Bush truly believed there were WMDs in Iraq. The intelligence available to him said so. Bill Clinton also said that the intelligence said so when he left office, as well as in 1998. Saddam Hussein said that he intended for the intelligence to indicate so, in an effort to scare off Iran while calling the US's bluff that they wouldn't invade.
Right now, they are still busy extracting as much profit as they can from the imbalance in labor and environmental regulations between them and the US/Europe. They're still sitting on enormous coal deposits, which are cheap to exploit compared to most other energy sources, and I can't imagine that they'd give up coal power for something cleaner but less efficient unless forced to do so externally.
Except they do contribute - indirectly. By exporting goods to other countries, those companies bring money into their host country, where they pay it out as wages, spend it on locally-purchased supplies, etc. The host country then has ample opportunity to obtain tax revenue via personal income, payroll, or consumption taxes.
You're missing the point: it's illegal to threaten you with things like taking away your house or car because of nonpayment of a debt (except, of course, for nonpayment of your mortgage or car loan).
This is a good way to get yourself sued by a TSA agent for defamation of character, as the touching, while it does contact your naughty bits, is not "sexual".
Okay, the first IPEG quote is simply in error. As I mentioned above, the reason why not all of the obviousness rationales were discussed in the FR notice is because not all of the rationales have been invoked by the CAFC since KSR. Not only do all the rationales survive - they were indicated as valid by the Supreme Court, after all - but the FR notice expands upon that by calling attention to the fact that SCOTUS intended those rationales as exemplary rather than all-encompassing, meaning that other rationales may exist that SCOTUS didn't mention.
The second IPEG quote misinterprets the point behind the FR notice. Kappos was interested in providing more information about these rationales to examiners and attorneys, and the FR notice does this by compiling the various CAFC decisions that have since addressed these rationales. The hope for increased analysis isn't by changing the threshold for obviousness, but rather by helping examiners and attorneys to have a meeting of the minds as to what's proper and what's not. This helps reduce wasted time all around.
Third, concerning the Patently-O quote, I didn't say that these guidelines wouldn't affect rejections. That's kind of the whole point - to ensure that proper rejections are being made by further clarifying how and under what circumstances the rejections are supposed to be made, in view of the relevant case law, which has its roots in the Supreme Court's KSR decision. I'm not sure how you think that's supposed to translate into the USPTO getting rid of rationales for obviousness, especially since that would contravene the Supreme Court's fairly explicit ruling in KSR.
Finally, I don't get why you consider these third-party sources to be authoritative. The FR notice is right there for everyone to read. I know it's long, but it's not especially confusing for people who have some background in patent law. I hope you'll take the time to read through it and decide based on the primary source. Relying solely on third-party opinion is like writing a term paper and citing Wikipedia as your only source.
Although the other rationales discussed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are not the focus of separate discussions in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update, it will be noted that obviousness concepts such as applying known techniques, design choice, and market forces are addressed when they arise in the selected cases. The cases included in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update reinforce the idea, presented in the 2007 KSR Guidelines, that there may be more than one line of reasoning that can properly be applied to a particular factual scenario. The selected decisions also illustrate the overlapping nature of the lines of reasoning that may be employed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although the 2007 KSR Guidelines presented the rationales as discrete, self-contained lines of reasoning, and they may indeed be employed that way, it is useful to recognize that real-world situations may require analyses that may not be so readily pigeon-holed into distinct categories.
Not only do they not say that they're getting rid of the seven KSR rationales, they actually reinforce the idea that examiners don't even necessarily have to use one of the seven rationales when making an obviousness rejection, as long as they can express their rejection in a way commensurate with the Supreme Court's reasoning in KSR.
The only reason that the other four rationales aren't discussed in any great detail in these guidelines is because the Federal Circuit hasn't released any decisions invoking those rationales since KSR.
I only ask because where you live, apparently, pumpkin pie has achieved powered flight and it takes more than just Batman to keep a city safe. Sounds awfully Canadian to me.
I'm not convinced that the "live in the moment" attitude really works for getting large projects done, though. At least not for me. You're right that breaking down a project into its component tasks is helpful for avoiding that "crushing weight" feeling that scares me off from working on a large project, but doing what excites me right now tends to lead to me doing fun stuff instead of getting work done.
