"[O]ne could also make a backup copy for later..store it on [his] harddrive..and burn when necessary. This would allow [him] to get a movie and send it back without having to watch it."
And so doing, one violates copyright. Just watch the movie and return it. Life is much easier when you play by the rules.
I remember some discussion a while back that Netflix only makes money if you view fewer than eight movies a month. So, if your rental is collecting dust, then you are doing what it expects.
My wife and I split the queue so each week we have one movie to watch. That seems to fit our schedule about right. She invariably gets hers three days before mine, so we end up watching two movies a week. Naturally, I might find myself doing other things when her chick flicks are being watched. Sometimes I send movies back too quick and find my queue has delays. So, I sit on the DVD for a week then send it.
We only have basic cable, and only then because of TNT and PBS (comes in fuzzy). My goal is to purge my life of TV via Netflix. Sort of like the patch. Right now, beyond Netflix, I think I watch about four hours of TV per week, which is a significant reduction.
I thought you were probably referring to the second form. I should have stated that explicitly in my response, but I suppose I did not (or at least not effectively). This is probably the most common fallacy we use in/.--I know I'm guilty. So, I thought I'd put a bit more information. Hope I didn't come off hostily.
"I've never come across that fallacy in philosophy class . . . " is itself an appeal to your authority. Of course, I've never taken a philosophy class, so I can also say I've never come across such a fallacy in philosophy classes.:-)
" . . . however, if you mean the 'Improper Appeal to Authority' fallacy then it isn't. . . . In any case, the insight and experience of long time programmer is valuable."
You're right and wrong. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Regardless of the accuracy of the authority, it remains a fallacy. However, the appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Wikipedia points out that this appeal can be used as shorthand in an argument rather than forcing the individual to fully develop his arguement--which makes sense in/. "Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence and the argument itself, not on the authority of the messenger drawing the conclusion from the evidence."[1]
While appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, it does not mean that such an appeal is without merit. As the Wikipedia points out, those in greater authority are less likely to be wrong---this allows the reader to make a better informed decision.[1] I started programming in 1982, but nearly a quarter century does not make me an authority as far as logic is concerned. Logic is not the only way to reach an informed decision, which you rightly pointed out when you stated the experience is very relevant, especially when discussing long-term trends.
As an aside, my uncle spent nearly 40 years as a doctor. He said that there were certain ideas put forward when he was a young doctor that proved to be false. As he retired, he noticed the same ideas were resurfacing by the younger generation. My point in this is that there are few truely original thoughts floating about. We might think there's a new way of doing things, but it might in actuality be an approach that failed and was forgotten. Thus, while a logical fallacy, we should still listen to credible sources of experiences so we don't simply pound sand at bad ideas.
Of course, I never took a class in philosophy (your appeal to authority); I am a law student in his ultimate semester (my appeal to authority).[2] And, I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night (Appeal to Commercials)
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority. This seems to be a fairly accessible source of information--it would be hard to show you the page I refer to from a book in my library. [2]: That is, I engage in applied philosophy of logical legal arguments on a routine basis.
"With his unruly hair dipping across his forehead, Douglas Merrill walks up to the lectern set up in a ballroom of the Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa, looking like a slightly rumpled university professor about to start a lecture."
This sounds more like the beginning of some Harlequin romance novel than the first line of a serious piece of journalism. The sentence even manages to run-on and has a simile. I expect that by the end of the article his hairy chest will be bared by the protagonist and that they will live happily ever after.
"What you can't do is type the contents of the book into a word processor, remove certain sections of it, reprint the modified book, and then sell that bound inside the original cover. That's the difference."
This is not a comparative description. For each copy of the movie these companies sell, they buy one from Hollywood. Thus, if they sell 1984 copies of Gladiator with the naughty bits omitted, then they buy 1984 copies from the movie production company first. Thus, it can be said they are only reselling the copy of the book that they themselves purchased and from which they ripped out naughty pages.
The only difference between my doing this and them doing this is that they are conducting the same business on a larger scale.
What is more important to Hollywood is what our society deems appropriate. If these companies become more popular, then it could be argued in court that this success means the naughty parts of these movies violate public decency and can therefore face government stricture. These standards have eroded over my lifetime, but it need not be so.
"1. Go back to old way patents were done - which includes working implementation upon application. Thus ideas become unpatentable. Same with business methods. It will also render 90% all the unreadable legalese to obscure what you are patenting obsolete."
From what I gather, the business method bar on patents was considered a bad judicial opinion. The statute is silent on this, and prior courts inserted the bar. So, if you want to fix this, just persuade your Congressmen to amend the statute.
And, these implementations can be done. The fact that another poster mentioned the SixDegrees.com is one example. Claim 9 of the patent has been done for years before the 2003 posting. Several of the other claims look rather easy to defeat.
