The postal service offers "Informed Delivery" where you can see your mail before you pick it up. From their web site: "Digitally preview your mail and manage your packages scheduled to arrive soon! Informed Delivery allows you to view greyscale images of the exterior, address side of letter-sized mailpieces and track packages in one convenient location."
The nice extension to this would be if you could mark stuff as junk, and the post office would then dump it rather than delivering it to your house.
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
Except that didn't happen.
The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.
As others have pointed out, there were two events:
First, he was accused of lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Specifically, he's accused of intentionally removing the condom during sex, knowing that she had explicitly refused consenting to sex without a condom. That charge, however, has been dropped.
Second, he was accused of penetrating an unconscious person without a condom after she had explicitly refused to have sex with him without a condom before she went to sleep. That charge is rape, and is still pending. And it's not legal in most other countries, notably England, which is why the UK High Court refused his request to deny extradition. It's also rape here in the US. If someone says no, you don't get to wait until they're asleep and then say "lol, you didn't say no now!"
Glenn Greenwald has been one of the most ardent Assange supporters from the get-go. I wonder what he is going to have to say about this.
Assange used to be someone to admire but those days seem long over. It is one thing to have principles but had he just given himself up, gone to Sweden (likely), got tried for bad sex (less likely), convicted (even less likely) spent time in prison (totally unlikely) at the maximum sentence he would have been free and clear for over two years now.
Prone to bad decisions.
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
It is, however, constraining for people who don't desire an integral monitor. Deal breaking, in fact.
Why is that deal breaking?
For a guess, some people want to go with dual, triple, or quad-monitor setups with identical monitors. That's not possible with the iMac Pro, since Apple doesn't offer a matching standalone monitor. You can get close, but they won't match, and the large lower bezel on the Pro's monitor makes certain configurations difficult, if not impossible.
The good news is that when they do update the Mac mini, they are supposed to have more of a pro version that would have decent hardware inside so you could really use it as a small desktop with good power and connectivity (probably would included Thunderbolt 3 at least so it could handle an eGPU and fast storage options).
That's my hope. A headless Mini Pro with a couple TB3 ports and user-replaceable HD and RAM. Upgradable CPU would be nice too, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
The problem with desalination is you have all this brine left over that you have to do something with. If you are in the desert I guess you can just pump it into a sand dune and have it evaporate.
Or save the salt for thermal storage in molten form, allowing for thermal electric generation at night.
Yeah, and there are too many chemical elements (118) on the Periodic Table, so what we need is a new rule that limits the number of elements to a nice, easy-for-schoolkids-to-memorize list of between 8 and 12 "major elements". I don't care how you categorize it, we simply cannot have a never ending list of elements to include in our definition of reality.
But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. "Manuel, do you
really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?"
"You told them to. Urged them to."
"My dear Manuel, I was simply putting all my nuts in one basket. I
know those nuts; I've listened to them for years. I was very careful in
selecting their committees; they all have built-in confusion, they will
quarrel. The chairman I forced on them while letting them elect him is a
ditherer who could not unravel a piece of string--thinks every subject
needs 'more study.' I almost needn't have bothered; more than six people
cannot agree on anything, three is better--and one is perfect for a job
that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history,
when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who
dominated the rest..."
I've had very useful conference calls, but hardly ever with more than three people on the line.
Well poor logs of Cap metering is an reasonable doubt issue more so in an criminal setting.
In civil litigation, the standard is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And ISPs can certainly show that your modem had a certain IP and received packets to that IP. Otherwise, they wouldn't be ISPs.
criminal liability does not work that way and the ISP will need to prove that it's logs are good and based on there cap meters that are off that can be used in court to say that there logs are not usable in court.
I never mentioned criminal liability, and this case was not about criminal liability, but civil liability for copyright infringement. Civil liability most certainly can work that way.
And yes, the ISP will need to prove that its logs are good that this subscriber had that IP address at said time, but that's not hard at all - in fact, it's a necessary function of being a service provider: you can't receive packets if the ISP has the wrong address for you. It's like the phone company sending calls to a different phone number than yours - your calls simply won't go through. Cap metering is an entirely different issue.