The problem, I think, arises when none of those little sub-tasks has any specific reward associated with it. So, you know that you can easily do part 1 of a 27-part project, but you also know that when you finish part 1, you won't really feel any closer to being done than you did with 0 parts done. With no reward - not even a sense of accomplishment - for these individual tasks, the call of fun non-work-related activities grows more seductive.
The key for me has always been to put myself in a situation where the fun non-work-related activities are unavailable. That doesn't work out well for getting stuff done around the house, since all my fun stuff is there, but it works a lot better for my job.
There has been animal research on this indicating that animals (cats, iirc) prevented from seeing from birth throughout their childhood mental development will not form the neural structures required to actually use their eyes, and that adaptation to correct this problem in adulthood is not possible.
Also in this case, the House controls plenty of things related to spending that don't have to go through both chambers.
Such as...?
The only unilateral power that the House has is impeachment, and even that is checked by the Senate conducting the actual trial. While the House has to start all appropriations bills, those bills still have to go through the Senate.
I guess he's arguing that many liberals find violence offensive, by the same token that many conservatives find naked boobs offensive. There are enough politicians from both sides demanding unconstitutional artistic censorship of video games and other media that it doesn't really deserve to be spun as a partisan issue as Limbaugh did.
By the same token, though, it's important to have support from free speech from across the political spectrum as well, so I hope Slashdotters won't laugh this off just because many of them happen to disagree with Limbaugh on nearly every other topic he discusses.
Slashdot Mirror
You miss my point. Why should they be taxed directly at all, when having them do business in your country is a benefit of its own accord?
by point-blank lying to the United Nations
Bush truly believed there were WMDs in Iraq. The intelligence available to him said so. Bill Clinton also said that the intelligence said so when he left office, as well as in 1998. Saddam Hussein said that he intended for the intelligence to indicate so, in an effort to scare off Iran while calling the US's bluff that they wouldn't invade.
Right now, they are still busy extracting as much profit as they can from the imbalance in labor and environmental regulations between them and the US/Europe. They're still sitting on enormous coal deposits, which are cheap to exploit compared to most other energy sources, and I can't imagine that they'd give up coal power for something cleaner but less efficient unless forced to do so externally.
That's good. Really. Now they should contribute - directly too.
That's a nice assertion, but.... why?
Except they do contribute - indirectly. By exporting goods to other countries, those companies bring money into their host country, where they pay it out as wages, spend it on locally-purchased supplies, etc. The host country then has ample opportunity to obtain tax revenue via personal income, payroll, or consumption taxes.
The prof felt that we were basically setting up entrapment and had a moral issue with it on the first test.
I wonder how many times the prof got busted for buying weed in order to wind up with this flawed definition of "entrapment".
I believe Tory spells it with a "y" on the end. But if he did spell it with an "i", I'm sure he'd dot it with a little heart.
Their remedy is supposed to be to sue you. That's why there are laws against certain kinds of harassment of debtors by creditors/collection agencies.
You're missing the point: it's illegal to threaten you with things like taking away your house or car because of nonpayment of a debt (except, of course, for nonpayment of your mortgage or car loan).
A similar reason to why every Krispy Kreme in the country has hour or longer waits on weekends, even months after grand opening.
No, I'm pretty sure that's because of the crack.
Vincent Van Gogh would beg to differ with you.
This is a good way to get yourself sued by a TSA agent for defamation of character, as the touching, while it does contact your naughty bits, is not "sexual".
Why would you hire the Baroness as your minister of security? Next you'll be telling me that Destro is the new Prime Minister.
I'll take credit for it. If found please return it. Thanks.
We'll be sure to, uh, send it your way. Or at least one of similar manufacture.
Okay, the first IPEG quote is simply in error. As I mentioned above, the reason why not all of the obviousness rationales were discussed in the FR notice is because not all of the rationales have been invoked by the CAFC since KSR. Not only do all the rationales survive - they were indicated as valid by the Supreme Court, after all - but the FR notice expands upon that by calling attention to the fact that SCOTUS intended those rationales as exemplary rather than all-encompassing, meaning that other rationales may exist that SCOTUS didn't mention.
