Are we talking about "accidentally cut Venus in half" scaled up? Typically the downside of photonic thrust has been the low power to weight ratio, so for a laser powerful enough to propel a ship to Mars (don't forget that it has to both accelerate and decelerate) that fast I have to wonder just how powerful the laser has to be. If you RTFA, you'll note that the quote about reaching Mars in a week doesn't mention anything about a manned mission.
The real question: how the hell are they going to power this laser? For micro-thrusts for satellites, solar panels are fine, but for an interplanetary trip you'd need something like a nuclear reactor (unless that "interplanetary vessel" consisted of a mass of solar panels and a payload about the mass of a postage stamp).
I'd classify this one as just more hype about a technology with an, at present, very limited usefulness. Maybe at some point in the future the human race may use something like this on a large scale. But for now, don't hold your breath.
That's nice. I wish a goddamn bigger business would similarly get it. *sigh* It not only won't happen, it can't happen. The real issue isn't about the size of the business, but rather the difference between a publicly traded corporation and other types of businesses. You see, with a publicly traded corporation, the executives are required to maximize the ROI of the investors, by any and all legal means. That means that if there is an opportunity to increase the profitability of the corporation by selling customer info, then they pretty much have no choice but to do so.
A small privately owned business can pass up the extra profits from selling customer information, just because the owners don't feel it would be right. But if the execs of a publicly traded corporation do the same, they could potentially be facing a shareholder lawsuit.
Getting evidence admitted is one thing, but getting a jury to believe it or give it any weight or credibility is something else entirely. You seem to forget the concept of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Admitting polygraph evidence for the *defense* would tend to create such doubt in the mind of jurors, regardless of how hard the prosecution tried to convince them to ignore it.
Actually, this whole case stinks. First, the judge admitted the polygraph evidence. Then, the defendant waived a jury trial. Then the judge, based in part on said polygraph evidence, found the defendant not guilty. So the judge allowed the evidence, despite it's lacking the "accepted by the scientific community" status, and then used if to acquit. Sounds to me like he was *trying* to find a justification to acquit...
The judge is a lot smarter than you think. The law is outside Slashdot's realm of expertise, so you get a horribly inaccurate summary and tons of +5 posts making jokes about putting a stick of RAM in the mail. All that was decided is that storing an entry in RAM constitutes making a record, even if it's of the most temporary variety. The law doesn't give a damn whether you store that information in RAM, on your hard drive, or on a piece of paper. On a judge's order, you can be compelled to keep records that would otherwise be destroyed, even if that means positive action on your part to create a permanent copy. Consider this analogy: You operate a car dealership (had to get a car in there somewhere). Your receptionist answers the phone, and then forwards the calls to the appropriate individual. She has a caller-ID display on her desk, but she does *not* write down the phone numbers of incoming calls.
Then a judge comes along, and orders you to have said receptionist write down the number from the caller ID, along with the date and time.
Would this fly in a court of law? IANAL, but this looks suspiciously like forcing someone to create a document that otherwise wouldn't exist (the information *does* exist, but only as "ephemeral" data - in the case of this analogy, on the display of the caller ID box).
This is *precisely* what the judge has ordered TorrentSpy to do - to take ephemeral data (the IP addresses in RAM) and create a document that can be presented to the court.
And, of course the judge completely ignored the fact that complying with this order could very well be illegal in the country where the servers in question reside.
You give up title to garbage put at the curb, so sewer outflow should be fair game (depending on where it was sampled, possible backflow, etc). IANAL either, but I seem to remember things a bit differently. Garbage tossed in a *public* dumpster is fair game. Trash in your trash can is still yours, up until the sanitation guys actually toss it in the truck. I vaguely remember something about it having to mix with the common garbage before it becomes fair game (though that could just be from a movie...).
I think watermarks would give everyone what they want. You can actually buy content without fearing that it won't work in your application. The RIAA gets the limitation of sharing because the watermarked stuff could be traced. And well, if you can remove DRM you can remove watermarks. You forgot about the practical joke possibilities. Such as borrow the mp3 player of a coworker/boss/ex-girlfriend, copy the watermarked tunes out, post them on a P2P network, then sit back and watch a squadron of RIAA attack lawyers ruin his/her life...
