While reading that paper, it occurs to me - so what if permanent polar ice caps are an anomaly? If our survival depends on that anomaly, I'm all for preserving it. I'm not picking an argument, just musing. Again, thanks for the link.
Sure, but I'm not wondering whether these laser attacks COULD guide weapons.. I'm wondering whether terrorists (if they are involved) could intend to cause a panic from the belief that these lasers might guide weapons. I really, really doubt these lasers could seriously blind a pilot while he's flying, yet the media is going crazy talking about it. Is it any less plausible to talk about laser guided weapons?
True, but the climate data from the ice cores shows the Earth going through long periods of incredibly erratic swings between desert and ice ages. It doesn't really matter to me if it's something that would eventually correct itself; I prefer to know whether the mid-Atlantic states will be icy or sunny next summer. Besides, the sweater industry would be thrown into sheer disarray, let alone the rest of the economy.
Sounds a lot like the "putting bars on your windows increases the chance your house will be broken into" statistic to me.
I don't have a gun and I don't live in a neighborhood with gun crime or burglaries. If I did live in such a neighborhood, I would be more likely to be shot in my home. I would also buy a gun for self defense. I'm more likely to be shot with the gun I own than the gun I have not yet purchased.
I know this doesn't resolve the issue, but I think it's only right to object when I read the bars on windows argument.
Maybe I'm cynical, but if every gun sold has to have electronic/computer receivers, might governments have keys to disable guns with those receivers? In some cases, that would negate the rights that gun ownership is supposed to secure, by removing checks on the ability of governments to take those rights.
ARGH! Why is this rhetoric so easy to find when we're talking about guns yet people (in general) are so open to the idea of computer ballot voting systems?! I KNOW that the right to bear arms is explicitly spelled out, but doesn't the same argument apply DIRECTLY to a computer ballot booth?
I'd argue that a computer voting machine is more of a threat than a smart gun, actually.
(I'm not against automated counting of paper ballots, but entirely against intangible, computerized ballots.)
Ditto for any other inopportune failure of the electronics. When a computer, iPod, etc. fails--even at the worst possible time--at most you are severely inconvienced. When your firearm fails at an inopportune time--say, I dunno, when a knife- or dumb gun-wielding intruder breaks into your bedroom maybe?--you are dead.
I know this is off-topic in content, but it's on-topic in principle.
When your computerized ballot system fails, your society becomes a joke.
Uh, [ponders]...
Clearly smart guns herald a new era of security and protection from evil doers and must be embraced as quickly as possible!
We will always be able to find a way for the data to support the theory that there is no global climate change. First of all, there is just is not enough data on record to say anything with absolute certainty.
I used to think exactly that until I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the deep sea current that flows from the North Atlantic to the SW Pacific.
Yes, my source is a TV show.
It clearly explained (in terms a CS guy could understand) how the threat of global warming is NOT rising temperatures and rising sea levels, but rather a decrease in the salinity of the North Atlantic which will disrupt the deep sea current. The result of this will be a dramatic and nearly immedate end to the moderation of climates enjoyed around the world - basically everywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer and south of the Tropic of Capricorn will experience an ice age while the equatorial region will become a desert that makes the Sahara look quaint.
I'm not prepared to argue the merits or weaknesses of such conjecture, but The Discovery channel sure as hell convinced me - to my (climatology amateur yet) analytical mind, the arguments all stacked up. The salinity situation is all but impossible to refute and the climate data culled from Antarctic glacier ice cores indicates that sudden radical shifts in Earth's climate into an ice age are nothing if not typical.
By the way - if somebody knows what I'm talking about and has a good link to the material, I'd love to see it. Telling people about the TV show I saw that one time gets old.
I do wonder if there is some terrorist conspiracy with laser beams and if they have the slightest possibility of having laser guided weapons, are they trying to scare the airlines/NTSB and if so, is the "blinding pilots" simply media spin in an attempt to keep the people calm?
