Ah, then we agree. And I think you'd agree with this as well:
The goal of an ordinary modern appellate (or supreme court) judge is to confuse the issue enough so he appears clever and important! If the resolution of an issue is too simple, then the judge gets no accolades from the legal community and no invitations to award ceremonies where he can wear black robes.:-)
Because the district court hearing the case invalidated the patent under section 101, the appeal was limited on those grounds. Neither the appellate court nor the Supreme Court could turn to section 103 (obviousness) to invalidate the patent, because there was no ruling on those grounds at the lower court level for them to review. Now if the respondent had made arguments under section 103 and the district court had ruled the patent to be invalid for obviousness, then the Supreme Court could have affirmed on those grounds.
Yes, I was trying to provide the lay version with that bit about SCOTUS being unable to perform their own prior art searches. They're constrained to the trial record, and therefore, even if they felt it was invalid under 102/103, they had to use their magic 101 wand because they felt they had no other options.
What we really need is judges at the district court level that can distinguish reasonings based upon section 101 from 103. By continuing this "abstract idea" line of decisions, the Supreme Court has only clouded the issue further.
Particularly here, where they're essentially using 103 to say the District Court was right about 101. Oy.
Isn't the definition that you have to be able to give a patent to a developer skilled in the specific art and he/she can implement exactly the device described by the patent without inventing anything new? If that's not possible, the patent is supposed to be invalid because it's an abstract idea instead of a concrete implementation.
Nope, that's actually 35 USC 112 - the patent disclosure must contain sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. But that's about sufficiency of the figures and specification... You could have a hundred pages of perfectly commented pseudocode, flowcharts, descriptions of every signal at every stage, etc., and you'd pass 112, but your patent claim could still fail 101 as being "abstract". For example, in this particular case, Alice Bank actually had a huge specification with detailed flow charts and descriptions... but their patent claim was waaaaay too broad, trying to claim the use of intermediary accounts.
But "waaaaay too broad" isn't the definition of abstract - it's too broad, because it's not new, not because it's somehow an inconceivable abstract thing that people can't wrap their heads around.
It was invalidated because the process it describes is super super old. They only thing they added to the old process was using a computer. So if you invent something actually new. Then you can patent that. But "old idea + computer" is not patentable.
If something's not new, it's invalid under 35 USC 102. If something is obvious, it's invalid under 35 USC 103. Both of these would apply to "old process + computer", and the patent should have been invalidated on those grounds...
But, you have to prove that it's an old idea with some evidence in the form of prior art. And because SCOTUS can't do their own prior art searches, even though they knew it was an old idea, they couldn't invalidate it under 102 or 103... So, instead, they turned to 35 USC 101, and said that this was not a patent eligible method because it was directed to an "abstract idea"... But what's an abstract idea? According to Thomas, anything super super old, like you said. But that's what the other statutes are for.
It's the right outcome - the patent was clearly invalid - but for the wrong reason.
I'm part "Native American", enough to join the tribe if I wanted. But I refuse to be associated with a people who are so thin-skinned that they get offended at the drop of a hat. Yes, "redskin" WAS a term of derision, but it's been turned into a better word, a word to be proud of, a word of honor.
There's something seriously ironic about you claiming that the slur is a word of honor for a group that you refuse to be associated with.
The onodaga tribe in NY is where I live. Not one person here that I know is offended by the name the redskins.
... one post later:
A few of [the plaintiffs claiming they're offended] are from where I live and guess what, they are not in good standing in the area any longer because they are being paid to pretend to be outraged right now.
So, which is it? Not one person is offended, or some people are offended? Frankly, if you can't keep your story straight between two consecutive posts, why should we believe you about anything? Are you really even of native american descent, or is this one of those "my family has lived here a long time, and everyone intermarried several hundred years back, so I must be of native descent (even though I couldn't pinpoint a single actual ancestor and no tribe recognizes me)"?
From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didnâ(TM)t have standing to file it.
It got reversed because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and filed suit as soon as they were able. When it goes to appeal, the court may or may not toss it based on the merits, but they most certainly won't reject it for the same reason as last time.
Specifically a free speech issue, in a way that "money is speech" doesn't even come close to.
A department of the US government has denied equal protection to an entity incorporated in the US on the basis of the political implications of what they want to say. Short of "free speech zones", you don't get a much more solid 1st amendment issue.
On the contrary, Sparky. A department of the US government has refused to treat an entity differently than all other entities. Dan Snyder can use the word "Redskins" on his merchandise, and so can anyone else. This is the elimination of a government-imposed monopoly on commercial speech.
And they have history on their side - They won on appeal for exactly that reason last time. And they will win again this time.
Nope, they won on appeal because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs before bringing suit - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and brought suit as soon as they could. Even if they may win for an entirely new reason, they most certainly will not win on appeal for that reason.
Personally, I consider this whole issue much ado about nothing - The indians lost to the white demons; if a sports team wants to name themselves after history's losers, hey, their call.
... you're really helping your side with the whole "this isn't disparaging" thing...
Yes, just like the rap group NWA (Nigga's With Attitude). Or that the term "nigga" has been embraced by many in poorer parts of the black community. Please feel free to use that term to describe someone while in any inner city. I'm sure once you make this rational argument everything will be fine.
Actually the term "nigger" has become so offensive that just stating it is somehow offensive. Even when not using it as derogatory term but to quote someone. I'll probably be modded a troll or flamebait just for pointing this out. Grown educated people have gotten to the point that they now sound like 6 year old children. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I here people call it "The N-word".