I expect the various copyright groups will now begin lobbying for a law requiring ISPs to use the device cameras to take a photo of whoever is at the terminal before allowing any sizeable file to be downloaded. Or perhaps just continuous video surveillance while you're connected to the ISP. As we've seen many times, anything that provides plausible deniability to copyright infringement becomes a major target of legislation by the major content providers.
No, easier - expect the ISPs (many of whom are also cable providers and copyright holders) to start inserting a line in the ToS that the subscriber accepts all liability for any acts of infringement on their internal network, regardless of whether it's a third party using their open WiFi.
Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old
I guess you can't bother to read what you cite, either. That Time article is pretty clear that the 11 year old hacked into an IMITATION Florida website to change the numbers it displayed. IMITATION, as in NOT REAL. A fake website created for the express purpose of being hacked into by an 11 year old as a publicity stunt. And a WEBSITE, as in NOT A VOTING MACHINE. Fuck, it's only like the second or third paragraph in that story, and was hashed to death in slashdot not very long ago.
Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses,
Since it is known to have happened on a regular basis, and those "hundreds of witnesses" were all party to the crime and being paid to do it, well, I'll go with that one.
Again with the "it is known". Well, okay, Nostradamus, care to provide any evidence of your "visions"?
Busing people from polling place to polling place to vote for the dead or disabled is standard practice in some places in this country. You can claim it doesn't exist all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
And repeating something over and over while loudly insisting it's a "fact" doesn't actually make it one. Despite thousands of accusations, and myriad investigations, that sort of intentional fraud has never been shown to occur.
Now, let's apply Mr. Ockham's Razor to this, shall we? Which is more likely to occur: a single individual hacks a voting machine, with no witnesses, and commits undetectable fraud, changing thousands of votes in an instant? Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses, any of whom could bring the whole thing crashing down... not to mention that any one of those dozens of people could turn on the others in an instant in exchange for immunity?
Almost the entirety of the "Space Force" exists today but they are spread across multiple DoD and Intelligence groups so this isn't a huge expansion of the defense budget, more a realignment of existing expenditures. Over time it could even save money through consolidation. It's not even like this is a new proposal it's just the first time the Executive Branch bothered listening.
It's main proposed purpose is to protect the US (and it's allies) from space based attacks which are not primarily of a physical nature but more technological. There looking to develop better defense of satellite and earth based communications, GPS systems and physical space based equipment as well as develop tech that may be able to interfere with those same systems as used by the 'enemy'.
It's not like this is way out there either as China has already made claims about some of their satellite based 'defensive' capabilities.
A lot of these projects are already funded but due to various agencies priorities the money doesn't necessarily get spent in those areas. This will create an agency that ensures the money appropriated for space based defense gets spent on space defense.
All of this... And consolidating into a Space Force, stupid name aside (it obviously should be Starfleet), has been something proposed since the Reagan era. We all like to make fun of the Cheeto-in-Chief, but it's not really a Trump program.
It only happens if the US issues formal notice that it is withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction anywhere above the Earth, to include installations on other celestial bodies. Warmongers like to try to claim this only forbids nuclear bombs, and therefore allows kinetic bombardment. This is some bullshit of the highest order. A megaton explosion is mass destruction regardless of how it was initiated.
As you note, the OST only outlaws WMDs in space, but low size kinetic or energy weapons - i.e. satellite destroyers - are not banned. And yes, taking out an enemy's GPS satellites would be a terrible idea due to the Kessler Syndrome it would lead to, but it's not explicitly or implicitly against the treaty.
Similarly, you could put armed guards on your station or moon base without violating the OST.
I'd like to see better statistics. On average, a first heart attack strikes men at age 65; women, 72. A 72 year old is simply more likely to die of a heart attack than a 65 year old one; age matters. There's no surprise that women are more likely to die, and although women are more likely to die of their heart attack, men still, on the average, die earlier of heart attacks.
Except that, given female doctors for both male and female patients, women are not more likely to die. FTA:
The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. “All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor–female patient..."
If your theory was correct, then you'd see a difference between female doctors treating men and female doctors treating women with women being more likely to die in both cases. But that's not true.
The difference between male and female doctors is interesting, but note that the difference is actually small: according to the article, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time, versus 12.4 percent with female doctors-- the difference is one part in two hundred.