The *only* ones who benefit from watermarking are the content distributors - it gives them traceability so they know who to sue. It *does* give the consumer a less restricted product, but at the cost of making said consumer liable if the "wrong person" ever get hold of those watermarked tunes. I don't consider that to be a fair trade...
The kiosk manufacturer should have made sure that these machines were secure. I've worked for a kiosk manufacturer and there are things that can be done to make sure the system is secure. For starters, lock down whatever user account the primary application runs on. So even if they can get out of that app, they can't do anything beyond clicking start and shut down. Also, there are software applications that lock down the system for you. The one we used completely locked the desktop out. It was a pain to support, but it was secure. I'd classify that as +5 "waste of effort". You're presuming that having the securing the kiosk is reliable way to secure the network. It ain't.
Consider this scenario: An insider (the 2nd shift manager, a night security guard, whatever) lets a few friends in after-hours. These friends can, with a few hours effort, bypass *any* security you have established on that kiosk. The only way to prevent this is to armor the stupid thing like an ATM (and with enough time and effort, even *that* won't stop them).
The way to secure the kiosks to to secure the network to which they are attached. Consider them to be potentially hostile devices, and act accordingly. If the network is properly secured, then the only potential damage from a hacked kiosk involves only those transactions that occurred at that kiosk.
Yes, you *do* need to secure the kiosks against "casual" penetration. But don't rely on that security - assume that these devices *will* be subverted. Because if there's enough money to be made by subverting one, then somebody will do it.
If you need things kept secure, send them digitally encrypted. If you need things even more secure, don't transmit them at all. The public phone system has never been secure, nor will it ever be, whether against government interceptors or a teen phreaker. Live with it. The question is, how long until Uncle Sam decides that anyone relying on encrypted communications must be a terrorist/pedophile/whatever? The government has *already* tried to tell us that we have no right to communications that they can't tap (remember the Clipper Chip?), and that was before Bush and Co. started *aggresively* attacking our civil rights...
Anyone remember that one? It was such a pain in the ass at the time, but it didn't go around and delete files, etc. And we got it from pirating program after program. Solution? Install a pirated version of the first anti-virus programs. I'm so old that I can't remember what exactly it was... It might actually have been Norton. It was most likely McAfee (back when it was shareware freely distributed via the BBS community).
I don't believe Norton got into the anti-virus market until much later (though at that time every geek worthy of the name *did* have a copy of Norton Utilities, most likely pirated).
I *liked* that virus. I was studying computers at the local community college, and printed out the assembly code for "stoned" to study. The top programmer at the electronics company I worked for spotted me reading the code, sat down to chat, and a few weeks later I had my first real computer job...
(You're not the kind of dummy who downloads more than one song at a time, are you?) To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA have not yet sued a single person for *downloading* music. What the suits revolve around is *uploading* (or "making available").
If there's only a single song at issue, then your analysis would be valid. But for most of the defendants in the RIAA suits, the allegation is that they "made available" (had in a shared folder) hundreds or thousands of songs. Since that's $750 per song, in these cases the bottom line is a hell of a lot more than $300.
The fact that the RIAA accepted this offer is suspicious. It make me believe that they had no real case against the defendant, and knew it (gee, big surprise there). It's a shame that the defendant was unwilling/unable to actually fight it out...
Does a clock which automatically adjust for DST really make my life simpler? Let's see.. Amen, brother.
My mother bought a couple of wonderful digital clocks, with battery backups and automatic adjustment for DST. Awesome - even if power goes out, when it comes back on the clock automatically resets itself. Just one small hitch...
We live in AZ, which doesn't do DST. However, these awesome pieces of technology have no way to disable the automatic DST adjustment.
Net result: Twice a year, she's early/late for something, because her clocks moved forward/back an hour without her noticing. Then the clocks get reset.
During the two years she's had these clocks, power has only failed once. So the scorecard:
Manual resets "saved" by to automatic features of the clocks: 1 Manual resets "forced" by the automatic features of the clocks: 4
Though it could be worse - I feel sorry for anyone *not* in AZ who bought one of these beauties - with the changes to DST make by the guvmint this year, they would have had to reset it once for the actual start of DST, and again when the "old" start of DST triggered the automatic code...
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), hand it to you, and say "This is in the public domain", I have discarded any copyright claim that I may have had to that work.