The second IPEG quote misinterprets the point behind the FR notice. Kappos was interested in providing more information about these rationales to examiners and attorneys, and the FR notice does this by compiling the various CAFC decisions that have since addressed these rationales. The hope for increased analysis isn't by changing the threshold for obviousness, but rather by helping examiners and attorneys to have a meeting of the minds as to what's proper and what's not. This helps reduce wasted time all around.
Third, concerning the Patently-O quote, I didn't say that these guidelines wouldn't affect rejections. That's kind of the whole point - to ensure that proper rejections are being made by further clarifying how and under what circumstances the rejections are supposed to be made, in view of the relevant case law, which has its roots in the Supreme Court's KSR decision. I'm not sure how you think that's supposed to translate into the USPTO getting rid of rationales for obviousness, especially since that would contravene the Supreme Court's fairly explicit ruling in KSR.
Finally, I don't get why you consider these third-party sources to be authoritative. The FR notice is right there for everyone to read. I know it's long, but it's not especially confusing for people who have some background in patent law. I hope you'll take the time to read through it and decide based on the primary source. Relying solely on third-party opinion is like writing a term paper and citing Wikipedia as your only source.
Oops. Should be "getting rid of any of the seven KSR rationales".
Although the other rationales discussed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are not the focus of separate discussions in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update, it will be noted that obviousness concepts such as applying known techniques, design choice, and market forces are addressed when they arise in the selected cases. The cases included in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update reinforce the idea, presented in the 2007 KSR Guidelines, that there may be more than one line of reasoning that can properly be applied to a particular factual scenario. The selected decisions also illustrate the overlapping nature of the lines of reasoning that may be employed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although the 2007 KSR Guidelines presented the rationales as discrete, self-contained lines of reasoning, and they may indeed be employed that way, it is useful to recognize that real-world situations may require analyses that may not be so readily pigeon-holed into distinct categories.
Not only do they not say that they're getting rid of the seven KSR rationales, they actually reinforce the idea that examiners don't even necessarily have to use one of the seven rationales when making an obviousness rejection, as long as they can express their rejection in a way commensurate with the Supreme Court's reasoning in KSR.
The only reason that the other four rationales aren't discussed in any great detail in these guidelines is because the Federal Circuit hasn't released any decisions invoking those rationales since KSR.
Are you some sort of Canadian?
I only ask because where you live, apparently, pumpkin pie has achieved powered flight and it takes more than just Batman to keep a city safe. Sounds awfully Canadian to me.
I'm not convinced that the "live in the moment" attitude really works for getting large projects done, though. At least not for me. You're right that breaking down a project into its component tasks is helpful for avoiding that "crushing weight" feeling that scares me off from working on a large project, but doing what excites me right now tends to lead to me doing fun stuff instead of getting work done.
The problem, I think, arises when none of those little sub-tasks has any specific reward associated with it. So, you know that you can easily do part 1 of a 27-part project, but you also know that when you finish part 1, you won't really feel any closer to being done than you did with 0 parts done. With no reward - not even a sense of accomplishment - for these individual tasks, the call of fun non-work-related activities grows more seductive.
The key for me has always been to put myself in a situation where the fun non-work-related activities are unavailable. That doesn't work out well for getting stuff done around the house, since all my fun stuff is there, but it works a lot better for my job.
1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected"
2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
I dunno.... seems like there's something missing from this specification.
There has been animal research on this indicating that animals (cats, iirc) prevented from seeing from birth throughout their childhood mental development will not form the neural structures required to actually use their eyes, and that adaptation to correct this problem in adulthood is not possible.
I learned it from ENTER Magazine, which eventually got folded into a programming section in 3-2-1 Contact.
Also in this case, the House controls plenty of things related to spending that don't have to go through both chambers.
Such as...?
The only unilateral power that the House has is impeachment, and even that is checked by the Senate conducting the actual trial. While the House has to start all appropriations bills, those bills still have to go through the Senate.
Hey, I'm just doing what I can to help the lowest common denominator catch up with the rest of us.
I guess he's arguing that many liberals find violence offensive, by the same token that many conservatives find naked boobs offensive. There are enough politicians from both sides demanding unconstitutional artistic censorship of video games and other media that it doesn't really deserve to be spun as a partisan issue as Limbaugh did.
By the same token, though, it's important to have support from free speech from across the political spectrum as well, so I hope Slashdotters won't laugh this off just because many of them happen to disagree with Limbaugh on nearly every other topic he discusses.