Also, I expected to see a story about their newfangled contraption actually eating homework, given the title. Instead, all we get is a dirty words list (tee hee).
They probably have Constitutional immunity. The proper recourse against the legislators is to recall those legislators or, if the law in that jurisdiction doesn't permit recall elections, vote them out at the next opportunity. The proper recourse against the law itself is to sue an appropriate party (often a part of the Executive Branch) to have it ruled unconstitutional, assuming you have standing.
This is how design patents work. They are a completely different beast from utility patents.
I don't deal with design patents, so I'm not extremely familiar with their intricacies, but generally speaking, you'll have one claim and one drawing. The claim almost always specifically refers to the drawing. In the drawing, any features shown with dashed lines are not part of the "claim" - they are exemplary in nature to help you see how the claimed features interrelate to the rest of the object. Only the parts with solid lines are considered part of the ornamental design which their patent is intended to cover.
This is good news. Hopefully, Amazon will start publishing school textbooks, too, at a fraction of the overinflated price that conventional publishers currently charge.
Better yet, publish them as e-books and sell Kindles to school boards.
TFA includes a shortened transcript of the teacher's comments, and it doesn't sound to me like he was criticizing religion per se. Rather, he was criticizing attempts by people to pose religion as science (such as intelligent design), by saying that the "logic" used to argue in favor of creationism is fundamentally flawed and nonscientific. And especially if intelligent design advocates continue to insist that their ideas be taught as science in a science classroom, then such criticisms should certainly be fair game in science classrooms.
At least from the transcript, it didn't seem like he was directly criticizing those who nevertheless believe in a creator as a matter of faith and not of science.
Two things. One, there is no such thing as a provisional patent. There are provisional patent applications, but provisional patent applications are not separately examined, and patents do not issue from them. They are merely a procedural tool to get yourself an extra year of time to decide whether a patent is worth pursuing on your invention. The only things you need to get yourself a provisional patent application are a specification, a drawing (if applicable), and the filing fee.
Two, the issuance of a patent is not an endorsement of your invention. It merely indicates that the government believes that your patent application satisfies all of the statutory requirements for issuance of a patent. So, it significantly overstates the matter to say that a person "earned" a patent.
Appropriate forms of protest, yes. The First Amendment doesn't grant the right to protest in any way imaginable. (For instance, you can't protest abortions across the street from an abortion provider in some jurisdictions in the US.) Clogging up a mass transit system for the lulz is certainly not an appropriate form of protest.
Protesting shootings and demanding accountability is why we have actual reputable civil liberties groups that specialize in this sort of thing.
Besides, the only people who suffer from protests held in a mass transit system are the people who are trying to get to work and keep the job they're fortunate to have.
Could you provide a source for your 80% statistic? It seems unusually outlandish, and the Census Bureau says that the 2009 number for West Virginia was still 17.8% of individuals.
Robot cars *do* have to be 100% reliable, because the automakers will bear culpability for crashes caused by an autopilot, and their much deeper pockets will result in lawsuits filed for damages several orders of magnitude higher than what Joe Sixpack faces when he hits someone. That risk of liability will keep car autopilots off the roads for the foreseeable future, even when the technology appears to have matured.
Had Google gotten these patents, any patent troll... would have to think twice before suing Google.
That's the thing about patent trolls. They don't produce any products, so they don't infringe on any patents, which means that suing someone is largely a risk-free proposition.
It's a little like terrorists with nukes. Mutually-assured destruction no longer serves as a deterrent: whom do we nuke back?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I expected to see a story about their newfangled contraption actually eating homework, given the title. Instead, all we get is a dirty words list (tee hee).
nothing I've been stuck in here has ever been worse than the times I've driven on I-95 between DC and Richmond during daylight hours.
And "daylight hours" includes the weekends.
They probably have Constitutional immunity. The proper recourse against the legislators is to recall those legislators or, if the law in that jurisdiction doesn't permit recall elections, vote them out at the next opportunity. The proper recourse against the law itself is to sue an appropriate party (often a part of the Executive Branch) to have it ruled unconstitutional, assuming you have standing.
And here I was all convinced that the earth's crust was a series of pipes.
This is how design patents work. They are a completely different beast from utility patents.
