I'm factually incorrect? Which part? That you're an employer? You claimed you make hiring decisions. That you're extremely impressed by "pieces of paper"? Well, you said that a degree was a necessary condition for you to hire someone. That seems to translate to you being extremely impressed by a degree. That the degree itself is a "piece of paper" -- while most institutions of higher learning do in fact hand out a piece of paper (a diploma) certifying that one has earned a degree, I think all here understand that the "piece of paper" is a metonym for the degree.
Here, yes, it's true - if no one anywhere has ever driven a nail made of carbon fiber, then, no, the method is not anticipated. However, it's still obvious because plenty of art exists that shows "driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer" and other art shows "composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel" and one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the existing art in a predictable manner to get the claimed invention.
At which point you claim "Oh yeah? If it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it yet? Patent approved."
The prior art rule you describe invites patents covering a minor variation of a known technique just to prevent compatibility. And since those restrictions on claims tend to evaporate into thin air when infringement cases come by, it also allows making a narrow patent and then enforcing it broadly. Thus in my example the patent holder would successfully sue someone using a hammer to strike an aluminum alloy nail on the grounds that its pretty much the same thing as their patented method. This despite the fact that a patent which failed to specify the material of the nail would have been anticipated by the prior art.
(i) a claim is anticipated under 35 USC 102 if each and every limitation as set forth in the claim appears, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference; or (ii) a claim is obvious under 35 USC 103 if a combination of prior art references teach or suggest each and every limitation as set forth in the claim.
Which is, of course, an idiotic standard. It means that a patent on a specific application of a general technique is not invalidated by prior art about the general technique. Thus
1) A method for driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer, where said nail is made of a composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel.
is not anticipated by all the prior art about driving metal nails, ceramic nails, wooden pegs, etc. And it gives the patentholder a monopoly on driving CF/steel nails.
Using a patent to carve out a proprietary exception within a well-established field of knowledge is NOT what patents are supposed to be for.
I see no problem with this if they're convicted. DUI doesn't have any social stigma associated with it anymore, and that's an outrage
It still has more social stigma than in the 70s, but probably less than in the 90s. Want to fix that somewhat? Fight for DUI blood alcohol levels to be increased (so only actual drunks get convicted, not people who have had one beer). Object to travesties such as drunks being busted for DUI for sleeping in their cars. The more ridiculous you make the DUI laws, the less people will find violation of them to be something to disparage others for.
So you give students a problem combining a standard notation they haven't been taught (the algebraic equals sign) and a completely nonstandard notation (using parentheses as meaning "a value to be solved for". IIRC, before algebra when I was in school they used an underscored blank space for that), and the students get it wrong. Big surprise.
This is not necessarily a problem with understanding the abstractions; it's simply ignorance about the notation. Basic arithmetic courses typically have problems like
9 + 7 = 12 - 16 =
where the students are supposed to fill in the value on the right. It's not obvious from this type of problem that the equals sign means "what's on the left is equal to what's on the right" rather than "evaluate the expression on the left and enter the answer on the right".
The truthful answer is a bit more complicated, going along the lines of: they don't want us to have a military base in their country, but they *do* want something else and we used that as leverage to force the military base on them.
Saying that base is there "at the behest of the local government" is plain inaccurate. Saying that the local government permitted it under duress would be closer.
Sounds like "the local government permitted it as part of a quid-pro-quo" would be even closer.
Unless you're referring to South Korea, in which case they could hardly get what they want from the US _without_ a military base.
No one's saying you can't stand up to the government rules. But you need to recall that they are, at the time, rules and by breaking them you will likely have the punishment for doing so applied to your bad self. That's when you are actually allowed to do the most good by having a public trial, getting the media involved, and changing the public's mind. It's a big risk to be arrested by the federal government and most people balk at the opportunity it could present.
You won't get all of that. Civil disobedience is a tactic which governments have adapted to and thus no longer works. Now if you break a bad law, the consequences aren't a showy public trial and a few months in jail. No, instead, they'll arrest you, freeze all your assets (so you can't defend yourself), harass your family, and delay resolution of the case until any media interest has subsided. THEN they'll have the trial and throw you in PMITA prison for a few years. Perhaps you'll get out; you'll be a convicted felon, having worth only as an bad example for others.
You go to school to buy a piece of paper to impress employers. Learning plays no factor in so-called modern education.