Many younger people of the Jewish faith refer to each other as "heeb". There's even a "Heeb Magazine" But you can't be a (black or white) non-Hebrew and use this term.
Gays are allowed to, and do you the term "fag". But if you're heterosexual, and refer to someone as a "fag" it's homophobic.
I really hate this kind of crap. If it's alright for one group of people to use a term, but not another it's racist. Either the term is offensive, or it isn't. There's no modifier because of the color of your skin, your ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
Not at all... The word is not offensive. The simple collection of letters is not offensive. It's the intent behind the use of the word that is offensive. And so, when you put on your pointy white hat and call a black guy the n-word, it's highly offensive, because you intend it to be. When the same black guy calls his friend that, it's not offensive, because he does not intend it to be.
This is the same reason you can make the post you did on Slashdot and not be thought of as offensive, because, despite using the terms, you're using them in a context of a discussion about the terms. But it's also why when you do call someone those names, you can't fall back on your, "bu-bu-but I heard someone else use that word!"
And what ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? We've turned into a society of whiny little bitches. Oh damn, someone is going to accuse me of being discriminatory toward female canines and claim that I kill puppies.(/sarcasm)
Actually, you're the one that sounds like a whiny biatch: "Oh, woe is me! I'm so white and anglo-saxon, and I don't get to use terms that are highly offensive to people without being thought of as highly offensive! Boo hoo! Boo hoo! I'll just have to cry myself to sleep on my bed made of unearned privileges, dreaming of encountering police without trepidation, and earning 10-20% more the same work! Boo hoo!" Get over yourself. You're whining about the fact that you can't call people names that you know will offend them with impunity. That's one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard.
And we wonder why females have little interest in CS? The male version talks about gaming and creating toys, while the female version sounds like they want to target non-mathphobic social workers.
Yep. Full versions of the letters are available here. Also notice that the "Girl" letter states that a computing class may be required for any "science and math fields", while the "Boy" letter notes that a computing class may be required for any "science, engineering, and math fields." Even the signature blocks are different, with the "Boy" letter signed by GT's Director of Computing Outreach, while the "Girl" letter is signed "Teacher Name". There are many subtle differences throughout the letters that really have no place to be there.
Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't the CEO's at the biotech and pharma firms that decided they needed to dump money on congress on this issue as if they didn't have better use for their capital. Guess who convinced them to do it...
The Board of Directors? And yeah, lobbying decisions are absolutely due to the CEOs. I'm not sure what big business experience you have, but even the general counsel isn't pulling the strings that much.
Pharmaceutical and biotech firms are often plaintiffs in patent disputes and haven't been hit hard by troll lawsuits.
Fucking. Lawyers.
What does that have to do with lawyers? It sounds more like the proposed reforms would have impacted pharma and biotech firms in an way that they viewed negatively, because the harms to them are not balanced by the marginal benefit to them of avoiding troll suits.
Without knowing specifically what they're complaining about, my guess is one of the definitions of trolls as "non-practicing entities" also scoops up many research universities, like Johns Hopkins (since they do research, get patents, and then license or sell them without making any products). And research universities are big R&D labs for pharma. If those JHU patents that they are exclusively licensing to make a drug suddenly become invalid, then their competitors can start making the drugs too... and without paying any royalties to the university or providing them grants for the initial research.
That has nothing to do with fucking lawyers, though. That's a business consideration... Why aren't you saying "fucking CEOs"?
When Google says "Not Where We Want to Be" , what they are saying is that it is time to start discriminating against white males and hire other less qualified candidates because some groups are getting uppidy. We never hear similar claims of needing "more diversity" from the NBA or the National Felons League, but when we find an area where white males excel by working hard, it is time to put a stop to it.
The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
In a related story, the U.K. Horse and Buggy Registration Service thinks the automobile will be 'of no use to anyone.' They show a vehicle being driven on a test track. It travels a short distance at 10 mph, then the engine blows a rod and one wheel falls off. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of petrol, anyone attempting to drive one would probably main or even kill themselves."
Perhaps the problem is that your knowledge of this issue lacks scope... Start with 'anita sarkeesian' and 'jessica watson'
With all due respect, isn't it a bit ironic that you suggest I lack knowledge of this issue, and then you recommend I check out the youngest woman to sail solo non-stop around the globe? You really have no idea what you're talking about.
And before you hastily Google the correct name and then rush back claiming it was "just a typo" and you really knew it all along, no, you've never actually read anything by her. You saw mention of the elevator incident on some forum like the Spearhead, and lumped her in with this mythical feminist/social warrior anti-geek conspiracy you've created. You don't need to actually research issues, because you have gut feelings that happen to perfectly coincide with your prejudices.
There is no reasonable evidence that 1 in 6 six women are raped over their lifetime... Any article that cites a rape rate like this...
Can you please copy and paste a quote from him saying that 1 in 6 women are "raped" or that there's a "rape rate" of 1 in 6? No, of course not. Because it's not there.
Any post that misleadingly paraphrases what it's replying to in order to make a claim about a lack of research about some statistic that wasn't actually cited is obviously being written off-the cuff with no legitimate interest in debating the issue. As a polemic rather than an argument it should be discarded as the waste of bandwidth it is.
1. my point is that there's no conspiracy. Men don't have it out for women, en masse. There aren't hundreds of thousands of rapists hiding on college campuses or workplaces. These people make it sound like it's a pandemic when the real numbers are miniscule.