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), and give it to you with the expectation that you will believe it is public domain, can I still claim that the work is copyrighted?
The creator of a work (or his/her authorized agent) *can* take a copyrighted work, and by certain actions, cause that work to be placed in the public domain. My argument is that by representing the fake ID as a real ID, the person has implicitly done just this.
Note that if I were in this blogger's situation, I *would* consult with an attorney before filing a DMCA counter-notice.
Why not? What about the nature of the document makes it impossible to own the copyright on it? Sure, there are aspects of it that have been copied from another source -- the basic form and layout of the ID that has been forged -- but the details are original: the name on it, the date of birth, the photograph, etc Any document produced by a government agency as part of it's official tasks is automatically public domain, and thus free of copyright (though the government may have placed other, non-copyright, restrictions on it).
A person takes such a document, and alters it. At this point, there is a reasonable claim of the document being a "derivative work".
The person then presents the altered document with the expectation that it will be accepted as the work of said government agency.
Since a real document of this type would be public domain, in presenting the document as if it were real you are effectively declaring it to be public domain.
There might be some basis for argument, if the creator of the modified document is not the person doing the presenting, but only if the creator can argue that he/she had no expectation that the document would be presented as the work of a government agency (Yeah - let's see you get a judge to believe that one...).
There's far too much impetus to develop Viagra rather than treatments for diseases that kill millions in poor countries. For the record, the drug that eventually became Viagra was developed to treat hypertension and angina pectoris.
Clinical trials showed that the drug was at best marginal for these purposes. But a large percentage of male test subjects reported a certain unexpected side effect. And the drug then company repurposed the drug towards an entirely different medical problem, where it has proven very effective.
So please find another whipping boy - the drug in this case was developed for a "worthwhile" goal, and was only converted to a "luxury" drug after if failed the trials for it's primary purpose. The only thing the developer is "guilty" of in this case is cashing in on an unexpected side effect to turn a failure into a success.
And by the way, on Safari, the new voting doohickey completely and unavoidably obscures the left chunk of the story's blurb I'm seeing the same thing on Firefox (2.0.0.2, Ubuntu Edgy).
I fully expect (like most Slashdotters) that this will be abused. But there is a germ of a *useful* idea in this - do the "accelerated" processing, then post the patent on a publicly accessible web site for 90 days afterwards. Allow people to comment, noting prior art that the applicant missed (or deliberately left out). After the 90 days, the examiners look at it again, taking into account any of the info from the public review.
The patent system *does* need to be speeded up - the time required to obtain a patent is absurd given the pace of current technology. But this approach, by itself, will simply shorten the time in the patent office by offloading the work onto the court system. Standard bureaucratic procedure - pass the buck.
Also, testing just what could obviously break is a terrible way to test. A read a story about someone, who after upgrading to Linux kernel 2.6 started having random lockups in PHP/Apache. Apples and Oranges. A change to the kernel potentially affects EVERYTHING on the system. Anyone doing a kernel upgrade *should* be retesting everything on the system.
The issue with MS products is their downright incestuous relationship with each other. An update to IE can potentially affect Word. A patch for a security bug in IIS can cause SQL server to go wacky. The reason that business prefers Service Packs to patches is because they've learned the hard way that if you change ANYTHING on a Windows box, you have to recertify EVERYTHING.
I'm not saying that Google is some paragon of virtue, but they have money and lawyers. Now all they need is guns. It would be much more fun and would earn the Warren Zevon seal of approval. Heck with that - just send in Roland the Headless Thompson gunner.
(For those going WTF?, that's another Warren Zevon song).
Ah... I love watching pixels... I used to watch movies, but nowadays they are all crap, so I ended up watching pixels... So much easier on my brain... Old joke...
Audiophile: Somebody who listens to the equipment rather than the music.
Looks like this one is rapidly being translated into the video domain.
Definitely the first step in patent reform is to solicit the opinions of the hoards of thoughtful, article-reading slashdot users. You may have been joking, but there's actually a good idea hidden inside the joke:
All patents, N months after filing, would be posted to Slashdot-type web site. Any person would then be free to post a comment upon the patent (for instance, listing prior art that the applicant failed to mention).
After a month or so on the site, all of the +5 posts would be attached to the patent application for the examiner to read.
