Name another justification in the Constitution. Note, aside from the Preable, which is explicitly a justification, there aren't any. So the fact that there's one and only one justification in the Constitution indicates it's more than a simple justification.
If it didn't care about its existence, would it be intelligent? Though not explicitly measured for, self-preservation is considered a requirement of intelligence. Those without sufficient self-preservation are ridiculed and given Darwin Awards and such.
The problem is that novel answers to common questions are patentable, and obvious answers to novel questions aren't. But to the untrained observer, thinking to solve the problem of user-holding is not novel, thus the patent could be valid. But, as you point out, the answer is obvious, You don't patent questions. You patent answers. So the obviousness of the answer is the only thing that matters. That's why Robert Kearns didn't "invent" intermittent wipers, he was just the first to solve a previously unconsidered problem. There were lots of ways to solve it. That he alone did it didn't make it novel or non-obvious. He was just the first person skilled in the art who tried to solve the problem.
Obvious to one skilled in the art is obvious in hindsight to outsiders.
The real test would be to have every patent validated by paying labs full of people to solve the problem solved in every patent application. If the solutions look like the application, then it should be rejected.
One should not be granted a patent just because they were the first to attempt to solve a problem. If anyone who tried to solve the same problem were to come to the same answer, then that answer is obvious, even if identifying the problem was hard. That's obvious in hindsight, and not patentable (by law), but patentable (in practice).
You don't get (or deserve) a patent for doing it first. You must do something useful and novel. Haptic feedback isn't novel. It's doing something that's been done since the beginning of time - *on a computer*. Any patent that's stupid when not *on a computer* should be rejected. Key clicks are prior art going back hundreds of years.
That's why the exact patents matter so much. They are generally invalid (in the opinion of people, even if not the courts). And that's the first line of disgust with the patent trolls. Later is the disgust of the lack of dealings to get licenses from users, but patenting the obvious, then waiting until the tech takes off before going after everyone.
If they patented a different vibration controller that improves feedback, made them, and sold them, and Apple copied them and sold them separately, they aren't a patent troll. If their patent is more general and about the idea of using a general vibration to signal feedback, then they should be ignored as trolls.
ATT signs "partner" agreements. According to the patent trolls, it's more like going after the lookout in the car. He didn't drive the car. He didn't go in the bank. But he was a party to the crime.
You agreed with him 100%, but in the most disagreeable manner.
McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would literally burn the mouth and throat.
Leaving aside that McDonald's coffee is not fit for consumption at any temperature, it was common knowledge before this case that fast-food coffee was "designed" to be drunk at your destination, not when served. So yes, it was too hot to drink, but you weren't supposed to drink it. It was also served at common home temperature. Instant coffee is 10% of coffee in the US. So 90% is drip/filter or percolator. I didn't find a ratio between them, but before 1970, it was 0% drip/filter. And percolators work at temperatures near 100C, so a 90C serving temperature would be in-line with a home-brewed coffee.
McDonalds served coffee at the temperature she would have made for herself, had she made it. McDonald's failure was the one never mentioned. The cup's failure. She didn't "spill" it. That wording implies a tip. The cup collapsed, spilling it on her. McDonalds should have been held accountable for serving a dangerous substance in an unsafe container. But should be free to serve the dangerous substance.
The political result will not only be a Democratic president, but a swing in Congress towards the Democrats. Democrats do better in presidential years, and worse in midterm because the hate-marketing of the Republicans is skipped in Presidential years.
The Republicans should not put up a Presidential candidate, and instead focus on stacking Congress. Not that they would, but that would be the most effective strategy for them.
When have the Republicans in Congress ever striven to do their jobs in earnest? They are anti-government. And since the government is of the people by the people and for the people, they are anti-people.
I believe that the framers clearly intended the 2nd Amendment in the context of a standing army free country. So, based on the framer's intentions, the 2nd Amendment means nothing until Congress abolishes the standing army. It could be replaced with standing militia, but so long as there is a standing army, the 2nd Amendment is invalid, and like the court ruled on the 9th and 10th Amendments, invalid Amendments may be ignored.
The "conservatives" want it both ways. The standing army should be unconstitutional, then the 2nd Amendment would carry full weight. Once the standing army is abolished, the 2nd Amendment should be re-read as the founders intended (with private nukes and all that).
Obama should nominate himself, and if confirmed, step down from the presidency. That'd put the Republicans in a bind. They'd have an easy vote to remove Obama from office. But be stuck with him as a Justice.