"These people"? Sounds like you're imagining some conspiracy of people who are "making it sound like it's a pandemic". Frankly, that's a little nuts... particularly when you have no examples of "these people" and no one you can quote saying that there are "hundreds of thousands of rapists hiding on college campuses or workplaces." Do you have any evidence or quotes to support your crazy conspiracy theory?
2. Yes he did. He shamed geeks and nerds for apparent 'misogyny'.
Chu called you an "oppressor"? Let's see your copy-pasted quote from the article, then. I'll wait.
3. It's an often quoted statistic, and yes, most would constitute 'violent control over another's body' as a case for assault.
"It's an often quoted statistic"? By whom? And you said specifically - and I, unlike you, quote:
That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case.
Quit shaming men, regardless of their social proclivities. Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did.
Chu never wrote that "one out of six men are rapists". The only person "quoting" that statistic is you, when you lied and said Chu said it.
I suppose my post referenced more than just this article, but there's nothing wrong with that.
If I say that you're a horrible person for claiming that serial killers are really just sweet and misunderstood folks, you'd justifiably be upset. If I then said, "my post was referencing more than your quotes [when I claimed you said that], but there's nothing wrong with that," you'd also be upset.
Chu's article is part of this recent trend of feminists attacking IT/gamer culture. I'm tired of this professional victim routine that's become so popular with the 'social justice' crowd, feminist or otherwise.
And again, you were the one with the whole "it's not a conspiracy!" thing, but now you're saying there's a conspiracy of feminists and the "social justice crowd". I think you're projecting, dude.
Actually, I don't know that I've ever seen a woman get harassed in an electronic forum... I took it as a given that I had, but I just tried to identify some and.... no, really can't think of any. Huh. (This isn't relevant to the rest of my response, but I found it interesting)
Huh. That's odd. Maybe you should stop browsing Slashdot at +5?;)
Seriously, you've never seen it? The woman who started the #yesallwomen trend on Twitter had to close her account because of all the rape threats she was getting.
Anyways, are you seriously saying it's every "geek or nerd"'s responsibility to stop *every* incident of harassment?
Not at all. I'm saying it's every geek or nerd's responsibility - along with everyone else's responsibility - to speak up when they see it. *Every* incident? Only if you're personally there for *every* incident, in which case, I'd have to wonder why you're always in the wrong place.
Is it your responsibility to stop *every* fire? No. If you see someone's house on fire, wouldn't it be a good responsible act to call the fire department, rather than just shrugging and walking away? Of course it is. Does it matter that you're not going to stop *every* fire? Of course not.
I think the space is already pretty unwelcoming of harassment, especially those parts outside some Call of Duty server...
I thought you said you couldn't think of any instances of harassment, and now you're throwing up specific examples like a Call of Duty server? Which is it?
... and with such a broad group it's tantamount to saying that all of society should be stopping it. Well... yeah, in principle, but that's impossible on its face - we can't even get southern racists to stop using the N-word in anger, and we've been trying for >50 years!
It used to be a common word everywhere. Up here in the North where we don't accept that language and speak up when its used, it is not prevalent. As you note, it's southern racists... and apparently no one in their circles is saying "stop using that word".
So sure, all geeks/nerds have this obligation, just like all people have this obligation not to harass others and try to censure others who do so, and I think that's actually happening more and more. But at some point, you need to agree (or learn) that the world is a pretty shitty place in all sorts of ways, and people need to develop the tools to deal with it - because if they don't, the world won't be any less shitty. And we're very close to that point already.
Telling people "just grow a thick skin" or "put up with it" is being part of the problem. Sure, you don't harass people... But you're not standing up to those who do, and you're telling their victims to suck it up. That makes you not quite as bad as the harassers, but no where close to being a good person. Ever hear the old poem about "they came for [X group], but I said nothing, because I was not [X]"? It's not supposed to be an endorsement of staying silent.
(By the way, I trust you're already a crusader against all the "prison rape" jokes that currently get a pass in fairly-polite society?)
Of course I am. No one deserves to be sexually assaulted, even if they've been convicted of a crime (not that every prison rape victim is even a convict, rather than in pre-trial detention). Particularly worse is that it's not just jokes, but an implied added threat - "act up, and we throw you in jail where you'll be someone's biatch". That implicitly condones it.
The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks.
I was referring to the "No True Scotsman" argument, which is not very effective.
I know what you were referring to, and was using the analogy of the Scottish people's fight for freedom to point out that yes, it can work to disassociate something from the group. Specifically, as I mentioned, excluding sociopaths from cons. I don't think anyone would say "no, you can't do that, because con members are sociopaths," which would be the No True Scotsman fallacy - "No true nerd isn't a sociopath." No one agrees with that proposition.
but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them,
Explain how I kick someone out of a con.
Well, if we're talking about the community, then the community includes con organizers who can exclude these people from cons. It also includes the con sponsors and attending merchants who can refuse to attend or sponsor if these people are attending. Do you agree that that would be a good idea, and you're just complaining that you, yourself, are powerless to help?
Because if so, you're not. You can refuse to attend cons that include these people, and spend your money at other cons that don't. But that's merely a discussion of how much power you have - we both agree that excluding these people would be a good idea, yes?
But have you ever heard someone else say [she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks]?
No.
Hi, welcome to society. Browse this article discussion on -1 and you'll see plenty of examples. Read the #yesallwomen Twitter feed and you'll see plenty of examples. The woman who started that hashtag trend had to close her account because of all the rape threats she was getting. Frankly, I don't believe that you've never heard of such things.