Yes, but with a study population of over half a million, that's a statistically significant difference.
The big confounding effect here is age in doctors, not just patients: on the average, female doctors are younger than male doctors, and thus more recently educated and presumably up to date on the most modern techniques. I'd like to see that effect accounted for.
That would be a really great point, except it runs into the same flaw as your first argument: there was no difference in death rates between male doctors-male patient and female doctor-male patient. If female doctors were more recently educated and up to date on the most modern techniques and that made a difference, you'd expect to see the female doctor-male patient death rate be lower. But it's not.
Both of your arguments have a fundamental flaw that suggest you didn't really read the article summary, much less the article: your first argument requires a premise that women are more likely to die than men regardless of the gender of their doctor; and your second argument requires a premise that female doctors are less likely to have patients die regardless of the gender of their patient. But neither of those are true - this study found an increased death rate only when two variables coincide: female doctor and female patient.
More like those old physical video game DRM systems with a colored filter you placed over an obfuscated image to then read the password, but with multiple layers of filters.
Except you with a normal network you have the option to continue training it if you want to and even if you don't , downloading a new one is simple. When this needs to be updated it simply goes in the bin and a new one has to be fabricated. Not terribly efficient.
... for learning new tasks, but potentially very efficient for utilizing already learned tasks. Ignore the click-bait about machine learning, and instead focus on the fact that they created an OCR system that uses no power for processing other than the initial light input.
Unfortunately, creating fake news is also one of the steps that authoritarians take on their way to dictatorships.
The real problem isn't people calling out fake news as such, but the people in power incorrectly calling out real news as "fake news", and then using their power to push their own fake news.
Because really, there is actual fake news, and it needs to be identified. The government doesn't need to censor it, but we, as a people, need to resist against malicious propagandists.
As long as the people tasked with identifying what's true and what's fake are not the people in power.
The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?
Is that really any different than yesteryear? Classically, most people got their news from their local paper, which advanced their own biases. For example, I'm in Boston, where we have a liberal, pro-Democratic paper, the Boston Globe; and a conservative, pro-Republican paper, the Boston Herald, and their news and opinion articles are clearly slanted to advance the editors' viewpoint. Pre-Internet, the vast majority of people subscribed to only one of those papers. And while we'd like to believe that people were skilled at recognizing bias and thinking critically about the source, there's nothing to suggest that's true.
The Internet makes it easier to find diverse sources so as to not be in an echo chamber. If anything, I think the exposure of multiple slanted viewpoints and the current discussion of fake news is an indication that the populace-at-large today is doing more critical thinking than it used to.
The problem is not, if a patent is valid or not. The problem is how to determine if a patent is valid or not. If someone can claim souvereignity, the processual possibilities to invalidate a patent in his ownership are limited. Basicly he can say: Don't touch it, it's mine! And because the USPTO once agreed to the claims and issued the patent, it is valid as of now, and because of the don't-touch-it-doctrin, the state of validity can't be changed.
Silly question, but what would the case be if you replaced "native american" with any other citizenship that isn't US based?
For example say an Australian sent a patent filing to the USPTO, paid the fees, and the patent was initially granted without issue. Later the patent was challenged and the USPTO agreed it was not valid to be issued after all.
What happens?
It seems obvious the patent wouldn't be legally valid in the US, but what about Internationally?
Is the patent then only seen as invalid to the rest of the world due to a treaty, some equivalent of the berne convention of copyright but for patents instead?
Not a silly question, but it has an easy answer: US patents are only good in the US. You have to get a patent in every country you want to enforce your rights in. Most entities only get patents in the big countries as a rules - US, China, Japan, France, Germany, the UK, etc., with some occasional ones in other countries like Canada, Australia, India, etc., usually depending if they have a large market or competitor there. Hardly anyone bothers getting a patent in, say, Ghana.
There is an international treaty called the Patent Cooperation Treaty, but it's more procedural - you file a PCT application, and it gets an examination by WIPO and is then transmitted to each national patent office... And then you pay fees only in the countries you want a patent in, and those countries usually do a further examination. It saves a bit of money if you're going into more than about 3-4 countries, but it doesn't provide any substantive rights.
Are sovereign native americans not a party to such a treaty?
