I still don't get the Jews connection with embryos.
I'm not promoting abortion. I'm promoting a choice and want every child born to be wanted by his parents. And I'm not promoting to be it an easy procedure to enter. Like euthanasia, there must be strict rules for a proper course of action (and they are there, in my country). It is just that the presumption that there is a god, or gods is not shared by everyone and could be wrong. No one has a red phone to contact him/her/them to find out how to deal with the issue. It takes quite a bit of guts to say that you're better at determining his/her/their will.
If everybody thinks abortion is a bad idea, there will be no abortions. If some people are willing to risk the wrath of supreme beings, it should be their choice, not yours.
But I'm wondering, is one of the women I mentioned now guilty of 3 murders because she didn't get the suppositories right away? Or is her doctor guilty of murder by neglect for not recognising the problem quickly enough? And x years ago, those pills weren't available, so no body could be blamed, but now we suddenly have more opportunities to go to hell. Great!
I hope you'll enjoy heaven and can strike up a good conversation there will all the foetuses and embryos, irrespective of how they got there. It must be a fun place.
In my country, there were 32.992 abortions in 2006, (I included the ones within 16 days after the period that should have occurred and 4.114 of women coming from abroad to have it done here. I admit the number is higher than I expected). For non-immigrants in my country, there are 7.8 terminated pregnancies per 100 pregnancies.
Finding data on miscarriages was a bit harder (lots of noise by stories on the events). For the age groups 25-34, 35-39 and 40-44 the percentages were 12% 25% 48% per pregnancy. So, older women are more likely to kill their baby than younger ones. They could have elected to get pregnant at an earlier age (plenty of slashdotters available). And the number of abortions is less than the naturally terminated pregnancies.
My parents were catholics and my mother used the pill for a while. They were great people and I just happen to believe that counts more than the way in which they prevented their family from becoming bigger than they wanted.
Bert Supreme beings like people who wear their seat belts better than those that don't. And they like rich people better than poor people (who live shorter). Oh, if the pharmacists gives the money he earns with the sale to a charity, he may save the life of a kid in Africa with it. Well, I guess that most people aren't that concerned about saving lives given the state over there. They prefer to control other people to feel well themselves.
I think that the man who sells fertiliser to the farmer who grows potatoes eaten by the gas station owner who sells gas to the janitor of the hospital the obstetrician works in should go straight to hell.
'The government is forcing Christian pharmacists to dispense drugs that are abortifacient, thus forcing them to be morally complicit in the termination of an unborn life. Christian doctors who wish to practice obstetrics are forced to learn how to perform abortions.'
Perhaps your government is more to blame for providing insufficient information before these people started their studies. I'm very sorry to hear that they cannot find another job.
'Schools are teaching birth control in such a way as to all but force it upon teenagers -- at least in my school, we were taught that everyone should use birth control and that natural methods were not methods at all.'
Generally society bears the brunt if horny teenagers, some of whom may not have learned that it is OK to say no, get pregnant. I believe there is no law in Germany that forbids parents to tell their kids a thing or two.
'For that matter, the Nazis (sorry for the Godwin's Law thing) didn't force non-military personnell to murder Jews, so I suppose that was alright.'
As an example of a non-sequitur perhaps? I don't get it. My basic point is that religions (or more generally anyone) should leave other people (including those of other religions) free to do what they want, as long as they don't harm someone. Killing Jews should not be a pass-time.
'Remember that most Christians believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.'
Don't worry. Yagolah must positively hate those pre-born human beings. Next time you visit the ladies room and see the trash can for sanitary towels, put some flowers next to it and pray. If it is there for a while and the ladies room is visited fairly frequently, there is a large likelihood that at some point in time it contained your beloved 46 chromosome entity. A very large portion of fertilized eggs never make it to the full 9 month development period. Abortions barely increase the number. Of the 3 women I have data for: One with 3 kids and 1 miscarriage (I know of). One with 3 kids and 3 miscarriages (just a hormone thing. When the doctor gave her suppositories against the violent morning sickness causing the rejection the kids kept coming. Apparently yagolah liked the doctor's action. Or allowed the doctor to compensate for the birth control pills he had prescribed in his carrier. And the last woman I know of has 2 kids and one miscarriage. Oh the humanity! And I couldn't count the times they just missed a period, because I'm not privy to that.
'If embryonic testing is used to promote abortion ("I'm sorry Ms. Smith, your child has Down Syndrome. When can we schedule the abortion?"), then this also comes here.'
The doctor would be an asshole and probably face the medical profession's court. The nice thing about abortion is that every child being born is a wanted child, warts and all. Parents' decision. No interference from third parties, whether they are doctors or theists.
'Against gay marriage, yes, there is a movement, but you didn't mention that one in your litany above.'