The majority of posts would be AC's - the only people who would have actual logins (and hence moderator/metamoderator access) would be limited to keep the moderation system sane. Say, all IEEE members, NIST employees, etc.
The idea would be that patent examination would no longer be the exclusive domain of the patent examiners, but would instead be more like the Open Source model, where the greater number of participants would be more likely to spot prior art or obviousness problems.
But should be be required to look? When I got my surgeries (neither cosmetic, one elective) I spent less than 1 hour total in the presence of the surgeon before the operation. With the elective one, I met the PA (physician's assistant) 3 times and the doctor twice, with about 30 minutes in the presence of the doctor. He barely had enough time to discuss my procedure, let along gauge my mental status. For my other surgery, I was under on the operating table before ever being in the presence of the doctor. I have no idea if he visited me before I woke up, but I never actually saw him. Been down that road a couple of times myself. But I question just how close that is to what those seeking non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery experience. After all, when the doctor tells you you have a benign tumor and strongly recommends that it be removed, it isn't going to take a lot of salesmanship to get you to agree to the procedure (trust me - been there).
My experience with cosmetic surgery is limited to the edutainment stuff on Discovery channel, et al. But on many of the shows I've watched, it's very common for the doctor to engage is what is more or less standard sales tactics. And they don't seem to have a problem with playing on a person's insecurities to convince them to have the surgery. One show, can't remember which, had the doctor openly telling a young woman "Once you have the surgery you'll be SO beautiful". She was a babe to being with. But if the doctor had told her "You're already beautiful", she might not have opted for the surgery, and his cash flow would take a hit.
A cosmetic surgeon will HAVE to spend more time with a patient that most other varieties of surgeon. And that time provides opportunity for the doctor to encourage/discourage hasty decisions.
If you are implying that a doctor should try to determine the mental state of a patient, I think that's outside the expertise and scope of a surgeon. IMO, it should NOT be outside the scope for a non-reconstructive cosmetic surgeon. After all, to get an MD, he will have had a certain minimum of training in psychiatric methods anyway. And from what I've seen, some such surgeons are quite skilled at identifying (and exploiting) psychological issues.
That said, I do suspect that majority of plastic surgeons follow what I would consider reasonable practices in such matters. Bad apples turn up in any profession.
The victim never deserves any blame in the case of actual failures. I disagree. The victim rarely deserves any blame, but never is too strong a word. For example, if the patient ignores the doctor's instructions about not using aspirin for 5 days before the surgery, and suffers complications from excessive bleeding as a result, then that patient does deserve blame for his/her condition.
Placing fault on the victim is a trait of those that have to blame someone, and they don't want to blame the doctor. True in the majority of cases. In most cases, there is no "blame" - the complications are a result of factors that were beyond the control of either doctor or patient. And the majority of the time, when there is blame, it belongs to the doctor. But there is that small percentage where the complications are the result of the patient doing something stupid, even after having been warned about not doing it.
What I mean is that when you're depressed and willing to go under the knife three weeks after you first considered the option, you're obviously not doing the sort of research and thinking that should go into this kind of decision. That is correct, and quite obvious. However, it is irrelevant to the quality of the surgery. Bringing it up smacks of blaming the victim. If that was not your intention, then you should not have brought it up. More to the point - did the doctor take advantage of her depression to line his pocket with a few more bucks? A reputable plastic surgeon should, IMO, try to counsel people against having plastic surgery if he/she notices signs of depression. All too often, however, these alleged professionals are simply trying to maximize their cash flow, without regard to what's best for the patient.
There are a few cases where the victim shares part of the blame. For instance, if the doctor warns the patient that because of certain factors the risk of complications is much higher for her than for most other patients, but the patient absolutely insists on the surgery. But even in such cases, the doctor still has some responsibility.
In this case, since she won a malpractice suit against the doctor, it's most likely that she is NOT to blame. Though there's no guarantee on that - she may simply have had a very good lawyer, who successfully played the "pity" card to win with an otherwise marginal case.
the fight for state rights is a red herring, a shell game. its a front for social conservatives to, ironically, push agendas which damage personal liberties more than anything that could go down in washington dc
when you hear a social conservative whine about state's rightsd and the fight for your freedoms, don't drink the koolaid. your state capitol will strip you of your personal privacy and freedoms far faster and easier than washington dc ever could I have no choice but to disagree. The issue of "states rights" is, of course, not necessarily in line with the notion of individual rights. But while a state can erode individual liberties, it can only do so within a limited region. In contrast, when the federal government does the same, the entire nation is affected.