1. There is no such thing as 'rape culture' or 'patriarchy.' In any other circumstance we'd view this kind of thinking as conspiracy.
I believe you're interpreting the terms "rape culture" and "patriarchy" as implying that there's an organization controlling or promoting them, yes? Hence the reference to conspiracies.
There's no such implication. The Internet has a culture of trolling, but that doesn't imply that there's some Trollmaster behind it all. That our society normalizes sexual assault doesn't mean that there's some group of people encouraging it.
2. Enough of the victimhood bullshit. I tire of being labeled an 'oppressor' because of my sex or my skin tone. Don't tell me to check my privilege.
This seems to have nothing to do with the article. Chu never called you an oppressor.
3. That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case... Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did.
... you know that none of that is actually in the article, and you're really just making stuff up, right? Here's the quote:
We’re not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.
Does that say that "one out of six men are rapists"? Does it even say that one in six women are "raped"? Even if it did, what tremendous leap of logic did you perform to assume that if 16% of women are raped, then 16% of men must be rapists, because rapists only ever commit one rape or something? In fact, did you just see the words "one out of six" and flip out without reading the rest of the sentence?
We have about as much power to define who is "amongst our ranks" as we do to define who Anonymous is. "No true nerd..." is about as useful as "No true Scotsman..."
The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks. We likewise have the power to shun people who we think shouldn't be part of our community. We can't stop them from calling themselves geeks, but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them, then no one is going to confuse us with them.
and by letting them know it's OK to cyberstalk someone or that hey it's ok, she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks in our culture,
I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that. I also can't recall the first time. That's because I can recall all the times, and the count is ZERO.
But have you ever heard someone else say it? Did you say that that's not acceptable, or did you just say "I'm not doing it, so it's not my problem"?
I did all of the above. Not murderously violent, but violent enough that I acted out in inappropriate ways.
It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.
You do know that there hasn't been a marital exception for rape in any state for about twenty years, right?
...most of my life, obviously - because I don't ever recall EVER seeing a geek/nerd in my circles stalking anyone, threatening a girl and never mind hitting one. I'd say they'd improve their life if they even TRIED to HIT on any woman at all.
Most of those I know are frightened at the very concept of dating, pretty socially awkward I guess, but kind and gentle caring people who wouldn't even DREAM of hurting anyone. Sure, they'll kick your mental-a** and hurt your coding feelings by pointing out the numerous bugs in your code, and flaws in your theories, and possibly sweep the floor with your ego in gaming, but no way they'd ever even lift a finger to actually hurt you.
Sure, they won't... But will they talk about "raping" people in a game? Will they make dismissive jokes about how women can't do math, or should get in the kitchen and make sammiches? If other people they're gaming with or talking with make those jokes, will they laugh? Stay silent? Uncomfortably leave?
Will they speak up?
When all women experience harassment - and that's what the #yesallwomen trend is clearly showing - it doesn't matter that #notallmen are harassing women, if the rest of us aren't saying anything. We're not doing it, so we're not part of the problem, right? Wrong, because by not kicking them out, we make it possible for those few men that are harassing women to fit in.
So, yeah, I'm sure no geek or nerd in your circles was stalking or threatening anyone. Statistically, that's pretty likely... but it's also pretty likely that some geek or nerd in your circles knew of a woman being harassed or threatened and didn't say anything.
You may think it doesn't happen but ask the women in your group how many times people have treated them like children, dismissed them, or behaved in a really creepy way even after being asked to stop **. Ask any reasonably well-known geek girl to show you her "death & rape threat" tweet or email folder and you'll see hundreds or thousands of them.
And yeah, the backlash to that, the point behind the #notallmen tag, and the strident denials in the comments here are all correct: not all men make those threats, or treat women poorly or dismissively...
But we've all seen it and failed to speak up. Like you said:
** I've personally seen it many times; once I even witnessed a guy ask a female geek how many guys she had slept with, then get righteously offended and angry when she said that was an inappropriate question. (To my own younger self's shame I did not step in and call him out at the time - something I regret).
And like Chu said:
I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was “normal,” because, in other words, I was a coward and I had the privilege of ignoring the problem.
I've failed to speak up, too, and so has every man. And as you note, that's the real problem. Sociopaths make up a tiny percentage of the population - they're the few men that the #notallmen tag refers to - but they're really good at blending in, particularly when we don't speak up about this stuff, or worse, dismiss it, deny it, or laugh about it.
As an analogy, consider how many Slashdotters are anti-cop... We readily acknowledge that not all cops are corrupt assholes who falsify evidence and beat suspects, but we rightly criticize the so-called "good" cops who don't do that, but also don't speak up and maintain the thin blue line. The cop who doesn't take part in the beating but merely watches, or who doesn't say anything when another cop deletes a cop-incriminating recording from a dash camera or cell phone isn't the bad apple in the barrel, but they've sure been spoiled by that association.
Well, that's us when we don't speak up when we see someone treating women badly. Maybe we can protest that we aren't doing it, but we're spoiled by the association. Our thin blue line is the "brocode" or membership as "one of the guys", and it can be really difficult to face the peer pressure against speaking up, and it's so much easier to say silent, or laugh nervously, or do anything other than say "that's not right". But if we're not saying it, then we're no better those those "good" cops who cover for the bad ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, then we agree. And I think you'd agree with this as well:
The goal of an ordinary modern appellate (or supreme court) judge is to confuse the issue enough so he appears clever and important! If the resolution of an issue is too simple, then the judge gets no accolades from the legal community and no invitations to award ceremonies where he can wear black robes. :-)
... you sound like a litigator...