It reminds me of a patent I saw a few weeks back. Somebody invented the pocket handkerchef in 2000, including methods for folding. The entire patent was accepted. A supplimental patent was issued that revoked all the claims--effectively deleting the patent.
Actually, the patent mentions 4 being the number of degrees of separation (probably the default), and that the degrees could be set by the computer operator. So, you could circumvent this patent by setting the number to any number _but_ four, and by not allowing the operator (I would think this is the user and not administrator) to set this value.
"2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise."
That's one of the requirements: that somebody competent in the field should be able to take the patent claims and specs and reproduce that is described. Just looking over the patent, I recognize quite a few things that I've been doing for nearly a decade now.
"4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time."
I don't think this is a good idea. The current system requires that the patent holder sue an alleged patent infringer, then allow the patent infringer to contest the validity of the patent. The bounty system increases the amount of litigation with people rushing to prove invalidity to get the bounty. This is not economical from a judicial perspective.
"Why hire clueless clerks when you could flocks of knowleable people examining patents because of a profit motive to turn them down? They won't have the power to deny a patent, they bring the case against it."
The clerks aren't clueless. They're supposed to be subject-matter experts. But, as I mentioned with the handkerchef patent, they are likely overworked. Then again, they are government employees--so for some _any_ work is overwork.
"5. No renewable patents. Lower patent length from 17 years to 9-10 years or so. Back in the 1700's, business and the pace of life overall was slower, let's reflect that."
Patents aren't renewable. The patent length is 20 years, less for certain types of patents. Perhaps what should be done is create a software patent that shortens the cycle to 7 years. Why seven instead of 9-10? Any number would be arbitrary without some analysis that shows how long such a patent is truely valuable. Patents exist to coax the inventor to publicize his invention by giving him a temporary right to exclude others from using it. The alternative is to allow the ideas to be protected by trade secret, which might bury certain ideas longer than if we had a patent system.
As far as temporary monopolies are concerned, I have a bigger beef with copyrights. I would rather see copyrights 1) shortened to 14 years renewable to a maximum of 28 years, and 2) all copyrighted works prior to 1976 not be covered by the Copyright Act of 1976. The statute allowed the Act to be retro-active, but that deprived the public domain of many works. Presentl
In regards to this section of the Constitution, Madison wrote in Federalist 43, "[t]he copyright of authors . . . [is a] right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully concides with the claims of individuals."
Therefore, the public is served by giving authors and inventors their rightful use as such. However, since these are essentially intangibles, this right is not absolute in duration so that the "commons" are not unduly depleted. Patent laws are a trade off between the inventor's right to enjoy the use of his invention, and society's need to be enriched by the ideas.
It is interesting that innovation seems less prevailent in areas where there are no patent laws.
I notice you said "struck down." This concerns me as this implies you would prefer judicial action in this situation. Are you implying that you prefer judicial choice to democratic choice? Congress does not "strike down," but rather repeals or amends. However, I agree that waiting 20 years for the ability to share in a software patent may be a bit long. I wonder if it would be prudent to push for a 10 year patent instead?
"The problem is deeper than that. What is taken away here is a liberty so obvious that noone has ever though of writing it down: The liberty to do anything with the result of a natural process - thinking. You are not allowed to use an idea that someone has patented."
Check out the Constitution. It is aware of the freedom of ideas, but when that idea has been reduced to a useful product, then Congress is given the power to enact legislation to protect that invention. The purpose is to encourage inventors to invent by giving them exclusivity--but also to give other inventors an incentive to find another solution--or invent around.
The best way to disable patents, IMO, is to publish your idea in way that clearly articulates a useful invention. A year after such publication, the publication becomes prior art, which is proof against patent.
"But how can you know? Everyone that has an idea should go to the patent office and look for a similar idea to see if (s)he could do anything with it?"
Well, another way is to wait for the patent holder to tell you to stop. When the patent holder shows you that you are infringing, then you should stop using the infringing technology until 1) you've found a workaround or 2) you have proof that the patent is invalid. I'm sure a close analysis of many patents would allow prior art publications to defeat them.
If you don't like it, then get a group together and lobby your Congressman and Senator. Or, try to get together a convention to amend the Constitution--since that's the source of Congress' power given it by the people.
With as many other screw-ups as other "geniuses" suggested (frogs in Austrailia, kudzu in Southeastern U.S, Seinfeld), I think somebody suggesting we need to "fix" the Earth by a giant umbrella just smacks of a screw-up in the making--especially when we keep hearing that this may not be a man-made thing. I saw a story where they were complaining that the glacier on Mt. Kilimonjaro had been up there for 11K years, but was disappearing. So, it must be our fault. Of course, the fact that it was not there 12K years ago must also be our fault.