I don't deal with design patents, so I'm not extremely familiar with their intricacies, but generally speaking, you'll have one claim and one drawing. The claim almost always specifically refers to the drawing. In the drawing, any features shown with dashed lines are not part of the "claim" - they are exemplary in nature to help you see how the claimed features interrelate to the rest of the object. Only the parts with solid lines are considered part of the ornamental design which their patent is intended to cover.
can we be CowboyNeals friend?
More importantly, should we be CowboyNeal's friend?
This is good news. Hopefully, Amazon will start publishing school textbooks, too, at a fraction of the overinflated price that conventional publishers currently charge.
Better yet, publish them as e-books and sell Kindles to school boards.
TFA includes a shortened transcript of the teacher's comments, and it doesn't sound to me like he was criticizing religion per se. Rather, he was criticizing attempts by people to pose religion as science (such as intelligent design), by saying that the "logic" used to argue in favor of creationism is fundamentally flawed and nonscientific. And especially if intelligent design advocates continue to insist that their ideas be taught as science in a science classroom, then such criticisms should certainly be fair game in science classrooms.
At least from the transcript, it didn't seem like he was directly criticizing those who nevertheless believe in a creator as a matter of faith and not of science.
earned him ... a provisional patent on the design
Two things. One, there is no such thing as a provisional patent. There are provisional patent applications, but provisional patent applications are not separately examined, and patents do not issue from them. They are merely a procedural tool to get yourself an extra year of time to decide whether a patent is worth pursuing on your invention. The only things you need to get yourself a provisional patent application are a specification, a drawing (if applicable), and the filing fee.
Two, the issuance of a patent is not an endorsement of your invention. It merely indicates that the government believes that your patent application satisfies all of the statutory requirements for issuance of a patent. So, it significantly overstates the matter to say that a person "earned" a patent.
Did you bother to find out for yourself that this hasn't actually been patented yet, or did you just trust the unsurprisingly bad Slashdot headline?
If you're going to have a trial, it should definitely be a trial by stone.
Appropriate forms of protest, yes. The First Amendment doesn't grant the right to protest in any way imaginable. (For instance, you can't protest abortions across the street from an abortion provider in some jurisdictions in the US.) Clogging up a mass transit system for the lulz is certainly not an appropriate form of protest.
I'm inclined to believe the word was used appropriately here, as I was incapacitated for at least five minutes after seeing the photo.
Protesting shootings and demanding accountability is why we have actual reputable civil liberties groups that specialize in this sort of thing.
Besides, the only people who suffer from protests held in a mass transit system are the people who are trying to get to work and keep the job they're fortunate to have.
I give you free stuff and it turns out to be unsuitable for its apparent purpose. Wow, I really tricked you there.
Still, it's kind of amusing.
I hear orange goo has invaded New Jersey beaches for several years now.
Not crustacean eggs, but definitely crabs-related.
Fortunately, most rioters are morons and will not go through the trouble of building (much less remembering to wear) an anti-camera ball cap.
Let's see... Whose opinion should I trust about the scientific validity and importance of SETI: some random guy on the internet, or Carl Sagan?
Could you provide a source for your 80% statistic? It seems unusually outlandish, and the Census Bureau says that the 2009 number for West Virginia was still 17.8% of individuals.
Robot cars *do* have to be 100% reliable, because the automakers will bear culpability for crashes caused by an autopilot, and their much deeper pockets will result in lawsuits filed for damages several orders of magnitude higher than what Joe Sixpack faces when he hits someone. That risk of liability will keep car autopilots off the roads for the foreseeable future, even when the technology appears to have matured.
Had Google gotten these patents, any patent troll ... would have to think twice before suing Google.
That's the thing about patent trolls. They don't produce any products, so they don't infringe on any patents, which means that suing someone is largely a risk-free proposition.
It's a little like terrorists with nukes. Mutually-assured destruction no longer serves as a deterrent: whom do we nuke back?
Yes, but our universe is called Universe A. You can be Universe B.
After further study, scientists discovered that the object consisted almost entirely of old discarded IKEA furniture.
Hell, I have multiple supervisors on my Facebook friends list. I solve the problem by being careful about what I post.
Nice straw man. I believe the topic of conversation was oil and oil service companies.