You've almost got this right, Theaetetus:
Because the district court hearing the case invalidated the patent under section 101, the appeal was limited on those grounds. Neither the appellate court nor the Supreme Court could turn to section 103 (obviousness) to invalidate the patent, because there was no ruling on those grounds at the lower court level for them to review. Now if the respondent had made arguments under section 103 and the district court had ruled the patent to be invalid for obviousness, then the Supreme Court could have affirmed on those grounds.
Yes, I was trying to provide the lay version with that bit about SCOTUS being unable to perform their own prior art searches. They're constrained to the trial record, and therefore, even if they felt it was invalid under 102/103, they had to use their magic 101 wand because they felt they had no other options.
What we really need is judges at the district court level that can distinguish reasonings based upon section 101 from 103. By continuing this "abstract idea" line of decisions, the Supreme Court has only clouded the issue further.
Particularly here, where they're essentially using 103 to say the District Court was right about 101. Oy.
But what's an abstract idea?
Isn't the definition that you have to be able to give a patent to a developer skilled in the specific art and he/she can implement exactly the device described by the patent without inventing anything new? If that's not possible, the patent is supposed to be invalid because it's an abstract idea instead of a concrete implementation.
Nope, that's actually 35 USC 112 - the patent disclosure must contain sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. But that's about sufficiency of the figures and specification... You could have a hundred pages of perfectly commented pseudocode, flowcharts, descriptions of every signal at every stage, etc., and you'd pass 112, but your patent claim could still fail 101 as being "abstract". For example, in this particular case, Alice Bank actually had a huge specification with detailed flow charts and descriptions... but their patent claim was waaaaay too broad, trying to claim the use of intermediary accounts.
But "waaaaay too broad" isn't the definition of abstract - it's too broad, because it's not new, not because it's somehow an inconceivable abstract thing that people can't wrap their heads around.
It was invalidated because the process it describes is super super old. They only thing they added to the old process was using a computer. So if you invent something actually new. Then you can patent that. But "old idea + computer" is not patentable.
If something's not new, it's invalid under 35 USC 102. If something is obvious, it's invalid under 35 USC 103. Both of these would apply to "old process + computer", and the patent should have been invalidated on those grounds...
But, you have to prove that it's an old idea with some evidence in the form of prior art. And because SCOTUS can't do their own prior art searches, even though they knew it was an old idea, they couldn't invalidate it under 102 or 103... So, instead, they turned to 35 USC 101, and said that this was not a patent eligible method because it was directed to an "abstract idea"... But what's an abstract idea? According to Thomas, anything super super old, like you said. But that's what the other statutes are for.
It's the right outcome - the patent was clearly invalid - but for the wrong reason.
I'm part "Native American", enough to join the tribe if I wanted. But I refuse to be associated with a people who are so thin-skinned that they get offended at the drop of a hat. Yes, "redskin" WAS a term of derision, but it's been turned into a better word, a word to be proud of, a word of honor.
There's something seriously ironic about you claiming that the slur is a word of honor for a group that you refuse to be associated with.
Try reading what I wrote, I am cherokee, however I live in ny amung the Onondaga. I didnt claim to be Onondaga
You had a great grandmother with "coal black hair", right?
The onodaga tribe in NY is where I live. Not one person here that I know is offended by the name the redskins.
... one post later:
A few of [the plaintiffs claiming they're offended] are from where I live and guess what, they are not in good standing in the area any longer because they are being paid to pretend to be outraged right now.
So, which is it? Not one person is offended, or some people are offended? Frankly, if you can't keep your story straight between two consecutive posts, why should we believe you about anything? Are you really even of native american descent, or is this one of those "my family has lived here a long time, and everyone intermarried several hundred years back, so I must be of native descent (even though I couldn't pinpoint a single actual ancestor and no tribe recognizes me)"?
From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didnâ(TM)t have standing to file it.
It got reversed because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and filed suit as soon as they were able. When it goes to appeal, the court may or may not toss it based on the merits, but they most certainly won't reject it for the same reason as last time.
Specifically a free speech issue, in a way that "money is speech" doesn't even come close to.
A department of the US government has denied equal protection to an entity incorporated in the US on the basis of the political implications of what they want to say. Short of "free speech zones", you don't get a much more solid 1st amendment issue.
On the contrary, Sparky. A department of the US government has refused to treat an entity differently than all other entities. Dan Snyder can use the word "Redskins" on his merchandise, and so can anyone else. This is the elimination of a government-imposed monopoly on commercial speech.
And they have history on their side - They won on appeal for exactly that reason last time. And they will win again this time.
Nope, they won on appeal because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs before bringing suit - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and brought suit as soon as they could. Even if they may win for an entirely new reason, they most certainly will not win on appeal for that reason.
Personally, I consider this whole issue much ado about nothing - The indians lost to the white demons; if a sports team wants to name themselves after history's losers, hey, their call.
... you're really helping your side with the whole "this isn't disparaging" thing...
Yes, just like the rap group NWA (Nigga's With Attitude). Or that the term "nigga" has been embraced by many in poorer parts of the black community. Please feel free to use that term to describe someone while in any inner city. I'm sure once you make this rational argument everything will be fine.
Actually the term "nigger" has become so offensive that just stating it is somehow offensive. Even when not using it as derogatory term but to quote someone. I'll probably be modded a troll or flamebait just for pointing this out. Grown educated people have gotten to the point that they now sound like 6 year old children. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I here people call it "The N-word".