My son and his teenaged friend are beginning to refer to all unexplainable events as a natural result of Global Warming.
"What's wrong with your girl friend?"
- Global Warming
"Why do fat women insist on wearing low-cut jeans?"
"Let's make handguns look dangerous first. Then we can say:"
"A gun kept in the home is . .."
Alternatives to a gun being kept in the home is, in the boat, in the car, in the office. I would think that a majority of guns are kept in the home, since carrying a loaded weapon in a car is typically illegal (absent a CCW permit or cop-like authority). I would assume that even gang-bangers keep guns in the house. Sort of like saying, "A car kept in the driveway/garage/carport is 22 times more likely to . . . "
So, I'm agreeing with you, and will likely become a troll by someone inclined to rebut silently.
Of course, I'm really bothered by this little tidbit. I was taught that a gun was _not_ a weapon, but something introduced to strange women: "this is my rifle, this is my gun; this one's for shooting, this one's for fun." So, to learn that a gun is capable of that much carnage is really disconcerting. Although, with as many abortions as are commit
"The problem with Bush I was that he didn't have the balls to stick to his convictions and veto the bill."
I can't disagree with you there. I think the law that automatically cut spending was a way to force the President to go with Congress--or at least to make it look less politically savory. Must remember that (at the time) one side of the political spectrum had a near lock on the media. So, if Bush the Elder vetoed, the shutdown would have been blamed on him. If he'd stuck to his guns and played it right, he still could have won. The problem is he was looking at the second term way too soon, IMO.
The CIA's fact book says the U.S. has a 99 percent literacy. However, Wikipedia says the U.S. has a 14% functional illiteracy rate.[1] So, depending on what is meant by literacy, the U.S. could have a literacy rate of 86%. I know at one time the functional literacy rate in Georgia (U.S.) was 70 percent. Although, I don't think literacy is the right measure of an educational system.
I also don't think that quantity spent in education is an accurate measure. While I can't cite to it, I know that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) spends roughly $11K per pupil. The Arkansas Supreme Court said that the right amount of money per pupil for a decent education (in Arkansas) is $5,400. However, Arkansas rates among the worst nationally for education. Conversely, I recall that Seatle does far better with its education system, but spends less per pupil than Arkansas on average, and substantially less than the LRSD.[2]
Ten percent of the average school district's budget is from federal funding, according to a course I took last Fall in Education Law. Of course, the Federal government shouldn't be involved in education. I believe it does so by virtue of the Spending Clause, which some would say allows Congress to seduce states into accepting money in exchange for ascenting to the strings that were attached.
Bush the Elder didn't lie. He was out maneuvered by a Democrat-led Congress that sent a tax bill he had no chance of beating in a veto battle.
"Bush initially presented Congress a proposed budget containing steep spending cuts and no new taxes, but congressional Democrats dismissed this out of hand. . . . The alternative would have been to veto any budget bill that came out of Congress, risking a potential government shutdown and possibly triggering the automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act. . . . [Eventually,] Bush agreed to a new resolution, and soon after the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was finally passed. This new proposal replaced some of the fuel taxes with a 10% surtax on the top income tax bracket (thus raising the top marginal tax rate to 31%) and also included new excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, automobiles and luxury yachts."[1]
It is worth mentioning that Bush (or any President) is not able to pass tax legislation. That's for Congress. He can make recomendations and he can veto (not that he has yet, AFAIK), but he can't enact legislation.
"Was a new state law really needed for something like this? . . . At least this wasn't a federal initiative."
I think this kind of legislation belongs with the state. The Federal government already encroaches in areas they really don't belong. The rating for DVDs is essentially a self-censoring activity by the movie industry with compliance by retailers. I'm not aware of any law actually enforcing the ratings (except pornography). IIRC, the adoption of the movie rating system was a move to stave off government involvement. Because major movie theater chains are at the whim of movie companies (in some cases actually owned by same), then the rating system was enforced on the distributers. Now, this private action has acquired quasi-legal status (i.e., we accept the rating system as if it were law, but it really is not).
Here, we seem to have an industry who has ignored the building storm cloud and did not 1) create a rating system and 2) enforce that system on their distributers. While they may have done the first on their own initiative (I haven't paid enough attention to the history), the second seems not to be the case. Thus, the state law enforces a rating system that is otherwise without enforcement.
Of course, the next logical step for those opposed to this is to find a test case where the law is violated, then seek an plutocratic solution via the judiciary--rather than seek a solution rooted in the political, democratic branches of government. This will take the form of an appeal to either the State Supreme Court or SCOTUS. Although, I think the opponents to this measure would want to avoid SCOTUS as it currently is trending toward enforcing the language of the First Amendment as prohibiting legislation against political dissent.
