So what's strange about it? The large price changes are temporary and due to the customers with the most inelastic short-term demand. And it's an oligopoly situation, so the other suppliers have ample means to throttle supply and increase prices, both legally and illegally.
I consider the IPCC as having an adversarial relationship with the truth, like a lawyer in court. What is significant is what they're forced to admit. Currently, they're admitting that temperature sensitivity could be as low as 2 C per doubling. If they then go to the new range, that means the temperature sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C per doubling. My view is that implies that temperature sensitivity estimates have dropped significantly and the IPCC is being forced to account for that.
They have to insure that their estimates include the current best guess range in order to maintain credibility down the road. That's the limit to how much they can bias their estimates of relevant physical observables in favor of the AGW theory. To be forced to lower the bottom threshold is a significant event. We'll see if it survives the political process of the IPCC.
Finally, if anyone didn't want "leaked" paraphrasing to dominate the discussion of upcoming IPCC reports, then perhaps a more open and public process is in order? In my view, a more overt politicization of the IPCC would result, but at least the results would be more credible than they currently are.
Ah, yes. The freedom to do what Authority decides you ought to do. Bottom line is that in free societies, people will on occasion do things that aren't good for themselves or for society. Freedom means the freedom to do wrong things - thought not freedom to do them without consequence.
How about instead "Just be thankful you have workers"?
What's more important: human beings or the profit of corporations?
What I think is the problem here is the implicit assumption that there's some sort of zero sum game between the two. But it's quite possible to interfere with the employment relationship in a way that is detrimental to both human beings and the profit of private enterprise (not just "corporations") and that this is routinely done throughout the developed world.
All the programs to try to hold the system together will do little good unless we apply very strict birth control measures to our nation as well as the rest of the world.
What nation is "our nation"? I live in the US which isn't having a population problem (last I heard, fertility is just below replacement except for first and second generation immigrants). And Europe and Japan has even less of a population growth issue. That happens to be most of the developed world.
The people in Boulder Colorado are feeling global warming rather directly today.
Observation bias. You wouldn't say that global warming had ended because a winter was somewhat cool. But it's the same gimmick to blame weather that would have happened anyway on global warming.
Apparently, other planes with lower priority missions were allowed to fly in these areas. Perhaps FEMA already had mapping capability in place. Else it does seem a bit foolish.
What sort of "intolerance to criticism" would Freeman Dyson have to """sceptics"""" who continuously denied the reality of the overwhelming scientific evidence for something he knows very well is 100% true, like quantum mechanics?
Speaking of the anti-science bullshit, here's a prime example. The above is just a spittle-heavy ad hominem fallacy. If in the future, you ever want to write an argument on this subject that is taken seriously, then start by a) taking the opposition seriously, and b) don't stoop to self parody.
And if that selfishly motivated denialism could substantially exacerbate catastrophic consequences for the entirety of human civilization?
You don't have "catastrophic consequences", hence your argument is irrelevant. My view is that you probably don't know enough about "climate change" to have a scientifically worthwhile opinion. Some people get Jesus or Allah. You got climate change.
So your solution is to simply ignore the ecological catastrophe, fuck future generations (and even some current populations) and live with the consequences of a perfectly avoidable disaster.
Well, when the disaster is less disastrous than the means of avoiding it, then yes, that is a solution.
What is the purpose of patent law for you, if it is not to get people to invent things that otherwise would not have been (or at least not for a long time)?
So to extend my car analogy, it's like there's a washed out bridge from a flood, and they put up a barricade across the road while they tried to recuse someone from the flood waters and these people simply drove around the barricade and said "we're here to help!". The answer was get back on the other side of the barricade, or be arrested.
And what happens if those people really were more capable of helping than the government which is threatening arrest? After all, trying to rescue someone is not quite the same as actually rescuing someone.
If it turns out it's the latter, we can ask some interesting questions., Since persuading people that climate change is not as the scientists represent it -a ticking time bomb we are running out of time to defuse and one whose consequences include the mass death of humans, is lying about climate science not the equivalent to shouting (no) fire in a crowded (and burning) theater?