Many younger people of the Jewish faith refer to each other as "heeb". There's even a "Heeb Magazine" But you can't be a (black or white) non-Hebrew and use this term.
Gays are allowed to, and do you the term "fag". But if you're heterosexual, and refer to someone as a "fag" it's homophobic.
I really hate this kind of crap. If it's alright for one group of people to use a term, but not another it's racist. Either the term is offensive, or it isn't. There's no modifier because of the color of your skin, your ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
Not at all... The word is not offensive. The simple collection of letters is not offensive. It's the intent behind the use of the word that is offensive. And so, when you put on your pointy white hat and call a black guy the n-word, it's highly offensive, because you intend it to be. When the same black guy calls his friend that, it's not offensive, because he does not intend it to be.
This is the same reason you can make the post you did on Slashdot and not be thought of as offensive, because, despite using the terms, you're using them in a context of a discussion about the terms. But it's also why when you do call someone those names, you can't fall back on your, "bu-bu-but I heard someone else use that word!"
And what ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? We've turned into a society of whiny little bitches. Oh damn, someone is going to accuse me of being discriminatory toward female canines and claim that I kill puppies.(/sarcasm)
Actually, you're the one that sounds like a whiny biatch: "Oh, woe is me! I'm so white and anglo-saxon, and I don't get to use terms that are highly offensive to people without being thought of as highly offensive! Boo hoo! Boo hoo! I'll just have to cry myself to sleep on my bed made of unearned privileges, dreaming of encountering police without trepidation, and earning 10-20% more the same work! Boo hoo!" Get over yourself. You're whining about the fact that you can't call people names that you know will offend them with impunity. That's one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard.
And we wonder why females have little interest in CS? The male version talks about gaming and creating toys, while the female version sounds like they want to target non-mathphobic social workers.
Yep. Full versions of the letters are available here. Also notice that the "Girl" letter states that a computing class may be required for any "science and math fields", while the "Boy" letter notes that a computing class may be required for any "science, engineering, and math fields." Even the signature blocks are different, with the "Boy" letter signed by GT's Director of Computing Outreach, while the "Girl" letter is signed "Teacher Name". There are many subtle differences throughout the letters that really have no place to be there.
Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't the CEO's at the biotech and pharma firms that decided they needed to dump money on congress on this issue as if they didn't have better use for their capital. Guess who convinced them to do it...
The Board of Directors? And yeah, lobbying decisions are absolutely due to the CEOs. I'm not sure what big business experience you have, but even the general counsel isn't pulling the strings that much.
Pharmaceutical and biotech firms are often plaintiffs in patent disputes and haven't been hit hard by troll lawsuits.
Fucking. Lawyers.
What does that have to do with lawyers? It sounds more like the proposed reforms would have impacted pharma and biotech firms in an way that they viewed negatively, because the harms to them are not balanced by the marginal benefit to them of avoiding troll suits.
Without knowing specifically what they're complaining about, my guess is one of the definitions of trolls as "non-practicing entities" also scoops up many research universities, like Johns Hopkins (since they do research, get patents, and then license or sell them without making any products). And research universities are big R&D labs for pharma. If those JHU patents that they are exclusively licensing to make a drug suddenly become invalid, then their competitors can start making the drugs too... and without paying any royalties to the university or providing them grants for the initial research.
That has nothing to do with fucking lawyers, though. That's a business consideration... Why aren't you saying "fucking CEOs"?
When Google says "Not Where We Want to Be" , what they are saying is that it is time to start discriminating against white males and hire other less qualified candidates because some groups are getting uppidy. We never hear similar claims of needing "more diversity" from the NBA or the National Felons League, but when we find an area where white males excel by working hard, it is time to put a stop to it.
Apparently spelling isn't one of those areas?
The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
In a related story, the U.K. Horse and Buggy Registration Service thinks the automobile will be 'of no use to anyone.' They show a vehicle being driven on a test track. It travels a short distance at 10 mph, then the engine blows a rod and one wheel falls off. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of petrol, anyone attempting to drive one would probably main or even kill themselves."
Perhaps the problem is that your knowledge of this issue lacks scope... Start with 'anita sarkeesian' and 'jessica watson'
With all due respect, isn't it a bit ironic that you suggest I lack knowledge of this issue, and then you recommend I check out the youngest woman to sail solo non-stop around the globe? You really have no idea what you're talking about.
And before you hastily Google the correct name and then rush back claiming it was "just a typo" and you really knew it all along, no, you've never actually read anything by her. You saw mention of the elevator incident on some forum like the Spearhead, and lumped her in with this mythical feminist/social warrior anti-geek conspiracy you've created. You don't need to actually research issues, because you have gut feelings that happen to perfectly coincide with your prejudices.
There is no reasonable evidence that 1 in 6 six women are raped over their lifetime... Any article that cites a rape rate like this...
Can you please copy and paste a quote from him saying that 1 in 6 women are "raped" or that there's a "rape rate" of 1 in 6? No, of course not. Because it's not there.
Any post that misleadingly paraphrases what it's replying to in order to make a claim about a lack of research about some statistic that wasn't actually cited is obviously being written off-the cuff with no legitimate interest in debating the issue. As a polemic rather than an argument it should be discarded as the waste of bandwidth it is.
1. my point is that there's no conspiracy. Men don't have it out for women, en masse. There aren't hundreds of thousands of rapists hiding on college campuses or workplaces. These people make it sound like it's a pandemic when the real numbers are miniscule.