Check out the patent. The patent claims limit the scope to portable media players, which does not necessarily mean laptop computers. Sure, laptop computers play music, but that is not their primary purpose, whereas a portable media player is specifically geared to just that. The patent mentions specific button configurations and how the user interacts with the menu. For example, they mention three "soft" function buttons (i.e. the function of the button changes on context).
If the patented approach had been in common use for years, it is less likely the PO would have issued the patent.
"but also let them publish their claims in a peer reviewed journal so that people smarter than most of us can judge them."
However, what is to prevent those who control those peer reviewed journals from being hostily opposed to contra-human-generated global warming and maliciously excluding those articles?
Don't assume that because they are "smarter" that they have a clue. Otherwise, by extension, we should only allow the intelligent to vote in political elections or hold office. Entre Gattaca.
"Yes they do. They have to point to flaws and holes in the current theory, otherwise they're just gasbagging."
And if they're gasbagging, then they are just spewing hot air, which contributes to global warming. Therefore, if those opposed to the global warming theory (that man is responsible) aren't pointing to flaws and holes, then they are contributing to the problem they oppose by increasing global warmth. A bit circular, but fun to write nonetheless.
He didn't mean United States science, he was emphasizing "us," but he was gramatically incorrect. He meant to say something like "an embarassment to our science.":-)
I noticed you categorized this as western thinking. That's rather boolean of you. Why not find the appropriate shade of gray and call it "thinking influenced by the scientific desire to categorize things?" The problem with complaining about black and white and suggesting shade of gray is that you're merely substituting one level of granularity for another. There is still a black and white.
The problem is _nouns_ themselves imply a need to categorize. We have star, planet, moon, for example. We could reduce it to star, satellite, but that would be too granular. We could create dozens of terms, "jovian planet" for example, but that merely increases the number of nouns we need. Eskimos have hundreds of terms for snow, we have but a few. My point? We defined the ones we need, and they did the ones they need. It's all in how definite do you need to be?
I'll give you one better. How many terms are there for heavenly bodies in the major eastern languages (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, etc.)?
"Feminist ideology is, and always has been, about choice."
And, when Microsoft said it wanted to "partner up" with smaller companies, it didn't really mean "we want to take your novel idea, incorporate it into Windows, then run you out of business." I mean, you don't believe every advert you read, do you?
Feminism says it's about choice, but I know my wife is torn over the issue of staying home with our son. She has an MBA, and had a good career. However, when she had our son she felt the better option was to remain home with him to see that he receives enough nurturing. She sees other kids who return from day care who act like miniture paroled felons. On one hand, she is thankful that we're able to have her stay home. On the other hand, she feels like the Feminist pressure to work makes her feel like a non-citizen. We presently live out in the Midwest, but will be returning to her home town of Washington DC. She dreads the return--at least where we are she can weather the storm. In DC, she's pretty confident she will be branded with the scarlet letter 'H.'
The fact that my wife feels like that, and the fact that I know she is not unique in this regard, I cannot buy the party line that Feminism is _really_ about choice. Like so many other things, you are free to choose whatever you want, as long as it is within our narrow range (i.e. pick your profession, but don't pick staying home). It's sort of like those who claim to be tolerant are intolerant of anybody who is intolerant.
"As said in the comment above.. a decade ago. Sympathizers in the USA were well known for supporting the IRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army / Real IRA) in Ireland through the 80's and 90's, and the UK has constantly houded the US to combat this funding."
I left out in my comment that the terrorist groups did not include the IRA--my professor had to focus on terrorists that did not garner a lot of sympathy in the U.S. These groups included Abu Nidal and Hizballah. I knew I should have said that in my original comment, but it did not seem to be significant.
"Terrorists are very well funded if we are to believe the crap that spews forth from our leaders so why dont they take an approach that is different from normal?"
In the mid-90s, I took a course in Introduction to International Terrorism. The professor's master's thesis was on terrorist funding resources in the United States. He told us the story of how his thesis came together and the argument he got into with his advisor.
He was studying somewhere in the Mid-West, I forget where. Anyway, the thesis ended up as a sort of bet: how active is terrorist funding in the following X Mid-Western cities? In the end, he found that several big-named groups (in the 1980s) were actively receving funds in those cities. He said his research was illuminating as to just how well-funded these groups were based only on activity in the U.S., not to mention other potential sources.
So, while you may want to discount what the government says about terrorist funding, I say to you that without hearing this from the government I can assure you that terrorists are at least as well-funded as the government would have you believe. Just because the government says it does not make it false.
Slashdot Mirror
"[O]ne could also make a backup copy for later..store it on [his] harddrive..and burn when necessary. This would allow [him] to get a movie and send it back without having to watch it."
And so doing, one violates copyright. Just watch the movie and return it. Life is much easier when you play by the rules.