Please note that I'm not suggesting that terrorists actually have laser guided weapons or that terrorists are actually involved. I'm just speculating that if it isn't impossible that they have laser guided weaponry and if they are involved, maybe the motive is to merely incite panic (without all the troublesome details of actually going through with an attack). If the officals react as though the plan is to blind pilots, well yeah, har har har, even GED Jerry knows that's a dumb plan, wink wink. Let's not even broach the subject of laser guided weaponry (regardless of whether or not this is a legitimate laser guided weapons threat).
People do not misinterpret Diehr because they lack expertise. They misinterpret Diehr because it's in their interest to do so.
And as every 3rd grader knows, it is the judicial branch of government that interprets law.
You either have a grudge against the federal district court in D.C. or your point is completely incomprehensible.
Hell, even this summary of the Diamond v. Diehr case demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. small words are easy to understand
The summary clearly indicates that a court ruling (i.e. the judicial branch of government interpreting the law) ruled that virtually all computer programs are patentable.
You think you are Neo and the world of IP law is The Matrix. In reality, you are the guy who posts on Slashdot about how cool Windows is because it is easy to use. You are that guy. You are not Neo. While I knew you were full of it from the first, it took me 4 seconds to Google for a summary of your reference which demonstrates that you are wrong.
The USPTO issues lots of patents that don't stand up under the standards set by Benson, Flook and Diehr rulings. No plush jobs are being lost. I don't care what any third grader tells me; the USPTO is not executing law according to the judicial branch's interpretation.
And to think that thousands of people go to law school for YEARS and yet YOU have expertise they lack! Holy cow, you have a career filled with power and fat lobbyist bankrolls waiting for you in IP law.
Alternatively, you're maybe not the IP law equivalent of the Matrix's Neo. I mean seriously, one of these scenarios is a lot more likely than the other, but I seriously can't figure out which is which!
The de facto situation in the U.S.: The USPTO gets paid according to how many applications they accept, so they are going to read the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many applications as possible. That means software patents generally get granted, and the burden of proof is on the victim to show that the patent should have been rejected
That this is moderated insightful is unquestionable proof that these types of discussions on Slashdot are completely worthless.
The USPTO does not interpret law. If you recall your 3rd grade social studies textbook, you will know that the judicial branch of government interprets the law. The USPTO is not part of the judicial branch of the government. The USPTO does not interpret law.
The USPTO is subject to the judicial branch's interpretation of the law. The USPTO executes the law according to the judicial branch's interpretation, otherwise the USPTO gets in trouble and people at the Department of Commerce lose their plush jobs.
The USPTO does not "read" the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many as applications as possible. This is fantasy, false, wrong, misleading, and untrue. The USPTO "reads" the law as the USPTO is told to read the law by the judicial branch of the Federal government.
This is a concept that is taught to 3rd grade students but incomprehensible on Slashdot. Therefore, currently Slashdot has nothing to offer a person informed or curious about this topic. I expect Slashdot will soon be covering the latest fashion trends from Milan, a topic that Slashdot's readership is equally qualified to discuss.
(we all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad).
..until we sat through a economics 101.
I agree with more of your comments than the average/. post on this topic, but it's really retarded to talk about anything not purely IT related on Slashdot. I'm not trying to single you out, but the amount of stuff that I read that's _just_plain_wrong_ is astonishing.
By the way, a lack of artifical barriers in the market is what makes human trafficking, prostitution, and loan sharking possible. It's what causes speculators to topple entire currency markets. It's part of what led to the stock market crash of 1929 marking the beginning of the Great Depression. We all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad until we read an Introduction to Economics textbook.
If you dont have the resources for a prototype you wont have the resources to file for a patent, and you _definitely_ wont have the resources to enforce it, nor defend yourself against countersuits.
You're going to get a crapflood of "in case someone else tries to" replies. The fact is that you can register an invention with the USPTO without going through the patent application process (basically a patent application without the necessity of proving it is novel or non-obvious over prior art) for a smaller fee and less stringent requirements.
My point is that (to those who know more than three things about the patent system) this is a valid question. My best guess is that IBM feels that the more stringent patent process provides a stronger contribution to the open source community, but it could also be a change of heart within the IBM corporate direction (regarding patents they've already paid for) or a more predatory action against their competitors (where opening the other guy's potential IP to open source is more offensive than defensive.) I can't answer any better than that, but to reiterate, this is a valid question to those who know more than three things about the patent system.