The answer is an obvious "no". We are tired of loud-mouthed, would be thugs and bullies, such as yourself, trying to shape disagreement on the presence and severity of AGW as some some sort of "crime against humanity" - to use your own words.
The "shouting fire" example is fundamentally broken because there is no fire. There is a potential problem, yes, but the urgency just isn't there.
Could China or Japan or Germany or Russia or any other country just legally and unilaterally decide that say, David and Charles Koch represent too much of a threat to human civilization to permit them to go on living?
Well, some of those countries aren't based on law. So what is legal changes from moment to moment. And the countries of law such as Japan and Germany could not arbitrarily kill unpopular people because that would be illegal.
Laws exist to make society livable. They are defined according and in reaction to the environment. If that environment changes dramatically, then we can expect that near future generations of people will look back see the times we are living in now quite differently than we do, just the way we look back on slavery as an abomination or the post WWII generation of Germans were completely appalled at what their parents had done.
Well then, let us all work to prevent your dystopia from becoming a reality. Your role could be real easy or real hard - I really don't know. All I ask of you is to try to become a better person and put aside this pointless hate.
So you would support the crowbar can opener patent?
Of course.
What invention actually would qualify under that excessive standard?
New drugs, new designs for computer chips, new aircraft designs.
I was asking for things that would actually qualify. I believe these would be done anyway. Their R&D costs aren't big enough, especially once you get away from the developed world and its ridiculous regulatory burden.
In a less democratic system, the problems from government interference resolves themselves with the government being overthrown.
Unless it doesn't. A lot of such coups and revolutions keep the bureaucracy that is causing the problems simply because they have no better option available.
Patents are supposed to be what we grant the inventor in exchange for their revealing a "trade secret" that we wouldn't have otherwise been able to figure out.
Obvious in hindsight != something we would have otherwise figured out.
By your ridiculously low standards, this guy from a post I saw on reddit should be able to patent his phone stand made out of a paper clip.
Yes, I believe that is patentable as well.
It has to also be something that is not obvious.
Where's the obviousness? Just because we have erasers and pencils doesn't meant that it's obvious to attach an eraser (especially via a non-obvious means!) to a pencil. Similarly, just because one can contort paper clips into various shapes doesn't meant that it's obvious how to make a phone holder out of one.
Before this new invention, crow bars could not open cans out of the box. So what?
It makes it novel, that's the "so what".
We should only be offering the monopoly when it is unlikely that an inventor would be willing to spend the time an effort to create the invention without it, as in the case with inventions that have very high research and development costs.
What invention actually would qualify under that excessive standard?
Just because some sort of regulation is necessary to the existence of free markets, doesn't mean such regulation doesn't usually inhibit trading on such markets. There really is a huge problem with government interference in these things.
For example, a classic case is interference with market crashes and the like. Often there are large investing opportunities associated with such crashes and so a market could sort this out on their own, while transferring wealth from poor traders to better ones. But government protects poor traders by suspending market trading when the market shifts too much. Similar things go on when bad high frequency trades and fat finger mistakes are allowed to be reversed.
As to your example, people are excluded by the rules - particularly, you have to show some level of assets and knowledge in order to trade certain kinds of securities. And securities have to follow a host of rules in order to be listed for general trading to the public.
The point made by the court in OP's post is that it was not an invention because it was just two common things, stuck together.
Actually, I don't see why that is relevant since a pencil with a built in eraser did do something new - it erased out of the box which apparently was new for pencils at the time. My take is that ancient patent holder was indeed robbed. But even if he had gotten that patent, it'd still be long gone by now.
Why wouldn't you think a widening of the range of uncertainty to be a retreat? My take is that the actual estimate is probably the low end of that broad range, meaning they just went from an estimate of 2.0 C doubling sensitivity to 1.5 C doubling sensitivity.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe first you cook meth
If meth cooking were legal, none of the rest would follow.
So what's strange about it? The large price changes are temporary and due to the customers with the most inelastic short-term demand. And it's an oligopoly situation, so the other suppliers have ample means to throttle supply and increase prices, both legally and illegally.