I just don't understand why a native american tribe would be any different to any other countries citizen doing the same, or perhaps don't understand what you mean when you say "Don't touch it, it's mine" in this context.
It has to do with sovereign immunity. Generally, you can't sue the US or a state unless there's a statute that gives you permission to do so (e.g. the Federal Tort Claims Act, etc.). The weird wrinkle with native americans is that the US has given them pseudo-sovereign status, so generally, you can't sue a tribe unless there's a statute that allows the suit.
So the tricksy part here is that the pharma company with the crap patent sold it to a tribe. One way to invalidate a patent is to initiate an Inter Partes Review before the Board of Patent Appeals at the USPTO, but that's kind of like "suing" the tribe, so they're immune, right?
Well, no. The Fed. Circ. threw that out in an entirely predictable decision.
For technology 20-years seems far too long, stop and think about the state of technology and the internet in 1998.
Most patents don't live that long... The USPTO requires you to pay maintenance fees during the life of the patent, and they increase from $1600 to $7400 over that time. Somewhere around half of patents are abandoned without paying that $7400 fee. The ones that are maintained tend to be things like pharmaceuticals, where they're still valuable after 20 years.
That's why the patent system exists. Not to reward people with exclusivity over ideas, but to encourage the destruction of trade secrets and advance the public domain. If you've got a hundred companies with a hundred engineers each working in secret for a hundred hours to invent the same widget and then keeping it tied up in draconian contracts and NDAs, you've spent 10,000 man-hours. But if you encourage the first guy to invent it to publish details of the widget, in exchange for a time-limited monopoly, then you've only spent 100 hours, and you can spend the remaining 9,900 hours on the next invention.
If only one person ever came up with an idea, then that encouragement would be moot because there's no time savings from them educating other engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
The postal service offers "Informed Delivery" where you can see your mail before you pick it up. From their web site: "Digitally preview your mail and manage your packages scheduled to arrive soon! Informed Delivery allows you to view greyscale images of the exterior, address side of letter-sized mailpieces and track packages in one convenient location."
The nice extension to this would be if you could mark stuff as junk, and the post office would then dump it rather than delivering it to your house.
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
Except that didn't happen.
The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.
As others have pointed out, there were two events:
First, he was accused of lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Specifically, he's accused of intentionally removing the condom during sex, knowing that she had explicitly refused consenting to sex without a condom. That charge, however, has been dropped.
Second, he was accused of penetrating an unconscious person without a condom after she had explicitly refused to have sex with him without a condom before she went to sleep. That charge is rape, and is still pending. And it's not legal in most other countries, notably England, which is why the UK High Court refused his request to deny extradition. It's also rape here in the US. If someone says no, you don't get to wait until they're asleep and then say "lol, you didn't say no now!"
Glenn Greenwald has been one of the most ardent Assange supporters from the get-go. I wonder what he is going to have to say about this.
Assange used to be someone to admire but those days seem long over. It is one thing to have principles but had he just given himself up, gone to Sweden (likely), got tried for bad sex (less likely), convicted (even less likely) spent time in prison (totally unlikely) at the maximum sentence he would have been free and clear for over two years now.
Prone to bad decisions.
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
It is, however, constraining for people who don't desire an integral monitor. Deal breaking, in fact.
Why is that deal breaking?
For a guess, some people want to go with dual, triple, or quad-monitor setups with identical monitors. That's not possible with the iMac Pro, since Apple doesn't offer a matching standalone monitor. You can get close, but they won't match, and the large lower bezel on the Pro's monitor makes certain configurations difficult, if not impossible.
The good news is that when they do update the Mac mini, they are supposed to have more of a pro version that would have decent hardware inside so you could really use it as a small desktop with good power and connectivity (probably would included Thunderbolt 3 at least so it could handle an eGPU and fast storage options).
That's my hope. A headless Mini Pro with a couple TB3 ports and user-replaceable HD and RAM. Upgradable CPU would be nice too, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Streaming sucks. Poor quality. Poor selection.
Given that many people are ripping streams, then quality and selection of streaming services are clearly not the issue.
The problem with desalination is you have all this brine left over that you have to do something with. If you are in the desert I guess you can just pump it into a sand dune and have it evaporate.