Best of luck to IBM in this clearly magnanimous move but they're simply giving away a potential competitive edge. In spirit, it's an anti-free market initiative - one that has a long term benefit, but good luck convincing an industry that its interests are better served by a more socialist attitude toward IP rights.
Best of luck and don't let anybody say they didn't try.
No it isn't. The idea that your own employees may be your own important customers just doesn't hold up. If a company sold 100% to its own employees (or similarly, if 2 companies sold only to each other), then it would of course shut down immediately. The closer a company is to that (absurd) extreme, the more useless it is as a whole.
Aha, so when there are 1,000 companies selling entirely amongst each other, they would of course shut down immediately.
And when there are entire economies selling entirely to each other, they would of course shut down immediately.
If you could capture the fairies, elves, and gnomes who are purchasing the world's manufactured goods, you could get pretty rich by charging admission to see the beasts.
You've really hit the nail on the head.
And one you can look at it distinctly, giving someone $100 to create they possibility that he'll pay you some fraction of it back is a fool's errand.
Sure it is, but as I said before - an economic base of poor scientists is as useless as an economic base of poor janitors. Rich janitors would be far better, no?
In the white paper, the policies suggested include: To ensure that patent litigation remains a last
resort used only rarely, patent administrative
procedures should provide the ability for third
parties to challenge a patent application,
obtain post-grant review, or oppose a granted
patent.
I'm sure they are talking about improving the existing mechanisms and are aware of 37 CFR 1.99 which begins with: "A submission by a member of the public of patents or publications relevant to a pending published application may be entered in the application file if the submission complies with the requirements of this section and the application is still pending when the submission and application file are brought before the examiner."
As I'm sure we all know, patent applications filed after November 29, 2000 will be published as a Pre-Grant Publication within 18 months of submission. There is also some existing mechanism that allows a third party to protest an issued patent and have it re-examined, but I'm not familiar with the procedure or the details beyond what I've already said. Note that I'm not saying they're suggesting a dumb policy, but instead pointing out that they must be referring to an improvement in the existing system that allows third parties to challenge a patent application.
They also suggest: Promote high-quality search and examination
results by improving the prior art database.
BSA supports efforts to improve prior art
databases and promote work and resource
sharing to ensure that patent examiners
throughout the world have access to these
databases.
This is probably an excellent suggestion if implemented effectively. For all the griping about the poor quality of issued patents, resources like IBM's Technical Disclosure Bulletins are more of a novelty than an industry standard procedure. I'm sure there would be value in assembling a technically oriented, well documented database of the history of computer technology. Even stuff like the date that Microsoft first used Clippy-like helpers might be hard to find and cite authoritatively - modern refences that point to Microsoft BOB in 1995 are easy to find, but finding a reference from 1995 detailing the little dog could be a challenge. (Don't kill me if you have one, that's just a quick example.)
Correlation isn't causation. To imagine that feedback cycle has any significant effect is akin to a belief in perpetual motion. The error should be intuitive, so I have trouble describing it concisely...
And a duck isn't a gopher. The US auto industry increased efficiency to deal with competition and eradicated the concept of the American auto industry factory worker who is well paid and can afford to buy a new American car every 3 years. Those workers went from being an overpaid part of an inefficient system, eager to puchase the inefficiently produced product, to uneducated and unskilled workers in other sectors, most of which paid considerably less generously.
Is it better to sell an inefficiently produced product to an eager market or to sell an efficiently produced product to a market less capable of making the purchase?
Additionally, I say:
Barely completing high school is reason for celebration to a great many people, now you expect them to be scientists, educators, or maintain order?
Your reply:
If you're accusing those people of being simpletons who can only ape procedures they've been carefully taught, then don't be surprised when corporations decide to replace them with machines.
My response would be the sentence immediately following the first that you quoted:
While a part of me agrees that this is their problem, I can't help but appreciate that a well-paid populace makes economic growth a hell of a lot easier.