I consider the IPCC as having an adversarial relationship with the truth, like a lawyer in court. What is significant is what they're forced to admit. Currently, they're admitting that temperature sensitivity could be as low as 2 C per doubling. If they then go to the new range, that means the temperature sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C per doubling. My view is that implies that temperature sensitivity estimates have dropped significantly and the IPCC is being forced to account for that.
They have to insure that their estimates include the current best guess range in order to maintain credibility down the road. That's the limit to how much they can bias their estimates of relevant physical observables in favor of the AGW theory. To be forced to lower the bottom threshold is a significant event. We'll see if it survives the political process of the IPCC.
Finally, if anyone didn't want "leaked" paraphrasing to dominate the discussion of upcoming IPCC reports, then perhaps a more open and public process is in order? In my view, a more overt politicization of the IPCC would result, but at least the results would be more credible than they currently are.
Ah, yes. The freedom to do what Authority decides you ought to do. Bottom line is that in free societies, people will on occasion do things that aren't good for themselves or for society. Freedom means the freedom to do wrong things - thought not freedom to do them without consequence.
How about instead "Just be thankful you have workers"?
What's more important: human beings or the profit of corporations?
What I think is the problem here is the implicit assumption that there's some sort of zero sum game between the two. But it's quite possible to interfere with the employment relationship in a way that is detrimental to both human beings and the profit of private enterprise (not just "corporations") and that this is routinely done throughout the developed world.
if they need a finger to gain access then they may as well take a finger its just one more casualty
In other words, it does make it considerably more difficult. And not every would-be terrorist puts that kind of thought and planning in.
All the programs to try to hold the system together will do little good unless we apply very strict birth control measures to our nation as well as the rest of the world.
What nation is "our nation"? I live in the US which isn't having a population problem (last I heard, fertility is just below replacement except for first and second generation immigrants). And Europe and Japan has even less of a population growth issue. That happens to be most of the developed world.
The people in Boulder Colorado are feeling global warming rather directly today.
Observation bias. You wouldn't say that global warming had ended because a winter was somewhat cool. But it's the same gimmick to blame weather that would have happened anyway on global warming.
That explains why India pollutes more than USA.
They do. It's just of the usual forms of pollution, such as raw sewage, not carbon dioxide.
Apparently, other planes with lower priority missions were allowed to fly in these areas. Perhaps FEMA already had mapping capability in place. Else it does seem a bit foolish.
Unless they're unlucky enough to live next to nicer areas where the locals won't let them in, or where desertification is picking up the pace.
\Well, they can always move to a place where they are "luckier".
What sort of "intolerance to criticism" would Freeman Dyson have to """sceptics"""" who continuously denied the reality of the overwhelming scientific evidence for something he knows very well is 100% true, like quantum mechanics?
Speaking of the anti-science bullshit, here's a prime example. The above is just a spittle-heavy ad hominem fallacy. If in the future, you ever want to write an argument on this subject that is taken seriously, then start by a) taking the opposition seriously, and b) don't stoop to self parody.
And if that selfishly motivated denialism could substantially exacerbate catastrophic consequences for the entirety of human civilization?
You don't have "catastrophic consequences", hence your argument is irrelevant. My view is that you probably don't know enough about "climate change" to have a scientifically worthwhile opinion. Some people get Jesus or Allah. You got climate change.
So your solution is to simply ignore the ecological catastrophe, fuck future generations (and even some current populations) and live with the consequences of a perfectly avoidable disaster.
Well, when the disaster is less disastrous than the means of avoiding it, then yes, that is a solution.
What is the purpose of patent law for you, if it is not to get people to invent things that otherwise would not have been (or at least not for a long time)?
This.
So to extend my car analogy, it's like there's a washed out bridge from a flood, and they put up a barricade across the road while they tried to recuse someone from the flood waters and these people simply drove around the barricade and said "we're here to help!". The answer was get back on the other side of the barricade, or be arrested.
And what happens if those people really were more capable of helping than the government which is threatening arrest? After all, trying to rescue someone is not quite the same as actually rescuing someone.
If it turns out it's the latter, we can ask some interesting questions., Since persuading people that climate change is not as the scientists represent it -a ticking time bomb we are running out of time to defuse and one whose consequences include the mass death of humans, is lying about climate science not the equivalent to shouting (no) fire in a crowded (and burning) theater?