I remember some discussion a while back that Netflix only makes money if you view fewer than eight movies a month. So, if your rental is collecting dust, then you are doing what it expects.
My wife and I split the queue so each week we have one movie to watch. That seems to fit our schedule about right. She invariably gets hers three days before mine, so we end up watching two movies a week. Naturally, I might find myself doing other things when her chick flicks are being watched. Sometimes I send movies back too quick and find my queue has delays. So, I sit on the DVD for a week then send it.
We only have basic cable, and only then because of TNT and PBS (comes in fuzzy). My goal is to purge my life of TV via Netflix. Sort of like the patch. Right now, beyond Netflix, I think I watch about four hours of TV per week, which is a significant reduction.
I thought you were probably referring to the second form. I should have stated that explicitly in my response, but I suppose I did not (or at least not effectively). This is probably the most common fallacy we use in /.--I know I'm guilty. So, I thought I'd put a bit more information. Hope I didn't come off hostily.
"I've never come across that fallacy in philosophy class . . . " is itself an appeal to your authority. Of course, I've never taken a philosophy class, so I can also say I've never come across such a fallacy in philosophy classes. :-)
/. "Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence and the argument itself, not on the authority of the messenger drawing the conclusion from the evidence."[1]
" . . . however, if you mean the 'Improper Appeal to Authority' fallacy then it isn't. . . . In any case, the insight and experience of long time programmer is valuable."
You're right and wrong. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Regardless of the accuracy of the authority, it remains a fallacy. However, the appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Wikipedia points out that this appeal can be used as shorthand in an argument rather than forcing the individual to fully develop his arguement--which makes sense in
While appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, it does not mean that such an appeal is without merit. As the Wikipedia points out, those in greater authority are less likely to be wrong---this allows the reader to make a better informed decision.[1] I started programming in 1982, but nearly a quarter century does not make me an authority as far as logic is concerned. Logic is not the only way to reach an informed decision, which you rightly pointed out when you stated the experience is very relevant, especially when discussing long-term trends.
As an aside, my uncle spent nearly 40 years as a doctor. He said that there were certain ideas put forward when he was a young doctor that proved to be false. As he retired, he noticed the same ideas were resurfacing by the younger generation. My point in this is that there are few truely original thoughts floating about. We might think there's a new way of doing things, but it might in actuality be an approach that failed and was forgotten. Thus, while a logical fallacy, we should still listen to credible sources of experiences so we don't simply pound sand at bad ideas.
Of course, I never took a class in philosophy (your appeal to authority); I am a law student in his ultimate semester (my appeal to authority).[2] And, I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night (Appeal to Commercials)
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority. This seems to be a fairly accessible source of information--it would be hard to show you the page I refer to from a book in my library.
[2]: That is, I engage in applied philosophy of logical legal arguments on a routine basis.
"With his unruly hair dipping across his forehead, Douglas Merrill walks up to the lectern set up in a ballroom of the Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa, looking like a slightly rumpled university professor about to start a lecture."
This sounds more like the beginning of some Harlequin romance novel than the first line of a serious piece of journalism. The sentence even manages to run-on and has a simile. I expect that by the end of the article his hairy chest will be bared by the protagonist and that they will live happily ever after.
"What you can't do is type the contents of the book into a word processor, remove certain sections of it, reprint the modified book, and then sell that bound inside the original cover. That's the difference."
This is not a comparative description. For each copy of the movie these companies sell, they buy one from Hollywood. Thus, if they sell 1984 copies of Gladiator with the naughty bits omitted, then they buy 1984 copies from the movie production company first. Thus, it can be said they are only reselling the copy of the book that they themselves purchased and from which they ripped out naughty pages.
The only difference between my doing this and them doing this is that they are conducting the same business on a larger scale.
What is more important to Hollywood is what our society deems appropriate. If these companies become more popular, then it could be argued in court that this success means the naughty parts of these movies violate public decency and can therefore face government stricture. These standards have eroded over my lifetime, but it need not be so.
"1. Go back to old way patents were done - which includes working implementation upon application. Thus ideas become unpatentable. Same with business methods. It will also render 90% all the unreadable legalese to obscure what you are patenting obsolete."
From what I gather, the business method bar on patents was considered a bad judicial opinion. The statute is silent on this, and prior courts inserted the bar. So, if you want to fix this, just persuade your Congressmen to amend the statute.
And, these implementations can be done. The fact that another poster mentioned the SixDegrees.com is one example. Claim 9 of the patent has been done for years before the 2003 posting. Several of the other claims look rather easy to defeat.
It reminds me of a patent I saw a few weeks back. Somebody invented the pocket handkerchef in 2000, including methods for folding. The entire patent was accepted. A supplimental patent was issued that revoked all the claims--effectively deleting the patent.