And lastly, don't be surprised when the corporations find it difficult to sell nice items to people who have had their jobs replaced by robots. The whole efficiency mantra is a race to the bottom - tighter profit margins, lower cost products, lower wages, less incentive to become educated, and a higher barrier of entry for new competition (which must immediately compete with the established, highly efficient players).
I'm not advocating deliberate inefficiency, but of all the conceivable ways to raise profits, increasing efficiency by replacing labor with automated machinery has got to be the route closest to outright self destruction.
That common refrain is similar to the broken window fallacy, and of course is the philosophical justifaction for sabotage. Although even some major industrialists have said otherwise, it is not overall sensible to give people money (employ them) in the hope that they give some of it back (be customers).
What does the broken window fallacy have to say about the American defense industry and wars of convenience? What does it say about a warehouse full of ammunition as opposed to ammunition being sent from the factory straight to the front lines?
The broken window fallacy might be absolutely correct given a broad enough perspective and enough time for the system to achieve balance, but in a much more appreciable scale, it's probably quite meaningless.
During the 1960s and 1970s the Big Three US Automakers were paying over $20 an hour to almost every assembly plant worker, and those workers were buying US made automobiles. Demand was high, profits were high, and the workers were middle class. Praise the broken window fallacy that we don't make THAT mistake again, hm? Efficiency was increased to compete with the Japanese and was essentially successful, however the American auto industry is still unable to provide the same standard of living that it had 40 years ago.
If a factory owner has a generous soul and wants to do something good for the larger economy, then he should automate production, fire the 130, and rehire them as something totally different, like scientists, schoolteachers, or policemen.
But a land of liberty is just enough rope for most people to hang themselves. Barely completing high school is reason for celebration to a great many people, now you expect them to be scientists, educators, or maintain order?
While a part of me agrees that this is their problem, I can't help but appreciate that a well-paid populace makes economic growth a hell of a lot easier. A million poorly paid scientists is as bad an economic base as a million poorly paid janitors.
Ok, that makes zero sense. The whole point of peasants and serfs is they have ALL the important jobs. In a feudal society, you have 50% serf, 40% peasant, 5% tradesman (smiths, carpenters...) and 5% idle parasite (nobles and the rich merchants who serve them).
Oh, so the individual serf is crucial to the economy and cannot be replaced at a whim? Those serfs were so USEFUL that nobody wanted to offend them? They must have been well compensated and lived comfortable lives! Truly you have expanded my horizons.
The underclass now are still the underclass, but would you argue that their situation is worse than that of the underclass from ages past?
I wouldn't argue that their situation is fundamentally better. The number scale but poor is still poor, lack of health care in 2005 is the same as a lack of health care in 1705, and all the trappings of poverty seem to persist despite the latest trend in revolution.
The middle class seems to be much more transitory, as though balanced between the magnetic poles of rich and poor. The rich and poor always have and always will exist, but a third option is both a new idea and a trouble-filled one.
People want something that the state doesn't want them to have, so people steal from the state and sell the goods on the black market.
You're right; I meant to refer to the pure capitalist economy of a lawless state. A black market economy results from a lawful state and a population at odds with those laws. The global economy is an opportunity for corporations to exist as a largely stateless entity and to seize legal opportunities as they are best able. An entrepreneur starting a small business will likely be restricted by his local regulations while the international corporation can employ where the labor laws are loose, can manufacture where the pollution controls are lax, and can import where the tariffs are low. Being unbound from ethical accountability, the international corporation begins to look more and more like a participant in a lawless market economy. It is my assumption that a lawless market economy will tend toward oppression of the majority and certain socialist measures are necessary for long term success. In essence, I'm arguing an American-style market controls in the global economy, hardly anything radical.
You mentioned the terms peasant, serf, and Comrade interchangeably in the first paragraph, but now you're saying that a Communist revolution sounds like a good idea. Given the historical failures of Communism (including the liquidation of, rather than marginalization of undesirables), it doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
On this point, I think I was not incorrect but unclear. I first observed that communism is a poor state of affairs for a great many people, as you seem to agree, and also referring to the idea that communist revolutions often advertise saving the masses from oppression and poverty. I agree that it isn't a good idea, but oppress a man with capitalism long enough and I'd bet anyone would look for a change. The Cuban revolution was such a great success for the common people that they flee their island at every opportunity. The revolution is the first the solution to and later the cause of a miserable quality of life.