Or save the salt for thermal storage in molten form, allowing for thermal electric generation at night.
Yeah, and there are too many chemical elements (118) on the Periodic Table, so what we need is a new rule that limits the number of elements to a nice, easy-for-schoolkids-to-memorize list of between 8 and 12 "major elements". I don't care how you categorize it, we simply cannot have a never ending list of elements to include in our definition of reality.
Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Aether?
But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. "Manuel, do you really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?"
"You told them to. Urged them to."
"My dear Manuel, I was simply putting all my nuts in one basket. I know those nuts; I've listened to them for years. I was very careful in selecting their committees; they all have built-in confusion, they will quarrel. The chairman I forced on them while letting them elect him is a ditherer who could not unravel a piece of string--thinks every subject needs 'more study.' I almost needn't have bothered; more than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better--and one is perfect for a job that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history, when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who dominated the rest..."
I've had very useful conference calls, but hardly ever with more than three people on the line.
Well poor logs of Cap metering is an reasonable doubt issue more so in an criminal setting.
In civil litigation, the standard is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And ISPs can certainly show that your modem had a certain IP and received packets to that IP. Otherwise, they wouldn't be ISPs.
criminal liability does not work that way and the ISP will need to prove that it's logs are good and based on there cap meters that are off that can be used in court to say that there logs are not usable in court.
I never mentioned criminal liability, and this case was not about criminal liability, but civil liability for copyright infringement. Civil liability most certainly can work that way.
And yes, the ISP will need to prove that its logs are good that this subscriber had that IP address at said time, but that's not hard at all - in fact, it's a necessary function of being a service provider: you can't receive packets if the ISP has the wrong address for you. It's like the phone company sending calls to a different phone number than yours - your calls simply won't go through. Cap metering is an entirely different issue.
I expect the various copyright groups will now begin lobbying for a law requiring ISPs to use the device cameras to take a photo of whoever is at the terminal before allowing any sizeable file to be downloaded. Or perhaps just continuous video surveillance while you're connected to the ISP. As we've seen many times, anything that provides plausible deniability to copyright infringement becomes a major target of legislation by the major content providers.
No, easier - expect the ISPs (many of whom are also cable providers and copyright holders) to start inserting a line in the ToS that the subscriber accepts all liability for any acts of infringement on their internal network, regardless of whether it's a third party using their open WiFi.
Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old
I guess you can't bother to read what you cite, either. That Time article is pretty clear that the 11 year old hacked into an IMITATION Florida website to change the numbers it displayed. IMITATION, as in NOT REAL. A fake website created for the express purpose of being hacked into by an 11 year old as a publicity stunt. And a WEBSITE, as in NOT A VOTING MACHINE. Fuck, it's only like the second or third paragraph in that story, and was hashed to death in slashdot not very long ago.
Ah, you're right, they only changed the votes that are displayed to the public. Gosh, huge difference. Meanwhile, several years ago, Security Firm Shows How To Hack a US Voting Machine.
Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses,
Since it is known to have happened on a regular basis, and those "hundreds of witnesses" were all party to the crime and being paid to do it, well, I'll go with that one.
Again with the "it is known". Well, okay, Nostradamus, care to provide any evidence of your "visions"?
Busing people from polling place to polling place to vote for the dead or disabled is standard practice in some places in this country. You can claim it doesn't exist all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
And repeating something over and over while loudly insisting it's a "fact" doesn't actually make it one. Despite thousands of accusations, and myriad investigations, that sort of intentional fraud has never been shown to occur.
Meanwhile, what has been proven is that voting machines can be hacked by an 11 year old and vote totals changed to reflect any outcome wanted.
Now, let's apply Mr. Ockham's Razor to this, shall we? Which is more likely to occur: a single individual hacks a voting machine, with no witnesses, and commits undetectable fraud, changing thousands of votes in an instant? Or a conspiracy involving dozens of people laboriously drives from polling place to polling place, managing to cast at most a hundred or so fraudulent votes, seen by hundreds of witnesses, any of whom could bring the whole thing crashing down... not to mention that any one of those dozens of people could turn on the others in an instant in exchange for immunity?