Actually, the patent mentions 4 being the number of degrees of separation (probably the default), and that the degrees could be set by the computer operator. So, you could circumvent this patent by setting the number to any number _but_ four, and by not allowing the operator (I would think this is the user and not administrator) to set this value.
"2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise."
That's one of the requirements: that somebody competent in the field should be able to take the patent claims and specs and reproduce that is described. Just looking over the patent, I recognize quite a few things that I've been doing for nearly a decade now.
"4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time."
I don't think this is a good idea. The current system requires that the patent holder sue an alleged patent infringer, then allow the patent infringer to contest the validity of the patent. The bounty system increases the amount of litigation with people rushing to prove invalidity to get the bounty. This is not economical from a judicial perspective.
"Why hire clueless clerks when you could flocks of knowleable people examining patents because of a profit motive to turn them down? They won't have the power to deny a patent, they bring the case against it."
The clerks aren't clueless. They're supposed to be subject-matter experts. But, as I mentioned with the handkerchef patent, they are likely overworked. Then again, they are government employees--so for some _any_ work is overwork.
"5. No renewable patents. Lower patent length from 17 years to 9-10 years or so. Back in the 1700's, business and the pace of life overall was slower, let's reflect that."
Patents aren't renewable. The patent length is 20 years, less for certain types of patents. Perhaps what should be done is create a software patent that shortens the cycle to 7 years. Why seven instead of 9-10? Any number would be arbitrary without some analysis that shows how long such a patent is truely valuable. Patents exist to coax the inventor to publicize his invention by giving him a temporary right to exclude others from using it. The alternative is to allow the ideas to be protected by trade secret, which might bury certain ideas longer than if we had a patent system.
As far as temporary monopolies are concerned, I have a bigger beef with copyrights. I would rather see copyrights 1) shortened to 14 years renewable to a maximum of 28 years, and 2) all copyrighted works prior to 1976 not be covered by the Copyright Act of 1976. The statute allowed the Act to be retro-active, but that deprived the public domain of many works. Presentl
In regards to this section of the Constitution, Madison wrote in Federalist 43, "[t]he copyright of authors . . . [is a] right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully concides with the claims of individuals."
Therefore, the public is served by giving authors and inventors their rightful use as such. However, since these are essentially intangibles, this right is not absolute in duration so that the "commons" are not unduly depleted. Patent laws are a trade off between the inventor's right to enjoy the use of his invention, and society's need to be enriched by the ideas.
It is interesting that innovation seems less prevailent in areas where there are no patent laws.
I notice you said "struck down." This concerns me as this implies you would prefer judicial action in this situation. Are you implying that you prefer judicial choice to democratic choice? Congress does not "strike down," but rather repeals or amends. However, I agree that waiting 20 years for the ability to share in a software patent may be a bit long. I wonder if it would be prudent to push for a 10 year patent instead?
"The problem is deeper than that. What is taken away here is a liberty so obvious that noone has ever though of writing it down: The liberty to do anything with the result of a natural process - thinking. You are not allowed to use an idea that someone has patented."
Check out the Constitution. It is aware of the freedom of ideas, but when that idea has been reduced to a useful product, then Congress is given the power to enact legislation to protect that invention. The purpose is to encourage inventors to invent by giving them exclusivity--but also to give other inventors an incentive to find another solution--or invent around.
The best way to disable patents, IMO, is to publish your idea in way that clearly articulates a useful invention. A year after such publication, the publication becomes prior art, which is proof against patent.
"But how can you know? Everyone that has an idea should go to the patent office and look for a similar idea to see if (s)he could do anything with it?"
Well, another way is to wait for the patent holder to tell you to stop. When the patent holder shows you that you are infringing, then you should stop using the infringing technology until 1) you've found a workaround or 2) you have proof that the patent is invalid. I'm sure a close analysis of many patents would allow prior art publications to defeat them.
If you don't like it, then get a group together and lobby your Congressman and Senator. Or, try to get together a convention to amend the Constitution--since that's the source of Congress' power given it by the people.
"They'll keep spewing this BS to get what they want. In the cold war days, it was communism, now it's terrorism. I wonder what's next..."
I vote for liberalism.
With as many other screw-ups as other "geniuses" suggested (frogs in Austrailia, kudzu in Southeastern U.S, Seinfeld), I think somebody suggesting we need to "fix" the Earth by a giant umbrella just smacks of a screw-up in the making--especially when we keep hearing that this may not be a man-made thing. I saw a story where they were complaining that the glacier on Mt. Kilimonjaro had been up there for 11K years, but was disappearing. So, it must be our fault. Of course, the fact that it was not there 12K years ago must also be our fault.
My son and his teenaged friend are beginning to refer to all unexplainable events as a natural result of Global Warming.
"What's wrong with your girl friend?"