Well, would you please convince consumers to pay more for their products they buy so they don't subsidize their own jobs overseas?
And while I'm doing that, you take the task of convincing people to donate money to support the local fire and police departments, and then we can stop taking that money out of their paychecks!
What type of discussion is this? Someone should just link to an ethics 101 text on amazon.com and be done with it.
Right on the money. In broader terms, Slashdot is fervently socialist as long as it doesn't interfere with new techno toys. If the new techno toys only work in a world of vampiric capitalism, Slashdot says, "Oink."
A world where there are no jobs for everyone isn't necessarily a bad thing, if societies are rearranged so that a decent living is provided for everyone and people start defining themselves not by their profession but by some other attributes.
Get off it. It's been done before. The people were called peasants or serfs or comrades. When the people are unable to contribute to the GDP, then society has no need for the people and they are marginalized.
The global economy abstracts the whole capitalist marketplace into two camps: producers and consumers. As long there is some population somewhere that can buy your product (maybe a tiny western European nation with a small, rich population) the rest of the world can go get bent. Crank out your product with robots or slaves or serfs or peasants and make a profit.
Rampant capitalism is known as the black market and it doesn't work very well in the long run. The global economy isn't far from rampant capitalism, but it will work to some extent right up until the point where everybody's job has been replaced by a robot. Then nobody will be able to afford a new television, and the system will be in trouble.
A little international labor law and careful import/export management would be help, but one thing is for certain - this is not the path to utopia where "societies are rearranged so that a decent living is provided for everyone". This is the path to peasantry, serfdom, servitude, and slavery through debt. This is the road to a life where a communist revolution starts to sound like a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
While reading that paper, it occurs to me - so what if permanent polar ice caps are an anomaly? If our survival depends on that anomaly, I'm all for preserving it. I'm not picking an argument, just musing. Again, thanks for the link.
+1 informative - thanks for the reply and links.
Sure, but I'm not wondering whether these laser attacks COULD guide weapons.. I'm wondering whether terrorists (if they are involved) could intend to cause a panic from the belief that these lasers might guide weapons. I really, really doubt these lasers could seriously blind a pilot while he's flying, yet the media is going crazy talking about it. Is it any less plausible to talk about laser guided weapons?
True, but the climate data from the ice cores shows the Earth going through long periods of incredibly erratic swings between desert and ice ages. It doesn't really matter to me if it's something that would eventually correct itself; I prefer to know whether the mid-Atlantic states will be icy or sunny next summer. Besides, the sweater industry would be thrown into sheer disarray, let alone the rest of the economy.
I don't have a gun and I don't live in a neighborhood with gun crime or burglaries. If I did live in such a neighborhood, I would be more likely to be shot in my home. I would also buy a gun for self defense. I'm more likely to be shot with the gun I own than the gun I have not yet purchased.
I know this doesn't resolve the issue, but I think it's only right to object when I read the bars on windows argument.
ARGH! Why is this rhetoric so easy to find when we're talking about guns yet people (in general) are so open to the idea of computer ballot voting systems?! I KNOW that the right to bear arms is explicitly spelled out, but doesn't the same argument apply DIRECTLY to a computer ballot booth?
I'd argue that a computer voting machine is more of a threat than a smart gun, actually.
(I'm not against automated counting of paper ballots, but entirely against intangible, computerized ballots.)
I know this is off-topic in content, but it's on-topic in principle.
When your computerized ballot system fails, your society becomes a joke.
Uh, [ponders]...
Clearly smart guns herald a new era of security and protection from evil doers and must be embraced as quickly as possible!
I used to think exactly that until I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the deep sea current that flows from the North Atlantic to the SW Pacific.
Yes, my source is a TV show.
It clearly explained (in terms a CS guy could understand) how the threat of global warming is NOT rising temperatures and rising sea levels, but rather a decrease in the salinity of the North Atlantic which will disrupt the deep sea current. The result of this will be a dramatic and nearly immedate end to the moderation of climates enjoyed around the world - basically everywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer and south of the Tropic of Capricorn will experience an ice age while the equatorial region will become a desert that makes the Sahara look quaint.