As someone who makes hiring decisions and interviews prospects, I'm going to call bullshit. There is still real value in education. I won't hire people who think they're hot shit but haven't gone to college to get the ignorance schooled out of them.
As someone who makes hiring decisions, you've proven the OPs point.
Yeah, the production values are obviously too good, as anyone who has tried to get even lighting off a whiteboard can attest.
But the staged office environments exist in real life; lawyers, in particular, often have an office for show. And bosses with show offices are likely the same types to hire HOPAs as assistants.
How could P=NP be proven undecidable? If P=NP is proven undecidable, it means there can be no deterministic polynomial-time algorithm to solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time (because such an algorithm would prove that P=NP). If no such algorithm exists, then P!=NP.
(this doesn't mean P=NP can't be undecidable... it just means that if if it is undecidable, the question of its undecidability is also so, and so on up the line)
Never thought I'd see a generation of women who's goal in life is "I want to be a Trophy Wife when I grow up then get dumped and replaced by my wealthy husband for a younger trophy wife..."
Actually, that seems like a good deal for the Trophy Wife, provided she takes him to the cleaners at the divorce. Then she's financially well-off and free of her asshole ex-husband.
Shit even Barbie the Doll has been a doctor, lawyer, fire fighter, but oddly there isn't a HOPA edition.
All Barbies are HOPAs. At least if you're about a foot tall anyway.
Exactly. On a survey, people may claim they they are "extremely concerned" about the potential loss of their personal information, but their actions say otherwise; they'll enter their personal information anywhere if it will get them dancing bunnies. On the other hand, most people are pretty careful about doing obviously stupid stuff which could lose them their job. If people really cared so as little about losing their job as they did about losing their financial information, they'd not only use the copier on their butts and surf porn on company time, they'd hit on the boss's daughter, call in sick 3 days out of 5, get into fistfights with their coworkers, and brag about shorting their company's stock.
Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority."
Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
Always fun to see stories like this... the authoritatian greens can't help but applaud and criticize the West for not being more autocratic like China.
The only reason that 'war' advances development is that we're willing to spend tax money on development during war.
Resources are part of it, but incentive is a big one too. Sure, pursuit of profit is an incentive for development, but nothing quite focuses one's efforts like the likelihood of being killed and/or enslaved, along with your entire family/community/nation, if you fail.
Start with your right arm behind the wearer. Make sure your thumb is on the reinforced section holding the clasp, behind the clasp, on the side to your right. Your index and middle finders should be in a similar position on your left. Squeeze your thumb and the index and middle finger towards each other, while also pressing slightly in (towards you) with your arm. The bra should now be unhooked.
(Lefties use your left hand and switch left and right above.)
We've overstuffed our prisons with non-violent drug offenders.
Alas, no. If the prisons were so full of non-violent offenders, they wouldn't be so horrible. Even your average imprisoned nerd doesn't have to worry about being raped by your average imprisoned pothead.
Slashdot Mirror
Chris Mason didn't kill his ex.
Can't be. Sky belongs to Rupert Murdoch and net belongs to Microsoft.
I'm factually incorrect? Which part? That you're an employer? You claimed you make hiring decisions. That you're extremely impressed by "pieces of paper"? Well, you said that a degree was a necessary condition for you to hire someone. That seems to translate to you being extremely impressed by a degree. That the degree itself is a "piece of paper" -- while most institutions of higher learning do in fact hand out a piece of paper (a diploma) certifying that one has earned a degree, I think all here understand that the "piece of paper" is a metonym for the degree.
At which point you claim "Oh yeah? If it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it yet? Patent approved."
The prior art rule you describe invites patents covering a minor variation of a known technique just to prevent compatibility. And since those restrictions on claims tend to evaporate into thin air when infringement cases come by, it also allows making a narrow patent and then enforcing it broadly. Thus in my example the patent holder would successfully sue someone using a hammer to strike an aluminum alloy nail on the grounds that its pretty much the same thing as their patented method. This despite the fact that a patent which failed to specify the material of the nail would have been anticipated by the prior art.
Which is, of course, an idiotic standard. It means that a patent on a specific application of a general technique is not invalidated by prior art about the general technique. Thus
1) A method for driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer, where said nail is made of a composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel.
is not anticipated by all the prior art about driving metal nails, ceramic nails, wooden pegs, etc. And it gives the patentholder a monopoly on driving CF/steel nails.
Using a patent to carve out a proprietary exception within a well-established field of knowledge is NOT what patents are supposed to be for.