I'm not sure who originated the term "laboratory of the states" (Sandra Day O'Conner?), but it summarizes the reason that states rights are important. Instead of having federal bureaucritters and congresscritters arrogantly deciding what's best for everyone, we should be having different states try differing methods to solve problems. When one state hits upon an effective solution, then the other states can adopt it.
Those with agendas spend little time in state capitals. Why should they, when influencing a few hundred individuals in DC can accomplish what they want, rather than influencing the many thousands it would take to accomplish the same at a state level.
but i do know this: there is a bright hot spotlight pointed at washington dc. i think the bulb pointed at augusta is a lot dimmer. people studying washington dc for erosions in personal rights probably outnumber those doing the same in augusta by orders of magnitude, don't you think? Because there is little or no effort being made by those with agendas in Augusta. The watchdog groups spend their effort where the agenda advocates are working. Move the power away from DC and back to the state capitols, and you'll find that the spotlight changes focus to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question: how the hell are they going to power this laser? For micro-thrusts for satellites, solar panels are fine, but for an interplanetary trip you'd need something like a nuclear reactor (unless that "interplanetary vessel" consisted of a mass of solar panels and a payload about the mass of a postage stamp).
I'd classify this one as just more hype about a technology with an, at present, very limited usefulness. Maybe at some point in the future the human race may use something like this on a large scale. But for now, don't hold your breath.
A small privately owned business can pass up the extra profits from selling customer information, just because the owners don't feel it would be right. But if the execs of a publicly traded corporation do the same, they could potentially be facing a shareholder lawsuit.
Actually, this whole case stinks. First, the judge admitted the polygraph evidence. Then, the defendant waived a jury trial. Then the judge, based in part on said polygraph evidence, found the defendant not guilty. So the judge allowed the evidence, despite it's lacking the "accepted by the scientific community" status, and then used if to acquit. Sounds to me like he was *trying* to find a justification to acquit...
Then a judge comes along, and orders you to have said receptionist write down the number from the caller ID, along with the date and time.
Would this fly in a court of law? IANAL, but this looks suspiciously like forcing someone to create a document that otherwise wouldn't exist (the information *does* exist, but only as "ephemeral" data - in the case of this analogy, on the display of the caller ID box).
This is *precisely* what the judge has ordered TorrentSpy to do - to take ephemeral data (the IP addresses in RAM) and create a document that can be presented to the court.
And, of course the judge completely ignored the fact that complying with this order could very well be illegal in the country where the servers in question reside.
You give up title to garbage put at the curb, so sewer outflow should be fair game (depending on where it was sampled, possible backflow, etc). IANAL either, but I seem to remember things a bit differently. Garbage tossed in a *public* dumpster is fair game. Trash in your trash can is still yours, up until the sanitation guys actually toss it in the truck. I vaguely remember something about it having to mix with the common garbage before it becomes fair game (though that could just be from a movie...).
The *only* ones who benefit from watermarking are the content distributors - it gives them traceability so they know who to sue. It *does* give the consumer a less restricted product, but at the cost of making said consumer liable if the "wrong person" ever get hold of those watermarked tunes. I don't consider that to be a fair trade...
Consider this scenario: An insider (the 2nd shift manager, a night security guard, whatever) lets a few friends in after-hours. These friends can, with a few hours effort, bypass *any* security you have established on that kiosk. The only way to prevent this is to armor the stupid thing like an ATM (and with enough time and effort, even *that* won't stop them).
The way to secure the kiosks to to secure the network to which they are attached. Consider them to be potentially hostile devices, and act accordingly. If the network is properly secured, then the only potential damage from a hacked kiosk involves only those transactions that occurred at that kiosk.
Yes, you *do* need to secure the kiosks against "casual" penetration. But don't rely on that security - assume that these devices *will* be subverted. Because if there's enough money to be made by subverting one, then somebody will do it.
I don't believe Norton got into the anti-virus market until much later (though at that time every geek worthy of the name *did* have a copy of Norton Utilities, most likely pirated).