The answer is an obvious "no". We are tired of loud-mouthed, would be thugs and bullies, such as yourself, trying to shape disagreement on the presence and severity of AGW as some some sort of "crime against humanity" - to use your own words.
The "shouting fire" example is fundamentally broken because there is no fire. There is a potential problem, yes, but the urgency just isn't there.
Could China or Japan or Germany or Russia or any other country just legally and unilaterally decide that say, David and Charles Koch represent too much of a threat to human civilization to permit them to go on living?
Well, some of those countries aren't based on law. So what is legal changes from moment to moment. And the countries of law such as Japan and Germany could not arbitrarily kill unpopular people because that would be illegal.
Laws exist to make society livable. They are defined according and in reaction to the environment. If that environment changes dramatically, then we can expect that near future generations of people will look back see the times we are living in now quite differently than we do, just the way we look back on slavery as an abomination or the post WWII generation of Germans were completely appalled at what their parents had done.
Well then, let us all work to prevent your dystopia from becoming a reality. Your role could be real easy or real hard - I really don't know. All I ask of you is to try to become a better person and put aside this pointless hate.
So you would support the crowbar can opener patent?
Of course.
What invention actually would qualify under that excessive standard?
New drugs, new designs for computer chips, new aircraft designs.
I was asking for things that would actually qualify. I believe these would be done anyway. Their R&D costs aren't big enough, especially once you get away from the developed world and its ridiculous regulatory burden.
In a less democratic system, the problems from government interference resolves themselves with the government being overthrown.
Unless it doesn't. A lot of such coups and revolutions keep the bureaucracy that is causing the problems simply because they have no better option available.
Patents are supposed to be what we grant the inventor in exchange for their revealing a "trade secret" that we wouldn't have otherwise been able to figure out.
Obvious in hindsight != something we would have otherwise figured out.
By your ridiculously low standards, this guy from a post I saw on reddit should be able to patent his phone stand made out of a paper clip.
Yes, I believe that is patentable as well.
It has to also be something that is not obvious.
Where's the obviousness? Just because we have erasers and pencils doesn't meant that it's obvious to attach an eraser (especially via a non-obvious means!) to a pencil. Similarly, just because one can contort paper clips into various shapes doesn't meant that it's obvious how to make a phone holder out of one.
You can also say
If you want to play semantics games, you can say all sorts of things. But most of those would be laughed out of court, even today.
Before this new invention, crow bars could not open cans out of the box. So what?
It makes it novel, that's the "so what".
We should only be offering the monopoly when it is unlikely that an inventor would be willing to spend the time an effort to create the invention without it, as in the case with inventions that have very high research and development costs.
What invention actually would qualify under that excessive standard?
Just because some sort of regulation is necessary to the existence of free markets, doesn't mean such regulation doesn't usually inhibit trading on such markets. There really is a huge problem with government interference in these things.
For example, a classic case is interference with market crashes and the like. Often there are large investing opportunities associated with such crashes and so a market could sort this out on their own, while transferring wealth from poor traders to better ones. But government protects poor traders by suspending market trading when the market shifts too much. Similar things go on when bad high frequency trades and fat finger mistakes are allowed to be reversed.
As to your example, people are excluded by the rules - particularly, you have to show some level of assets and knowledge in order to trade certain kinds of securities. And securities have to follow a host of rules in order to be listed for general trading to the public.
It might have been useful, but it didn't do anything NEW.
AGAIN. How many pencils could erase out of the box? How do you attach that common pencil to that common eraser?
I don't get why people think that there wasn't something new here. It's a terrible patenting example because of that.
The point made by the court in OP's post is that it was not an invention because it was just two common things, stuck together.
Actually, I don't see why that is relevant since a pencil with a built in eraser did do something new - it erased out of the box which apparently was new for pencils at the time. My take is that ancient patent holder was indeed robbed. But even if he had gotten that patent, it'd still be long gone by now.
Why wouldn't you think a widening of the range of uncertainty to be a retreat? My take is that the actual estimate is probably the low end of that broad range, meaning they just went from an estimate of 2.0 C doubling sensitivity to 1.5 C doubling sensitivity.