Almost the entirety of the "Space Force" exists today but they are spread across multiple DoD and Intelligence groups so this isn't a huge expansion of the defense budget, more a realignment of existing expenditures. Over time it could even save money through consolidation. It's not even like this is a new proposal it's just the first time the Executive Branch bothered listening.
It's main proposed purpose is to protect the US (and it's allies) from space based attacks which are not primarily of a physical nature but more technological. There looking to develop better defense of satellite and earth based communications, GPS systems and physical space based equipment as well as develop tech that may be able to interfere with those same systems as used by the 'enemy'.
It's not like this is way out there either as China has already made claims about some of their satellite based 'defensive' capabilities.
A lot of these projects are already funded but due to various agencies priorities the money doesn't necessarily get spent in those areas. This will create an agency that ensures the money appropriated for space based defense gets spent on space defense.
All of this... And consolidating into a Space Force, stupid name aside (it obviously should be Starfleet), has been something proposed since the Reagan era. We all like to make fun of the Cheeto-in-Chief, but it's not really a Trump program.
It only happens if the US issues formal notice that it is withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction anywhere above the Earth, to include installations on other celestial bodies. Warmongers like to try to claim this only forbids nuclear bombs, and therefore allows kinetic bombardment. This is some bullshit of the highest order. A megaton explosion is mass destruction regardless of how it was initiated.
As you note, the OST only outlaws WMDs in space, but low size kinetic or energy weapons - i.e. satellite destroyers - are not banned. And yes, taking out an enemy's GPS satellites would be a terrible idea due to the Kessler Syndrome it would lead to, but it's not explicitly or implicitly against the treaty.
Similarly, you could put armed guards on your station or moon base without violating the OST.
I'd like to see better statistics. On average, a first heart attack strikes men at age 65; women, 72. A 72 year old is simply more likely to die of a heart attack than a 65 year old one; age matters. There's no surprise that women are more likely to die, and although women are more likely to die of their heart attack, men still, on the average, die earlier of heart attacks.
Except that, given female doctors for both male and female patients, women are not more likely to die. FTA:
The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. “All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor–female patient..."
If your theory was correct, then you'd see a difference between female doctors treating men and female doctors treating women with women being more likely to die in both cases. But that's not true.
The difference between male and female doctors is interesting, but note that the difference is actually small: according to the article, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time, versus 12.4 percent with female doctors-- the difference is one part in two hundred.
Yes, but with a study population of over half a million, that's a statistically significant difference.
The big confounding effect here is age in doctors, not just patients: on the average, female doctors are younger than male doctors, and thus more recently educated and presumably up to date on the most modern techniques. I'd like to see that effect accounted for.
That would be a really great point, except it runs into the same flaw as your first argument: there was no difference in death rates between male doctors-male patient and female doctor-male patient. If female doctors were more recently educated and up to date on the most modern techniques and that made a difference, you'd expect to see the female doctor-male patient death rate be lower. But it's not.
Both of your arguments have a fundamental flaw that suggest you didn't really read the article summary, much less the article: your first argument requires a premise that women are more likely to die than men regardless of the gender of their doctor; and your second argument requires a premise that female doctors are less likely to have patients die regardless of the gender of their patient. But neither of those are true - this study found an increased death rate only when two variables coincide: female doctor and female patient.
So this is the modern version of punch cards?
More like those old physical video game DRM systems with a colored filter you placed over an obfuscated image to then read the password, but with multiple layers of filters.
Except you with a normal network you have the option to continue training it if you want to and even if you don't , downloading a new one is simple. When this needs to be updated it simply goes in the bin and a new one has to be fabricated. Not terribly efficient.
... for learning new tasks, but potentially very efficient for utilizing already learned tasks. Ignore the click-bait about machine learning, and instead focus on the fact that they created an OCR system that uses no power for processing other than the initial light input.
Unfortunately, creating fake news is also one of the steps that authoritarians take on their way to dictatorships.
The real problem isn't people calling out fake news as such, but the people in power incorrectly calling out real news as "fake news", and then using their power to push their own fake news.
Because really, there is actual fake news, and it needs to be identified. The government doesn't need to censor it, but we, as a people, need to resist against malicious propagandists.
As long as the people tasked with identifying what's true and what's fake are not the people in power.