- Global Warming
"Why do fat women insist on wearing low-cut jeans?"
- GLobal Warming.
"Let's make handguns look dangerous first. Then we can say:"
."
"A gun kept in the home is . .
Alternatives to a gun being kept in the home is, in the boat, in the car, in the office. I would think that a majority of guns are kept in the home, since carrying a loaded weapon in a car is typically illegal (absent a CCW permit or cop-like authority). I would assume that even gang-bangers keep guns in the house. Sort of like saying, "A car kept in the driveway/garage/carport is 22 times more likely to . . . "
So, I'm agreeing with you, and will likely become a troll by someone inclined to rebut silently.
Of course, I'm really bothered by this little tidbit. I was taught that a gun was _not_ a weapon, but something introduced to strange women: "this is my rifle, this is my gun; this one's for shooting, this one's for fun." So, to learn that a gun is capable of that much carnage is really disconcerting. Although, with as many abortions as are commit
"The problem with Bush I was that he didn't have the balls to stick to his convictions and veto the bill."
I can't disagree with you there. I think the law that automatically cut spending was a way to force the President to go with Congress--or at least to make it look less politically savory. Must remember that (at the time) one side of the political spectrum had a near lock on the media. So, if Bush the Elder vetoed, the shutdown would have been blamed on him. If he'd stuck to his guns and played it right, he still could have won. The problem is he was looking at the second term way too soon, IMO.
The CIA's fact book says the U.S. has a 99 percent literacy. However, Wikipedia says the U.S. has a 14% functional illiteracy rate.[1] So, depending on what is meant by literacy, the U.S. could have a literacy rate of 86%. I know at one time the functional literacy rate in Georgia (U.S.) was 70 percent. Although, I don't think literacy is the right measure of an educational system.
i ted_States
I also don't think that quantity spent in education is an accurate measure. While I can't cite to it, I know that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) spends roughly $11K per pupil. The Arkansas Supreme Court said that the right amount of money per pupil for a decent education (in Arkansas) is $5,400. However, Arkansas rates among the worst nationally for education. Conversely, I recall that Seatle does far better with its education system, but spends less per pupil than Arkansas on average, and substantially less than the LRSD.[2]
Ten percent of the average school district's budget is from federal funding, according to a course I took last Fall in Education Law. Of course, the Federal government shouldn't be involved in education. I believe it does so by virtue of the Spending Clause, which some would say allows Congress to seduce states into accepting money in exchange for ascenting to the strings that were attached.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_rate#The_Un
[2]: This is when adjusted for cost of living, as it's cheaper to live in Little Rock than Seatle.
Bush the Elder didn't lie. He was out maneuvered by a Democrat-led Congress that sent a tax bill he had no chance of beating in a veto battle.
_ taxes
"Bush initially presented Congress a proposed budget containing steep spending cuts and no new taxes, but congressional Democrats dismissed this out of hand. . . . The alternative would have been to veto any budget bill that came out of Congress, risking a potential government shutdown and possibly triggering the automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act. . . . [Eventually,] Bush agreed to a new resolution, and soon after the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was finally passed. This new proposal replaced some of the fuel taxes with a 10% surtax on the top income tax bracket (thus raising the top marginal tax rate to 31%) and also included new excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, automobiles and luxury yachts."[1]
It is worth mentioning that Bush (or any President) is not able to pass tax legislation. That's for Congress. He can make recomendations and he can veto (not that he has yet, AFAIK), but he can't enact legislation.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_No_new
"Was a new state law really needed for something like this? . . . At least this wasn't a federal initiative."
I think this kind of legislation belongs with the state. The Federal government already encroaches in areas they really don't belong. The rating for DVDs is essentially a self-censoring activity by the movie industry with compliance by retailers. I'm not aware of any law actually enforcing the ratings (except pornography). IIRC, the adoption of the movie rating system was a move to stave off government involvement. Because major movie theater chains are at the whim of movie companies (in some cases actually owned by same), then the rating system was enforced on the distributers. Now, this private action has acquired quasi-legal status (i.e., we accept the rating system as if it were law, but it really is not).
Here, we seem to have an industry who has ignored the building storm cloud and did not 1) create a rating system and 2) enforce that system on their distributers. While they may have done the first on their own initiative (I haven't paid enough attention to the history), the second seems not to be the case. Thus, the state law enforces a rating system that is otherwise without enforcement.
Of course, the next logical step for those opposed to this is to find a test case where the law is violated, then seek an plutocratic solution via the judiciary--rather than seek a solution rooted in the political, democratic branches of government. This will take the form of an appeal to either the State Supreme Court or SCOTUS. Although, I think the opponents to this measure would want to avoid SCOTUS as it currently is trending toward enforcing the language of the First Amendment as prohibiting legislation against political dissent.
http://tinyurl.com/olk32
Check out the patent. The patent claims limit the scope to portable media players, which does not necessarily mean laptop computers. Sure, laptop computers play music, but that is not their primary purpose, whereas a portable media player is specifically geared to just that. The patent mentions specific button configurations and how the user interacts with the menu. For example, they mention three "soft" function buttons (i.e. the function of the button changes on context).