"These people"? Sounds like you're imagining some conspiracy of people who are "making it sound like it's a pandemic". Frankly, that's a little nuts... particularly when you have no examples of "these people" and no one you can quote saying that there are "hundreds of thousands of rapists hiding on college campuses or workplaces." Do you have any evidence or quotes to support your crazy conspiracy theory?
2. Yes he did. He shamed geeks and nerds for apparent 'misogyny'.
Chu called you an "oppressor"? Let's see your copy-pasted quote from the article, then. I'll wait.
3. It's an often quoted statistic, and yes, most would constitute 'violent control over another's body' as a case for assault.
"It's an often quoted statistic"? By whom? And you said specifically - and I, unlike you, quote:
That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case.
Quit shaming men, regardless of their social proclivities. Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did.
Chu never wrote that "one out of six men are rapists". The only person "quoting" that statistic is you, when you lied and said Chu said it.
I suppose my post referenced more than just this article, but there's nothing wrong with that.
If I say that you're a horrible person for claiming that serial killers are really just sweet and misunderstood folks, you'd justifiably be upset. If I then said, "my post was referencing more than your quotes [when I claimed you said that], but there's nothing wrong with that," you'd also be upset.
Chu's article is part of this recent trend of feminists attacking IT/gamer culture. I'm tired of this professional victim routine that's become so popular with the 'social justice' crowd, feminist or otherwise.
And again, you were the one with the whole "it's not a conspiracy!" thing, but now you're saying there's a conspiracy of feminists and the "social justice crowd". I think you're projecting, dude.
Actually, I don't know that I've ever seen a woman get harassed in an electronic forum... I took it as a given that I had, but I just tried to identify some and.... no, really can't think of any. Huh. (This isn't relevant to the rest of my response, but I found it interesting)
Huh. That's odd. Maybe you should stop browsing Slashdot at +5? ;)
Seriously, you've never seen it? The woman who started the #yesallwomen trend on Twitter had to close her account because of all the rape threats she was getting.
Anyways, are you seriously saying it's every "geek or nerd"'s responsibility to stop *every* incident of harassment?
Not at all. I'm saying it's every geek or nerd's responsibility - along with everyone else's responsibility - to speak up when they see it. *Every* incident? Only if you're personally there for *every* incident, in which case, I'd have to wonder why you're always in the wrong place.
Is it your responsibility to stop *every* fire? No. If you see someone's house on fire, wouldn't it be a good responsible act to call the fire department, rather than just shrugging and walking away? Of course it is. Does it matter that you're not going to stop *every* fire? Of course not.
I think the space is already pretty unwelcoming of harassment, especially those parts outside some Call of Duty server...
I thought you said you couldn't think of any instances of harassment, and now you're throwing up specific examples like a Call of Duty server? Which is it?
... and with such a broad group it's tantamount to saying that all of society should be stopping it. Well... yeah, in principle, but that's impossible on its face - we can't even get southern racists to stop using the N-word in anger, and we've been trying for >50 years!
It used to be a common word everywhere. Up here in the North where we don't accept that language and speak up when its used, it is not prevalent. As you note, it's southern racists... and apparently no one in their circles is saying "stop using that word".
So sure, all geeks/nerds have this obligation, just like all people have this obligation not to harass others and try to censure others who do so, and I think that's actually happening more and more. But at some point, you need to agree (or learn) that the world is a pretty shitty place in all sorts of ways, and people need to develop the tools to deal with it - because if they don't, the world won't be any less shitty. And we're very close to that point already.
Telling people "just grow a thick skin" or "put up with it" is being part of the problem. Sure, you don't harass people... But you're not standing up to those who do, and you're telling their victims to suck it up. That makes you not quite as bad as the harassers, but no where close to being a good person. Ever hear the old poem about "they came for [X group], but I said nothing, because I was not [X]"? It's not supposed to be an endorsement of staying silent.
(By the way, I trust you're already a crusader against all the "prison rape" jokes that currently get a pass in fairly-polite society?)
Of course I am. No one deserves to be sexually assaulted, even if they've been convicted of a crime (not that every prison rape victim is even a convict, rather than in pre-trial detention). Particularly worse is that it's not just jokes, but an implied added threat - "act up, and we throw you in jail where you'll be someone's biatch". That implicitly condones it.
The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks.
I was referring to the "No True Scotsman" argument, which is not very effective.
I know what you were referring to, and was using the analogy of the Scottish people's fight for freedom to point out that yes, it can work to disassociate something from the group. Specifically, as I mentioned, excluding sociopaths from cons. I don't think anyone would say "no, you can't do that, because con members are sociopaths," which would be the No True Scotsman fallacy - "No true nerd isn't a sociopath." No one agrees with that proposition.
but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them,
Explain how I kick someone out of a con.
Well, if we're talking about the community, then the community includes con organizers who can exclude these people from cons. It also includes the con sponsors and attending merchants who can refuse to attend or sponsor if these people are attending. Do you agree that that would be a good idea, and you're just complaining that you, yourself, are powerless to help?
Because if so, you're not. You can refuse to attend cons that include these people, and spend your money at other cons that don't. But that's merely a discussion of how much power you have - we both agree that excluding these people would be a good idea, yes?
But have you ever heard someone else say [she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks]?
No.
Hi, welcome to society. Browse this article discussion on -1 and you'll see plenty of examples. Read the #yesallwomen Twitter feed and you'll see plenty of examples. The woman who started that hashtag trend had to close her account because of all the rape threats she was getting. Frankly, I don't believe that you've never heard of such things.