I *liked* that virus. I was studying computers at the local community college, and printed out the assembly code for "stoned" to study. The top programmer at the electronics company I worked for spotted me reading the code, sat down to chat, and a few weeks later I had my first real computer job...
If there's only a single song at issue, then your analysis would be valid. But for most of the defendants in the RIAA suits, the allegation is that they "made available" (had in a shared folder) hundreds or thousands of songs.
Since that's $750 per song, in these cases the bottom line is a hell of a lot more than $300.
The fact that the RIAA accepted this offer is suspicious. It make me believe that they had no real case against the defendant, and knew it (gee, big surprise there). It's a shame that the defendant was unwilling/unable to actually fight it out...
My mother bought a couple of wonderful digital clocks, with battery backups and automatic adjustment for DST. Awesome - even if power goes out, when it comes back on the clock automatically resets itself. Just one small hitch...
We live in AZ, which doesn't do DST. However, these awesome pieces of technology have no way to disable the automatic DST adjustment.
Net result: Twice a year, she's early/late for something, because her clocks moved forward/back an hour without her noticing. Then the clocks get reset.
During the two years she's had these clocks, power has only failed once. So the scorecard:
Manual resets "saved" by to automatic features of the clocks: 1
Manual resets "forced" by the automatic features of the clocks: 4
Though it could be worse - I feel sorry for anyone *not* in AZ who bought one of these beauties - with the changes to DST make by the guvmint this year, they would have had to reset it once for the actual start of DST, and again when the "old" start of DST triggered the automatic code...
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), hand it to you, and say "This is in the public domain", I have discarded any copyright claim that I may have had to that work.
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), and give it to you with the expectation that you will believe it is public domain, can I still claim that the work is copyrighted?
The creator of a work (or his/her authorized agent) *can* take a copyrighted work, and by certain actions, cause that work to be placed in the public domain. My argument is that by representing the fake ID as a real ID, the person has implicitly done just this.
Note that if I were in this blogger's situation, I *would* consult with an attorney before filing a DMCA counter-notice.
A person takes such a document, and alters it. At this point, there is a reasonable claim of the document being a "derivative work".
The person then presents the altered document with the expectation that it will be accepted as the work of said government agency.
Since a real document of this type would be public domain, in presenting the document as if it were real you are effectively declaring it to be public domain.
There might be some basis for argument, if the creator of the modified document is not the person doing the presenting, but only if the creator can argue that he/she had no expectation that the document would be presented as the work of a government agency (Yeah - let's see you get a judge to believe that one...).
IANAL, but this looks reasonably tight to me...
Clinical trials showed that the drug was at best marginal for these purposes. But a large percentage of male test subjects reported a certain unexpected side effect. And the drug then company repurposed the drug towards an entirely different medical problem, where it has proven very effective.
So please find another whipping boy - the drug in this case was developed for a "worthwhile" goal, and was only converted to a "luxury" drug after if failed the trials for it's primary purpose. The only thing the developer is "guilty" of in this case is cashing in on an unexpected side effect to turn a failure into a success.
I fully expect (like most Slashdotters) that this will be abused. But there is a germ of a *useful* idea in this - do the "accelerated" processing, then post the patent on a publicly accessible web site for 90 days afterwards. Allow people to comment, noting prior art that the applicant missed (or deliberately left out). After the 90 days, the examiners look at it again, taking into account any of the info from the public review.
The patent system *does* need to be speeded up - the time required to obtain a patent is absurd given the pace of current technology. But this approach, by itself, will simply shorten the time in the patent office by offloading the work onto the court system. Standard bureaucratic procedure - pass the buck.
BTW: I find you post a tad bit ironic, since Warren died of lung cancer...
The issue with MS products is their downright incestuous relationship with each other. An update to IE can potentially affect Word. A patch for a security bug in IIS can cause SQL server to go wacky. The reason that business prefers Service Packs to patches is because they've learned the hard way that if you change ANYTHING on a Windows box, you have to recertify EVERYTHING.
(For those going WTF?, that's another Warren Zevon song).
Audiophile: Somebody who listens to the equipment rather than the music.
Looks like this one is rapidly being translated into the video domain.