The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?
Is that really any different than yesteryear? Classically, most people got their news from their local paper, which advanced their own biases. For example, I'm in Boston, where we have a liberal, pro-Democratic paper, the Boston Globe; and a conservative, pro-Republican paper, the Boston Herald, and their news and opinion articles are clearly slanted to advance the editors' viewpoint. Pre-Internet, the vast majority of people subscribed to only one of those papers. And while we'd like to believe that people were skilled at recognizing bias and thinking critically about the source, there's nothing to suggest that's true.
The Internet makes it easier to find diverse sources so as to not be in an echo chamber. If anything, I think the exposure of multiple slanted viewpoints and the current discussion of fake news is an indication that the populace-at-large today is doing more critical thinking than it used to.
The problem is not, if a patent is valid or not. The problem is how to determine if a patent is valid or not. If someone can claim souvereignity, the processual possibilities to invalidate a patent in his ownership are limited. Basicly he can say: Don't touch it, it's mine! And because the USPTO once agreed to the claims and issued the patent, it is valid as of now, and because of the don't-touch-it-doctrin, the state of validity can't be changed.
Silly question, but what would the case be if you replaced "native american" with any other citizenship that isn't US based?
For example say an Australian sent a patent filing to the USPTO, paid the fees, and the patent was initially granted without issue. Later the patent was challenged and the USPTO agreed it was not valid to be issued after all.
What happens?
It seems obvious the patent wouldn't be legally valid in the US, but what about Internationally?
Is the patent then only seen as invalid to the rest of the world due to a treaty, some equivalent of the berne convention of copyright but for patents instead?
Not a silly question, but it has an easy answer: US patents are only good in the US. You have to get a patent in every country you want to enforce your rights in. Most entities only get patents in the big countries as a rules - US, China, Japan, France, Germany, the UK, etc., with some occasional ones in other countries like Canada, Australia, India, etc., usually depending if they have a large market or competitor there. Hardly anyone bothers getting a patent in, say, Ghana.
There is an international treaty called the Patent Cooperation Treaty, but it's more procedural - you file a PCT application, and it gets an examination by WIPO and is then transmitted to each national patent office... And then you pay fees only in the countries you want a patent in, and those countries usually do a further examination. It saves a bit of money if you're going into more than about 3-4 countries, but it doesn't provide any substantive rights.
Are sovereign native americans not a party to such a treaty?
I just don't understand why a native american tribe would be any different to any other countries citizen doing the same, or perhaps don't understand what you mean when you say "Don't touch it, it's mine" in this context.
It has to do with sovereign immunity. Generally, you can't sue the US or a state unless there's a statute that gives you permission to do so (e.g. the Federal Tort Claims Act, etc.). The weird wrinkle with native americans is that the US has given them pseudo-sovereign status, so generally, you can't sue a tribe unless there's a statute that allows the suit.
So the tricksy part here is that the pharma company with the crap patent sold it to a tribe. One way to invalidate a patent is to initiate an Inter Partes Review before the Board of Patent Appeals at the USPTO, but that's kind of like "suing" the tribe, so they're immune, right?
Well, no. The Fed. Circ. threw that out in an entirely predictable decision.
For technology 20-years seems far too long, stop and think about the state of technology and the internet in 1998.
Most patents don't live that long... The USPTO requires you to pay maintenance fees during the life of the patent, and they increase from $1600 to $7400 over that time. Somewhere around half of patents are abandoned without paying that $7400 fee. The ones that are maintained tend to be things like pharmaceuticals, where they're still valuable after 20 years.
Multiple people come up with the same ideas.
That's why the patent system exists. Not to reward people with exclusivity over ideas, but to encourage the destruction of trade secrets and advance the public domain. If you've got a hundred companies with a hundred engineers each working in secret for a hundred hours to invent the same widget and then keeping it tied up in draconian contracts and NDAs, you've spent 10,000 man-hours. But if you encourage the first guy to invent it to publish details of the widget, in exchange for a time-limited monopoly, then you've only spent 100 hours, and you can spend the remaining 9,900 hours on the next invention.
If only one person ever came up with an idea, then that encouragement would be moot because there's no time savings from them educating other engineers.
Obviously tooth goo.