1. There is no such thing as 'rape culture' or 'patriarchy.' In any other circumstance we'd view this kind of thinking as conspiracy.
I believe you're interpreting the terms "rape culture" and "patriarchy" as implying that there's an organization controlling or promoting them, yes? Hence the reference to conspiracies.
There's no such implication. The Internet has a culture of trolling, but that doesn't imply that there's some Trollmaster behind it all. That our society normalizes sexual assault doesn't mean that there's some group of people encouraging it.
2. Enough of the victimhood bullshit. I tire of being labeled an 'oppressor' because of my sex or my skin tone. Don't tell me to check my privilege.
This seems to have nothing to do with the article. Chu never called you an oppressor.
3. That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case... Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did.
... you know that none of that is actually in the article, and you're really just making stuff up, right? Here's the quote:
We’re not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.
Does that say that "one out of six men are rapists"? Does it even say that one in six women are "raped"? Even if it did, what tremendous leap of logic did you perform to assume that if 16% of women are raped, then 16% of men must be rapists, because rapists only ever commit one rape or something? In fact, did you just see the words "one out of six" and flip out without reading the rest of the sentence?
By letting them amongst our ranks,
We have about as much power to define who is "amongst our ranks" as we do to define who Anonymous is. "No true nerd ..." is about as useful as "No true Scotsman..."
The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks. We likewise have the power to shun people who we think shouldn't be part of our community. We can't stop them from calling themselves geeks, but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them, then no one is going to confuse us with them.
and by letting them know it's OK to cyberstalk someone or that hey it's ok, she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks in our culture,
I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that. I also can't recall the first time. That's because I can recall all the times, and the count is ZERO.
But have you ever heard someone else say it? Did you say that that's not acceptable, or did you just say "I'm not doing it, so it's not my problem"?
I did all of the above. Not murderously violent, but violent enough that I acted out in inappropriate ways.
It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.
You do know that there hasn't been a marital exception for rape in any state for about twenty years, right?
...most of my life, obviously - because I don't ever recall EVER seeing a geek/nerd in my circles stalking anyone, threatening a girl and never mind hitting one. I'd say they'd improve their life if they even TRIED to HIT on any woman at all.
Most of those I know are frightened at the very concept of dating, pretty socially awkward I guess, but kind and gentle caring people who wouldn't even DREAM of hurting anyone. Sure, they'll kick your mental-a** and hurt your coding feelings by pointing out the numerous bugs in your code, and flaws in your theories, and possibly sweep the floor with your ego in gaming, but no way they'd ever even lift a finger to actually hurt you.
Sure, they won't... But will they talk about "raping" people in a game? Will they make dismissive jokes about how women can't do math, or should get in the kitchen and make sammiches? If other people they're gaming with or talking with make those jokes, will they laugh? Stay silent? Uncomfortably leave?
Will they speak up?
When all women experience harassment - and that's what the #yesallwomen trend is clearly showing - it doesn't matter that #notallmen are harassing women, if the rest of us aren't saying anything. We're not doing it, so we're not part of the problem, right? Wrong, because by not kicking them out, we make it possible for those few men that are harassing women to fit in.
So, yeah, I'm sure no geek or nerd in your circles was stalking or threatening anyone. Statistically, that's pretty likely... but it's also pretty likely that some geek or nerd in your circles knew of a woman being harassed or threatened and didn't say anything.
You may think it doesn't happen but ask the women in your group how many times people have treated them like children, dismissed them, or behaved in a really creepy way even after being asked to stop **. Ask any reasonably well-known geek girl to show you her "death & rape threat" tweet or email folder and you'll see hundreds or thousands of them.
Absolutely. It's significantly telling that the woman who started the #yesallwomen hashtag trend on Twitter shut down her account after countless numbers of rape threats.
And yeah, the backlash to that, the point behind the #notallmen tag, and the strident denials in the comments here are all correct: not all men make those threats, or treat women poorly or dismissively...
But we've all seen it and failed to speak up. Like you said:
** I've personally seen it many times; once I even witnessed a guy ask a female geek how many guys she had slept with, then get righteously offended and angry when she said that was an inappropriate question. (To my own younger self's shame I did not step in and call him out at the time - something I regret).
And like Chu said:
I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was “normal,” because, in other words, I was a coward and I had the privilege of ignoring the problem.
I've failed to speak up, too, and so has every man. And as you note, that's the real problem. Sociopaths make up a tiny percentage of the population - they're the few men that the #notallmen tag refers to - but they're really good at blending in, particularly when we don't speak up about this stuff, or worse, dismiss it, deny it, or laugh about it.
As an analogy, consider how many Slashdotters are anti-cop... We readily acknowledge that not all cops are corrupt assholes who falsify evidence and beat suspects, but we rightly criticize the so-called "good" cops who don't do that, but also don't speak up and maintain the thin blue line. The cop who doesn't take part in the beating but merely watches, or who doesn't say anything when another cop deletes a cop-incriminating recording from a dash camera or cell phone isn't the bad apple in the barrel, but they've sure been spoiled by that association.
Well, that's us when we don't speak up when we see someone treating women badly. Maybe we can protest that we aren't doing it, but we're spoiled by the association. Our thin blue line is the "brocode" or membership as "one of the guys", and it can be really difficult to face the peer pressure against speaking up, and it's so much easier to say silent, or laugh nervously, or do anything other than say "that's not right". But if we're not saying it, then we're no better those those "good" cops who cover for the bad ones.