I'm not prepared to argue the merits or weaknesses of such conjecture, but The Discovery channel sure as hell convinced me - to my (climatology amateur yet) analytical mind, the arguments all stacked up. The salinity situation is all but impossible to refute and the climate data culled from Antarctic glacier ice cores indicates that sudden radical shifts in Earth's climate into an ice age are nothing if not typical.
By the way - if somebody knows what I'm talking about and has a good link to the material, I'd love to see it. Telling people about the TV show I saw that one time gets old.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that terrorists actually have laser guided weapons or that terrorists are actually involved. I'm just speculating that if it isn't impossible that they have laser guided weaponry and if they are involved, maybe the motive is to merely incite panic (without all the troublesome details of actually going through with an attack). If the officals react as though the plan is to blind pilots, well yeah, har har har, even GED Jerry knows that's a dumb plan, wink wink. Let's not even broach the subject of laser guided weaponry (regardless of whether or not this is a legitimate laser guided weapons threat).
And as every 3rd grader knows, it is the judicial branch of government that interprets law.
You either have a grudge against the federal district court in D.C. or your point is completely incomprehensible.
Hell, even this summary of the Diamond v. Diehr case demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. small words are easy to understand
The summary clearly indicates that a court ruling (i.e. the judicial branch of government interpreting the law) ruled that virtually all computer programs are patentable.
You think you are Neo and the world of IP law is The Matrix. In reality, you are the guy who posts on Slashdot about how cool Windows is because it is easy to use. You are that guy. You are not Neo. While I knew you were full of it from the first, it took me 4 seconds to Google for a summary of your reference which demonstrates that you are wrong.
And to think that thousands of people go to law school for YEARS and yet YOU have expertise they lack! Holy cow, you have a career filled with power and fat lobbyist bankrolls waiting for you in IP law.
Alternatively, you're maybe not the IP law equivalent of the Matrix's Neo. I mean seriously, one of these scenarios is a lot more likely than the other, but I seriously can't figure out which is which!
That this is moderated insightful is unquestionable proof that these types of discussions on Slashdot are completely worthless.
The USPTO does not interpret law. If you recall your 3rd grade social studies textbook, you will know that the judicial branch of government interprets the law. The USPTO is not part of the judicial branch of the government. The USPTO does not interpret law.
The USPTO is subject to the judicial branch's interpretation of the law. The USPTO executes the law according to the judicial branch's interpretation, otherwise the USPTO gets in trouble and people at the Department of Commerce lose their plush jobs.
The USPTO does not "read" the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many as applications as possible. This is fantasy, false, wrong, misleading, and untrue. The USPTO "reads" the law as the USPTO is told to read the law by the judicial branch of the Federal government.
This is a concept that is taught to 3rd grade students but incomprehensible on Slashdot. Therefore, currently Slashdot has nothing to offer a person informed or curious about this topic. I expect Slashdot will soon be covering the latest fashion trends from Milan, a topic that Slashdot's readership is equally qualified to discuss.
I agree with more of your comments than the average /. post on this topic, but it's really retarded to talk about anything not purely IT related on Slashdot. I'm not trying to single you out, but the amount of stuff that I read that's _just_plain_wrong_ is astonishing.
By the way, a lack of artifical barriers in the market is what makes human trafficking, prostitution, and loan sharking possible. It's what causes speculators to topple entire currency markets. It's part of what led to the stock market crash of 1929 marking the beginning of the Great Depression. We all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad until we read an Introduction to Economics textbook.
SHARE THE WISDOM, COMRADE!
My point is that (to those who know more than three things about the patent system) this is a valid question. My best guess is that IBM feels that the more stringent patent process provides a stronger contribution to the open source community, but it could also be a change of heart within the IBM corporate direction (regarding patents they've already paid for) or a more predatory action against their competitors (where opening the other guy's potential IP to open source is more offensive than defensive.) I can't answer any better than that, but to reiterate, this is a valid question to those who know more than three things about the patent system.
Best of luck and don't let anybody say they didn't try.
Aha, so when there are 1,000 companies selling entirely amongst each other, they would of course shut down immediately.