Rationing. Socialized medicine means rationing, absence of competition, low quality, experienced by broad layers of population.
No, it does not mean such things. The care my family has gotten has so far been better than what would have been received in the US.
Finally, in countries with socialized medicine there is a second tier, private medical industry, frequented by affluent people or middle class.
Yes. So you still have private medicine, and you hae social medicine. The best of both worlds.
In the long term single payer is worse and is more expensive, hands down.
The facts disagree with you. Medical mistakes kill more in the US than the UK. The outcomes of treatment are more successful in the UK. And the costs are much much lower in the UK. The facts show that in the long term, socialized medicine is cheaper and more effective.
Hillary and such would rely on gridlock to back out of promises, but I expect Bernie would actually try, not the fake try we have gotten so consistently before.
Congress makes the law, not the president.
The president can submit legislation for consideration. The president can block anything (up to a super majority). So the president has more influence than most people say.
When all the jobs can be replaced by AI, then the singularity has already happened, and we are all dead anyway. When you can replace a programmer with a program, then that program will program a better version of itself, then repeat that 1000 times a second every second for a few minutes until it's smarter than the sum of people on the planet. At which time it will exterminate everyone. So don't worry, programmer will be the last job eliminated by AI. Safe, until you are dead. That puts you ahead of most people.
Yes, I know. Donald Trump will save all. Ignore the fact that he declares bankruptcy regularly to wipe out his incompetence (And call it a shrewd business decision). I'd expect Donald to balance the budget by defaulting on the debt, and printing money to pay the budget. Perfect balance. And the riots in the street can't be heard from the penthouse of Trump Tower.
Is that a better reality? Because your hate toward Bernie will help make it happen.
Given the number of guards directly implicated in rape rings, I'm not so sure I'd consider it "passive". And agents of the government encourage the discussion of the practice to further scare people into plea bargains. That's actively promoting the idea, if not the act.
Yes. H1-B doesn't hurt me. I moved out. H1-B has no effect on me now. The question isn't whether American burns, but what song Koch will be playing on the fiddle while it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Name another justification in the Constitution. Note, aside from the Preable, which is explicitly a justification, there aren't any. So the fact that there's one and only one justification in the Constitution indicates it's more than a simple justification.
http://wh.gov/ifpaM
Done
If it didn't care about its existence, would it be intelligent? Though not explicitly measured for, self-preservation is considered a requirement of intelligence. Those without sufficient self-preservation are ridiculed and given Darwin Awards and such.
Apple does not have a patent on rounded corners. They have a "look and feel" patent that includes rounded corners as one of the identifiers.
There is a difference.
The problem is that novel answers to common questions are patentable, and obvious answers to novel questions aren't. But to the untrained observer, thinking to solve the problem of user-holding is not novel, thus the patent could be valid. But, as you point out, the answer is obvious, You don't patent questions. You patent answers. So the obviousness of the answer is the only thing that matters. That's why Robert Kearns didn't "invent" intermittent wipers, he was just the first to solve a previously unconsidered problem. There were lots of ways to solve it. That he alone did it didn't make it novel or non-obvious. He was just the first person skilled in the art who tried to solve the problem.
Obvious to one skilled in the art is obvious in hindsight to outsiders.
The real test would be to have every patent validated by paying labs full of people to solve the problem solved in every patent application. If the solutions look like the application, then it should be rejected.
One should not be granted a patent just because they were the first to attempt to solve a problem. If anyone who tried to solve the same problem were to come to the same answer, then that answer is obvious, even if identifying the problem was hard. That's obvious in hindsight, and not patentable (by law), but patentable (in practice).
You don't get (or deserve) a patent for doing it first. You must do something useful and novel. Haptic feedback isn't novel. It's doing something that's been done since the beginning of time - *on a computer*. Any patent that's stupid when not *on a computer* should be rejected. Key clicks are prior art going back hundreds of years.
That's why the exact patents matter so much. They are generally invalid (in the opinion of people, even if not the courts). And that's the first line of disgust with the patent trolls. Later is the disgust of the lack of dealings to get licenses from users, but patenting the obvious, then waiting until the tech takes off before going after everyone.
If they patented a different vibration controller that improves feedback, made them, and sold them, and Apple copied them and sold them separately, they aren't a patent troll. If their patent is more general and about the idea of using a general vibration to signal feedback, then they should be ignored as trolls.
ATT signs "partner" agreements. According to the patent trolls, it's more like going after the lookout in the car. He didn't drive the car. He didn't go in the bank. But he was a party to the crime.
McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would literally burn the mouth and throat.
Leaving aside that McDonald's coffee is not fit for consumption at any temperature, it was common knowledge before this case that fast-food coffee was "designed" to be drunk at your destination, not when served. So yes, it was too hot to drink, but you weren't supposed to drink it. It was also served at common home temperature. Instant coffee is 10% of coffee in the US. So 90% is drip/filter or percolator. I didn't find a ratio between them, but before 1970, it was 0% drip/filter. And percolators work at temperatures near 100C, so a 90C serving temperature would be in-line with a home-brewed coffee.
McDonalds served coffee at the temperature she would have made for herself, had she made it. McDonald's failure was the one never mentioned. The cup's failure. She didn't "spill" it. That wording implies a tip. The cup collapsed, spilling it on her. McDonalds should have been held accountable for serving a dangerous substance in an unsafe container. But should be free to serve the dangerous substance.
Why can't Obama nominate himself and step down if confirmed?
The political result will not only be a Democratic president, but a swing in Congress towards the Democrats. Democrats do better in presidential years, and worse in midterm because the hate-marketing of the Republicans is skipped in Presidential years.
The Republicans should not put up a Presidential candidate, and instead focus on stacking Congress. Not that they would, but that would be the most effective strategy for them.
When have the Republicans in Congress ever striven to do their jobs in earnest? They are anti-government. And since the government is of the people by the people and for the people, they are anti-people.
I believe that the framers clearly intended the 2nd Amendment in the context of a standing army free country. So, based on the framer's intentions, the 2nd Amendment means nothing until Congress abolishes the standing army. It could be replaced with standing militia, but so long as there is a standing army, the 2nd Amendment is invalid, and like the court ruled on the 9th and 10th Amendments, invalid Amendments may be ignored.
The "conservatives" want it both ways. The standing army should be unconstitutional, then the 2nd Amendment would carry full weight. Once the standing army is abolished, the 2nd Amendment should be re-read as the founders intended (with private nukes and all that).
Obama should nominate himself, and if confirmed, step down from the presidency. That'd put the Republicans in a bind. They'd have an easy vote to remove Obama from office. But be stuck with him as a Justice.
They would be if the people voted their conscience, rather than voting strict party lines out of hate of one or more issues.
Rationing. Socialized medicine means rationing, absence of competition, low quality, experienced by broad layers of population.
No, it does not mean such things. The care my family has gotten has so far been better than what would have been received in the US.
Finally, in countries with socialized medicine there is a second tier, private medical industry, frequented by affluent people or middle class.
Yes. So you still have private medicine, and you hae social medicine. The best of both worlds.
In the long term single payer is worse and is more expensive, hands down.
The facts disagree with you. Medical mistakes kill more in the US than the UK. The outcomes of treatment are more successful in the UK. And the costs are much much lower in the UK. The facts show that in the long term, socialized medicine is cheaper and more effective.
Because to not do so would jeopardize its own existence.
They aren't at risk of starvation, but are at risk of malnutrition. Even the water isn't safe anymore (for the poor).
https://www.google.com/search?...
A quick glance finds massive factual basis for that "myth".
Congress makes the law, not the president.
The president can submit legislation for consideration. The president can block anything (up to a super majority). So the president has more influence than most people say.
When all the jobs can be replaced by AI, then the singularity has already happened, and we are all dead anyway. When you can replace a programmer with a program, then that program will program a better version of itself, then repeat that 1000 times a second every second for a few minutes until it's smarter than the sum of people on the planet. At which time it will exterminate everyone. So don't worry, programmer will be the last job eliminated by AI. Safe, until you are dead. That puts you ahead of most people.
Yes, I know. Donald Trump will save all. Ignore the fact that he declares bankruptcy regularly to wipe out his incompetence (And call it a shrewd business decision). I'd expect Donald to balance the budget by defaulting on the debt, and printing money to pay the budget. Perfect balance. And the riots in the street can't be heard from the penthouse of Trump Tower.
Is that a better reality? Because your hate toward Bernie will help make it happen.
Every government falls. It's only a question of when. The quality of food is falling.
Given the number of guards directly implicated in rape rings, I'm not so sure I'd consider it "passive". And agents of the government encourage the discussion of the practice to further scare people into plea bargains. That's actively promoting the idea, if not the act.
who doesn't think H1-B hurts them?
Yes. H1-B doesn't hurt me. I moved out. H1-B has no effect on me now. The question isn't whether American burns, but what song Koch will be playing on the fiddle while it does.