If the patented approach had been in common use for years, it is less likely the PO would have issued the patent.
http://tinyurl.com/olk32 This is the link to the patent in question.
"but also let them publish their claims in a peer reviewed journal so that people smarter than most of us can judge them."
However, what is to prevent those who control those peer reviewed journals from being hostily opposed to contra-human-generated global warming and maliciously excluding those articles?
Don't assume that because they are "smarter" that they have a clue. Otherwise, by extension, we should only allow the intelligent to vote in political elections or hold office. Entre Gattaca.
"Yes they do. They have to point to flaws and holes in the current theory, otherwise they're just gasbagging."
And if they're gasbagging, then they are just spewing hot air, which contributes to global warming. Therefore, if those opposed to the global warming theory (that man is responsible) aren't pointing to flaws and holes, then they are contributing to the problem they oppose by increasing global warmth. A bit circular, but fun to write nonetheless.
He didn't mean United States science, he was emphasizing "us," but he was gramatically incorrect. He meant to say something like "an embarassment to our science." :-)
"It's a real flaw in western thinking."
I noticed you categorized this as western thinking. That's rather boolean of you. Why not find the appropriate shade of gray and call it "thinking influenced by the scientific desire to categorize things?" The problem with complaining about black and white and suggesting shade of gray is that you're merely substituting one level of granularity for another. There is still a black and white.
The problem is _nouns_ themselves imply a need to categorize. We have star, planet, moon, for example. We could reduce it to star, satellite, but that would be too granular. We could create dozens of terms, "jovian planet" for example, but that merely increases the number of nouns we need. Eskimos have hundreds of terms for snow, we have but a few. My point? We defined the ones we need, and they did the ones they need. It's all in how definite do you need to be?
I'll give you one better. How many terms are there for heavenly bodies in the major eastern languages (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, etc.)?
In related news, Chilean astronomers have realized that their cleaning crew has not been cleaning the telescope.
"Feminist ideology is, and always has been, about choice."
And, when Microsoft said it wanted to "partner up" with smaller companies, it didn't really mean "we want to take your novel idea, incorporate it into Windows, then run you out of business." I mean, you don't believe every advert you read, do you?
Feminism says it's about choice, but I know my wife is torn over the issue of staying home with our son. She has an MBA, and had a good career. However, when she had our son she felt the better option was to remain home with him to see that he receives enough nurturing. She sees other kids who return from day care who act like miniture paroled felons. On one hand, she is thankful that we're able to have her stay home. On the other hand, she feels like the Feminist pressure to work makes her feel like a non-citizen. We presently live out in the Midwest, but will be returning to her home town of Washington DC. She dreads the return--at least where we are she can weather the storm. In DC, she's pretty confident she will be branded with the scarlet letter 'H.'
The fact that my wife feels like that, and the fact that I know she is not unique in this regard, I cannot buy the party line that Feminism is _really_ about choice. Like so many other things, you are free to choose whatever you want, as long as it is within our narrow range (i.e. pick your profession, but don't pick staying home). It's sort of like those who claim to be tolerant are intolerant of anybody who is intolerant.
"As said in the comment above.. a decade ago. Sympathizers in the USA were well known for supporting the IRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army / Real IRA) in Ireland through the 80's and 90's, and the UK has constantly houded the US to combat this funding."
I left out in my comment that the terrorist groups did not include the IRA--my professor had to focus on terrorists that did not garner a lot of sympathy in the U.S. These groups included Abu Nidal and Hizballah. I knew I should have said that in my original comment, but it did not seem to be significant.
"Terrorists are very well funded if we are to believe the crap that spews forth from our leaders so why dont they take an approach that is different from normal?"
In the mid-90s, I took a course in Introduction to International Terrorism. The professor's master's thesis was on terrorist funding resources in the United States. He told us the story of how his thesis came together and the argument he got into with his advisor.
He was studying somewhere in the Mid-West, I forget where. Anyway, the thesis ended up as a sort of bet: how active is terrorist funding in the following X Mid-Western cities? In the end, he found that several big-named groups (in the 1980s) were actively receving funds in those cities. He said his research was illuminating as to just how well-funded these groups were based only on activity in the U.S., not to mention other potential sources.
So, while you may want to discount what the government says about terrorist funding, I say to you that without hearing this from the government I can assure you that terrorists are at least as well-funded as the government would have you believe. Just because the government says it does not make it false.