society would see it.
You do realize that claim 14 of that patent depends on claim 11, so claim 14 really is: [...]
You do realize claim 11 doesn't say anything, right? I'll annotate it for you.
A method for ordering an item using a client system
And who'd be doing the ordered? A client? And you'd USE THEIR SYSTEM!? Wow!
displaying information identifying the item and displaying an indication of a single action that is to be performed to order the identified item
So to sell something you'd have to show it to them. And provide an element of UI.
in response to only the indicated single action being performed,
Our idea is - minimal UI.
sending to a server system a request to order the identified item
How else could this EVER happen?
whereby the item is ordered independently of a shopping cart model
We fulfill stuff in a hurry if the customer preselected 'hurry'.
Nothing attached to this has any inventiveness at all.
When claim 14 says "oh, and it's on the internet", they're not patenting the internet. They're patenting using their invention via the internet.
That's why I mean it when I say claim 14 is my favorite because it shows how silly the whole system is.
Obviously if there were an invention in 11 it'd be there regardless of the 14s - that the system requires this is a sign it's fatally broken. The idea that someone could lose out for lack of a claim 14 is a bigger joke than the system in the first place.
[R&D] - That's a fair criticism. The interests of litigators are in having patent specifications as vague as possible, but that's at odds with the interests of engineers and scientists,
... and the public who foots the bill for the system. In whose name it's all being done...
You've shown better than I could claim how the system, by necessity, gets this complex. It's a system of monopoly grants run by, and for lawyers - it's going to approach infinite complexity.
It doesn't serve the people and should be scrapped.
We all stand on the shoulders of those who come before - it's hubris to claim otherwise.
Exactly. So unless you paid your English-license (most of which goes to pay the creators of other languages), your Math license with Arabic-Numerals license, etc, I don't don't to hear about you licensing your slight additions. (Does the guy who invented the system of kickbacks himself get kickbacks on all the kickbacks?)
That's the hubris - to think putting a back on a stool (with a hammer invented by someone else, training on how not to hit your fingers by someone else delivered in a language you didn't invent, etc) should give you a monopoly on the area.
The more patents we have to avoid, the less free.
That's only a legitimate criticism if you're not actually innovating. If you are doing something new, then those existing patents merely serve to limit the scope of your patent to what you invented... which, I would think, anti-patent people would prefer.
Not at all. Imagine a world before the first patent. Anything can be invented or tweaked. Now patent number one is the chair-back on a stool. Now anything except people retainers on seating systems is open.
People in that field risk inventing the same thing and not only not getting a patent but not being able to use their own invention. If they look at the patent they can avoid running in to it later but it still trumps their independent discovery. Once they've looked at it they can try to innovate around it, in the first minefield. Presumably a system of straps would be different enough, but if not they're not only hit for damages but triple damages because they're assumed to have infringed willfully.
Without patents we wouldn't be worried about limiting their scope either...
Why shouldn't the ot
But the bill should be footed by the person applying for the patent, not by the taxpayer.
So only the richest corporations can afford patents, giving them yet another way to lord over everyone else.
This is just one of the indicators that patents are broken. Society shouldn't foot the bill for these games and inventors shouldn't have to play games to get any rewards we think they're due.
Hey, I'm all for removing patent laws entirely. But if we do, let's do so openly; let us not pervert law so that they still exist but are too expensive to use.
You mean like they already are? But yes, I agree. Let's not break them further and risk being stuck with that.
As is they're essentially worthless to R&D (lawyers profit from them, but I doubt that was the spirit of the law), they cause a ton of trouble, and they're based on a morally indefensible monopoly grant that keeps independent creators from using their own work. (As seen here.)
Patents should be abolished.
I saw a similar story (though of a much smaller scale). A tow-truck towed the wrong car, badly, and then abandoned it ruined on the side of the road when the error was discovered. By the time the owner found their vehicle a few hours later the towing company was dissolved. When the show investigated the owner had had many such companies.
This is why I advocate removing the so-called corporate veil. I feel that unless you actively pursue honest dealings in your company (forward all transactions to auditors, audit processes for holes, etc) that you should go down with the company if it's found to have committed a crime. All the way up to the shareholders. Investing in a company not sufficiently open for you to be sure it's really clean should get you in trouble if it's not, like buying a TV for a too-good-to-be-true price.
If these patent trolls were unwound after failure and traced back to their owners, which were similarly unwound, all the way to the people who ordered their illegal actions I wouldn't have half the problem with patents that I do.
They don't have to prove nobody is using it, just that nobody is talking about it - the first would be impossible. Perhaps the doctor thought it was obvious, or taught it first-hand and there was no literature.
This is the problem with patents though. The government gives out a monopoly on entire ideas (as carefully divorced from a set of actions as a lawyer can manage). Woe unto anyone and everyone else as the economy suffers under the dead-weight of all these trolls. They were a bad idea when introduced and the pace of advancement has made them ridiculous.
Their choices will likely lead to more deaths through untreated diseases but they'd claim your solution is the immoral one.
and the public has benefited from this.
Bullshit. The method was easy enough that multiple people have independently discovered it and it is now locked down so that nobody else can use it, at least without paying a worthless person who didn't even invent anything.
A simple, usable method for something was easily available and in use, now it is not. The public lost, and big.
People worldwide can now build on that technology, either through licensing of it or by trying to find work-arounds.
What kind of retard are you that you think it's going to be easier? The easy method is now taken, to work-around it they're going to have to needlessly complicate what should be a simple task. Pre-patent they'd have just looked in the lit, found who was doing it and asked him to explain his technique.
Patents should automatically be voided if anyone ever (before or after) independently invents the same thing.
What good are people like you if all you ever do is support the law?
"Well, I never liked that, but the law says..."
We've heard your one note.