And when there are entire economies selling entirely to each other, they would of course shut down immediately.
If you could capture the fairies, elves, and gnomes who are purchasing the world's manufactured goods, you could get pretty rich by charging admission to see the beasts.
You've really hit the nail on the head.
And one you can look at it distinctly, giving someone $100 to create they possibility that he'll pay you some fraction of it back is a fool's errand.
Sure it is, but as I said before - an economic base of poor scientists is as useless as an economic base of poor janitors. Rich janitors would be far better, no?
To ensure that patent litigation remains a last resort used only rarely, patent administrative procedures should provide the ability for third parties to challenge a patent application, obtain post-grant review, or oppose a granted patent.
I'm sure they are talking about improving the existing mechanisms and are aware of 37 CFR 1.99 which begins with:
"A submission by a member of the public of patents or publications relevant to a pending published application may be entered in the application file if the submission complies with the requirements of this section and the application is still pending when the submission and application file are brought before the examiner."
As I'm sure we all know, patent applications filed after November 29, 2000 will be published as a Pre-Grant Publication within 18 months of submission. There is also some existing mechanism that allows a third party to protest an issued patent and have it re-examined, but I'm not familiar with the procedure or the details beyond what I've already said. Note that I'm not saying they're suggesting a dumb policy, but instead pointing out that they must be referring to an improvement in the existing system that allows third parties to challenge a patent application.
They also suggest:
Promote high-quality search and examination results by improving the prior art database. BSA supports efforts to improve prior art databases and promote work and resource sharing to ensure that patent examiners throughout the world have access to these databases.
This is probably an excellent suggestion if implemented effectively. For all the griping about the poor quality of issued patents, resources like IBM's Technical Disclosure Bulletins are more of a novelty than an industry standard procedure. I'm sure there would be value in assembling a technically oriented, well documented database of the history of computer technology. Even stuff like the date that Microsoft first used Clippy-like helpers might be hard to find and cite authoritatively - modern refences that point to Microsoft BOB in 1995 are easy to find, but finding a reference from 1995 detailing the little dog could be a challenge. (Don't kill me if you have one, that's just a quick example.)
And a duck isn't a gopher. The US auto industry increased efficiency to deal with competition and eradicated the concept of the American auto industry factory worker who is well paid and can afford to buy a new American car every 3 years. Those workers went from being an overpaid part of an inefficient system, eager to puchase the inefficiently produced product, to uneducated and unskilled workers in other sectors, most of which paid considerably less generously.
Is it better to sell an inefficiently produced product to an eager market or to sell an efficiently produced product to a market less capable of making the purchase?
Additionally, I say:
Barely completing high school is reason for celebration to a great many people, now you expect them to be scientists, educators, or maintain order?
Your reply:
If you're accusing those people of being simpletons who can only ape procedures they've been carefully taught, then don't be surprised when corporations decide to replace them with machines.
My response would be the sentence immediately following the first that you quoted:
While a part of me agrees that this is their problem, I can't help but appreciate that a well-paid populace makes economic growth a hell of a lot easier.
And lastly, don't be surprised when the corporations find it difficult to sell nice items to people who have had their jobs replaced by robots. The whole efficiency mantra is a race to the bottom - tighter profit margins, lower cost products, lower wages, less incentive to become educated, and a higher barrier of entry for new competition (which must immediately compete with the established, highly efficient players).
I'm not advocating deliberate inefficiency, but of all the conceivable ways to raise profits, increasing efficiency by replacing labor with automated machinery has got to be the route closest to outright self destruction.
What does the broken window fallacy have to say about the American defense industry and wars of convenience? What does it say about a warehouse full of ammunition as opposed to ammunition being sent from the factory straight to the front lines?
The broken window fallacy might be absolutely correct given a broad enough perspective and enough time for the system to achieve balance, but in a much more appreciable scale, it's probably quite meaningless.
During the 1960s and 1970s the Big Three US Automakers were paying over $20 an hour to almost every assembly plant worker, and those workers were buying US made automobiles. Demand was high, profits were high, and the workers were middle class. Praise the broken window fallacy that we don't make THAT mistake again, hm? Efficiency was increased to compete with the Japanese and was essentially successful, however the American auto industry is still unable to provide the same standard of living that it had 40 years ago.