All patents, N months after filing, would be posted to Slashdot-type web site. Any person would then be free to post a comment upon the patent (for instance, listing prior art that the applicant failed to mention).
After a month or so on the site, all of the +5 posts would be attached to the patent application for the examiner to read.
The majority of posts would be AC's - the only people who would have actual logins (and hence moderator/metamoderator access) would be limited to keep the moderation system sane. Say, all IEEE members, NIST employees, etc.
The idea would be that patent examination would no longer be the exclusive domain of the patent examiners, but would instead be more like the Open Source model, where the greater number of participants would be more likely to spot prior art or obviousness problems.
Anyone see any unsolvable problems with the idea?
My experience with cosmetic surgery is limited to the edutainment stuff on Discovery channel, et al. But on many of the shows I've watched, it's very common for the doctor to engage is what is more or less standard sales tactics. And they don't seem to have a problem with playing on a person's insecurities to convince them to have the surgery. One show, can't remember which, had the doctor openly telling a young woman "Once you have the surgery you'll be SO beautiful". She was a babe to being with. But if the doctor had told her "You're already beautiful", she might not have opted for the surgery, and his cash flow would take a hit.
A cosmetic surgeon will HAVE to spend more time with a patient that most other varieties of surgeon. And that time provides opportunity for the doctor to encourage/discourage hasty decisions. If you are implying that a doctor should try to determine the mental state of a patient, I think that's outside the expertise and scope of a surgeon. IMO, it should NOT be outside the scope for a non-reconstructive cosmetic surgeon. After all, to get an MD, he will have had a certain minimum of training in psychiatric methods anyway. And from what I've seen, some such surgeons are quite skilled at identifying (and exploiting) psychological issues.
That said, I do suspect that majority of plastic surgeons follow what I would consider reasonable practices in such matters. Bad apples turn up in any profession. The victim never deserves any blame in the case of actual failures. I disagree. The victim rarely deserves any blame, but never is too strong a word. For example, if the patient ignores the doctor's instructions about not using aspirin for 5 days before the surgery, and suffers complications from excessive bleeding as a result, then that patient does deserve blame for his/her condition. Placing fault on the victim is a trait of those that have to blame someone, and they don't want to blame the doctor. True in the majority of cases. In most cases, there is no "blame" - the complications are a result of factors that were beyond the control of either doctor or patient. And the majority of the time, when there is blame, it belongs to the doctor. But there is that small percentage where the complications are the result of the patient doing something stupid, even after having been warned about not doing it.
There are a few cases where the victim shares part of the blame. For instance, if the doctor warns the patient that because of certain factors the risk of complications is much higher for her than for most other patients, but the patient absolutely insists on the surgery. But even in such cases, the doctor still has some responsibility.
In this case, since she won a malpractice suit against the doctor, it's most likely that she is NOT to blame. Though there's no guarantee on that - she may simply have had a very good lawyer, who successfully played the "pity" card to win with an otherwise marginal case.
when you hear a social conservative whine about state's rightsd and the fight for your freedoms, don't drink the koolaid. your state capitol will strip you of your personal privacy and freedoms far faster and easier than washington dc ever could I have no choice but to disagree. The issue of "states rights" is, of course, not necessarily in line with the notion of individual rights. But while a state can erode individual liberties, it can only do so within a limited region. In contrast, when the federal government does the same, the entire nation is affected.
I'm not sure who originated the term "laboratory of the states" (Sandra Day O'Conner?), but it summarizes the reason that states rights are important. Instead of having federal bureaucritters and congresscritters arrogantly deciding what's best for everyone, we should be having different states try differing methods to solve problems. When one state hits upon an effective solution, then the other states can adopt it.
Those with agendas spend little time in state capitals. Why should they, when influencing a few hundred individuals in DC can accomplish what they want, rather than influencing the many thousands it would take to accomplish the same at a state level. but i do know this: there is a bright hot spotlight pointed at washington dc. i think the bulb pointed at augusta is a lot dimmer. people studying washington dc for erosions in personal rights probably outnumber those doing the same in augusta by orders of magnitude, don't you think? Because there is little or no effort being made by those with agendas in Augusta. The watchdog groups spend their effort where the agenda advocates are working. Move the power away from DC and back to the state capitols, and you'll find that the spotlight changes focus to follow.