Mal Reynolds, this court sentences you to life without parole in the lowest level of the Maximum Security Lunar Underground Penitentiary.
It still has more social stigma than in the 70s, but probably less than in the 90s. Want to fix that somewhat? Fight for DUI blood alcohol levels to be increased (so only actual drunks get convicted, not people who have had one beer). Object to travesties such as drunks being busted for DUI for sleeping in their cars. The more ridiculous you make the DUI laws, the less people will find violation of them to be something to disparage others for.
So you give students a problem combining a standard notation they haven't been taught (the algebraic equals sign) and a completely nonstandard notation (using parentheses as meaning "a value to be solved for". IIRC, before algebra when I was in school they used an underscored blank space for that), and the students get it wrong. Big surprise.
This is not necessarily a problem with understanding the abstractions; it's simply ignorance about the notation. Basic arithmetic courses typically have problems like
9 + 7 =
12 - 16 =
where the students are supposed to fill in the value on the right. It's not obvious from this type of problem that the equals sign means "what's on the left is equal to what's on the right" rather than "evaluate the expression on the left and enter the answer on the right".
Sounds like "the local government permitted it as part of a quid-pro-quo" would be even closer.
Unless you're referring to South Korea, in which case they could hardly get what they want from the US _without_ a military base.
You won't get all of that. Civil disobedience is a tactic which governments have adapted to and thus no longer works. Now if you break a bad law, the consequences aren't a showy public trial and a few months in jail. No, instead, they'll arrest you, freeze all your assets (so you can't defend yourself), harass your family, and delay resolution of the case until any media interest has subsided. THEN they'll have the trial and throw you in PMITA prison for a few years. Perhaps you'll get out; you'll be a convicted felon, having worth only as an bad example for others.
But the President of GM is Obama's bitch, so GM is really better considered part of the government than a corporation in its own right.
You proved that at least one employer is extremely impressed by the piece of paper.
As someone who makes hiring decisions, you've proven the OPs point.
Yeah, the production values are obviously too good, as anyone who has tried to get even lighting off a whiteboard can attest. But the staged office environments exist in real life; lawyers, in particular, often have an office for show. And bosses with show offices are likely the same types to hire HOPAs as assistants.
How could P=NP be proven undecidable? If P=NP is proven undecidable, it means there can be no deterministic polynomial-time algorithm to solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time (because such an algorithm would prove that P=NP). If no such algorithm exists, then P!=NP.
(this doesn't mean P=NP can't be undecidable... it just means that if if it is undecidable, the question of its undecidability is also so, and so on up the line)
Actually, that seems like a good deal for the Trophy Wife, provided she takes him to the cleaners at the divorce. Then she's financially well-off and free of her asshole ex-husband.
All Barbies are HOPAs. At least if you're about a foot tall anyway.
Exactly. On a survey, people may claim they they are "extremely concerned" about the potential loss of their personal information, but their actions say otherwise; they'll enter their personal information anywhere if it will get them dancing bunnies. On the other hand, most people are pretty careful about doing obviously stupid stuff which could lose them their job. If people really cared so as little about losing their job as they did about losing their financial information, they'd not only use the copier on their butts and surf porn on company time, they'd hit on the boss's daughter, call in sick 3 days out of 5, get into fistfights with their coworkers, and brag about shorting their company's stock.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
Always fun to see stories like this... the authoritatian greens can't help but applaud and criticize the West for not being more autocratic like China.
My guess would be gender reassignment surgery (M->F)
Wait, there's a sex scandal involving Carly Fiorina?
Oh, never mind, the OTHER disgraced CEO.
Resources are part of it, but incentive is a big one too. Sure, pursuit of profit is an incentive for development, but nothing quite focuses one's efforts like the likelihood of being killed and/or enslaved, along with your entire family/community/nation, if you fail.
Start with your right arm behind the wearer. Make sure your thumb is on the reinforced section holding the clasp, behind the clasp, on the side to your right. Your index and middle finders should be in a similar position on your left. Squeeze your thumb and the index and middle finger towards each other, while also pressing slightly in (towards you) with your arm. The bra should now be unhooked.
(Lefties use your left hand and switch left and right above.)
Alas, no. If the prisons were so full of non-violent offenders, they wouldn't be so horrible. Even your average imprisoned nerd doesn't have to worry about being raped by your average imprisoned pothead.
Only one problem with your entire rant: Jury decisions do NOT set precedent.