If a factory owner has a generous soul and wants to do something good for the larger economy, then he should automate production, fire the 130, and rehire them as something totally different, like scientists, schoolteachers, or policemen.
But a land of liberty is just enough rope for most people to hang themselves. Barely completing high school is reason for celebration to a great many people, now you expect them to be scientists, educators, or maintain order?
While a part of me agrees that this is their problem, I can't help but appreciate that a well-paid populace makes economic growth a hell of a lot easier. A million poorly paid scientists is as bad an economic base as a million poorly paid janitors.
Oh, so the individual serf is crucial to the economy and cannot be replaced at a whim? Those serfs were so USEFUL that nobody wanted to offend them? They must have been well compensated and lived comfortable lives! Truly you have expanded my horizons.
I wouldn't argue that their situation is fundamentally better. The number scale but poor is still poor, lack of health care in 2005 is the same as a lack of health care in 1705, and all the trappings of poverty seem to persist despite the latest trend in revolution.
The middle class seems to be much more transitory, as though balanced between the magnetic poles of rich and poor. The rich and poor always have and always will exist, but a third option is both a new idea and a trouble-filled one.
People want something that the state doesn't want them to have, so people steal from the state and sell the goods on the black market.
You're right; I meant to refer to the pure capitalist economy of a lawless state. A black market economy results from a lawful state and a population at odds with those laws. The global economy is an opportunity for corporations to exist as a largely stateless entity and to seize legal opportunities as they are best able. An entrepreneur starting a small business will likely be restricted by his local regulations while the international corporation can employ where the labor laws are loose, can manufacture where the pollution controls are lax, and can import where the tariffs are low. Being unbound from ethical accountability, the international corporation begins to look more and more like a participant in a lawless market economy. It is my assumption that a lawless market economy will tend toward oppression of the majority and certain socialist measures are necessary for long term success. In essence, I'm arguing an American-style market controls in the global economy, hardly anything radical.
You mentioned the terms peasant, serf, and Comrade interchangeably in the first paragraph, but now you're saying that a Communist revolution sounds like a good idea. Given the historical failures of Communism (including the liquidation of, rather than marginalization of undesirables), it doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
On this point, I think I was not incorrect but unclear. I first observed that communism is a poor state of affairs for a great many people, as you seem to agree, and also referring to the idea that communist revolutions often advertise saving the masses from oppression and poverty. I agree that it isn't a good idea, but oppress a man with capitalism long enough and I'd bet anyone would look for a change. The Cuban revolution was such a great success for the common people that they flee their island at every opportunity. The revolution is the first the solution to and later the cause of a miserable quality of life.
And while I'm doing that, you take the task of convincing people to donate money to support the local fire and police departments, and then we can stop taking that money out of their paychecks!
What type of discussion is this? Someone should just link to an ethics 101 text on amazon.com and be done with it.
Right on the money. In broader terms, Slashdot is fervently socialist as long as it doesn't interfere with new techno toys. If the new techno toys only work in a world of vampiric capitalism, Slashdot says, "Oink."
Get off it. It's been done before. The people were called peasants or serfs or comrades. When the people are unable to contribute to the GDP, then society has no need for the people and they are marginalized.
The global economy abstracts the whole capitalist marketplace into two camps: producers and consumers. As long there is some population somewhere that can buy your product (maybe a tiny western European nation with a small, rich population) the rest of the world can go get bent. Crank out your product with robots or slaves or serfs or peasants and make a profit.
Rampant capitalism is known as the black market and it doesn't work very well in the long run. The global economy isn't far from rampant capitalism, but it will work to some extent right up until the point where everybody's job has been replaced by a robot. Then nobody will be able to afford a new television, and the system will be in trouble.
A little international labor law and careful import/export management would be help, but one thing is for certain - this is not the path to utopia where "societies are rearranged so that a decent living is provided for everyone". This is the path to peasantry, serfdom, servitude, and slavery through debt. This is the road to a life where a communist revolution starts to sound like a good idea.