Thanks for bringing it up. Another one for my "litany" then. Nobody is forcing churches that gay people can marry in front of their god, in their religious building or according to their religious rules. There is a difference between a marriage before the law and for the church. There is no reason why gay people cannot have the first one. It is an arrangement that gives security (and some obligations) to the marital partners, e.g. in case of pensions, in case of the custody in case there is off-spring involved, and if one of the partners dies. There is no reason why these regulations cannot be open for gay people. But in most countries theists have still hijacked the whole concept of marriage, conveniently ignoring the difference between a marriage before the law and before the church, even though that goes in their country as well.
Pro-choice people don't force abortions on other people who are against abortions. Pro-alcohol people don't force muslims and mormons to drink the stuff. Pro-stem cell research people don't require you to have your DNA fixed. Would-be parents with a serious inheritable disease don't force other people to have their embryo/egg tested. Pro sex toy people don't want to force the use of the toys on other people who think sex is sin. Gay people don't want to force you to have sex with a same sex person. Nobody is trying to force christians to have premarital sex. Nobody is trying to force catholics to use birth control. Atheists are not trying to bully other peoples' children into saying out loud brainwashing slogans such as "one nation, god is imaginary" five times a week. (You are free to do your brainwashing at home.) Atheists are not trying to get their "ten reasons" plaques displayed in courtrooms.
Now, who is under attack and what bad things were atheists doing? Calling theists who wreck other peoples lives something you don't want to hear? How does that compare to the above list?
Xtians are skilled at turning the oppressing majority into the underdog. If theists only had confidence in their deity that it is indeed almighty, then people could be free. The theists would be confident that their deity would get back at the "sinners" later.
Bert Freedom means free to do something without harming someone else. Now, in view of the above, try to explain "home of the free" to me.
Patentable ideas that don't relate to my employment I generally don't worry about selling, I just post them on the internet somewhere. I don't need to be rich, but I hate it whan someone takes my work and my ideas and calls it their own; I've had quite a bit of stuff plagarized.
Possibly. I do recall reading a book about starting a business (did that before I started my own company some 5 years ago) where a guy related his story about starting a company. He got some publicity and subsequently letters from an odd 30 people that he stole their idea. His conclusion was that his idea wasn't so original as he'd originally thought.
Bert I believe the book is called "Complete idiot's guide to starting your own business" by Ed Paulson and Marcia Layton.
I live in a country that is trust-based. That is not to say I've never run into a case where an invention was stolen, but it is really very rare. And as to IBM, I think I'd trust them. While they would survive a USA-TODAY article on "IBM steals invention from small-time inventor", the people you're dealing with are probably too honest or at least weary of the hassle it gives if they were to take something from someone away.
I sent an idea of my own to Kodak once. They had a strict policy when it came to unsolicited ideas, but as a patent agent I recognized it as well-balanced between their interests and that of an inventor.
Your granddad did it the right way. You are a creative guy and didn't make a buck out of your creative ideas. So, you're as well off as if every invention had been stolen from you. Do you really think that your chances were that bad in your country? You could have taken a shot at it! Nothing to lose! People applying for a patent start with a loss of a couple of thousand!
Honest people don't make the news because there are so many of them. Don't let fear rule you, however much that is instilled in people in the US (try watching Canadian TV, at least the news; much better for your mental health).
Bert I consider my earlier post a bit rude, and appreciate it that your response showed more class.
While your European patent application for that is still in the secret 18 months phase, you forget that THEY can read it. So, as you could read in the post, they had their strike on Friday, circumventing any problems, even for future strikes.
If you're not capable of convincing someone to invest a couple of thousand in one of your ideas, your ideas were either shit or you're incapable of monetising an idea. The cost of a patent application are minor compared to what else you need to invest to get a product to market.
A patent is not a conditio sine qua non to enter the market. So, if your ideas were any good, you'd have the first mover advantage. If you went bankrupt because other people saw your idea, copied it and were more successful with it, then I'd like to hear your story. But it would still prove that you're not an entrepreneur.
In the USA, you have the (despicable) first to invent system, so you could apply for a patent a year after you've entered the market with your invention. But apparently your ideas didn't make you the money. Or you didn't get out of your recliner too busy moaning on/.
An abstract is a requirement. An applicant has to provide one. If there is something wrong in the application and correct in the abstract, the applicant is not allowed to rely on the abstract to fix the error in the application. Guess what, patent agents spend as little time on the abstract as possible. Personaly, I appreciate clear abstracts, so I may tend to do a bit better than average, but still it isn't at the top of my priority list. Having said that, I never propose a drawing to go with the abstract, as that involves more work (providing reference numerals etc.). Sincere apologies to the rest of the world. During the PCT phase, the Examiner often picks one, and adds the numbers. Thanks.
As to clarity of the application. Unfortunately stupid US case law (which stupid people from a country that shall not be named defend, because doing otherwise would be probably considered unpatriotic, or something) favours unclarity and incompleteness. (It is like that famous: "Everything you say can and will be held against you?". ). A US patent claim is like a bag of loose wrist watch parts. A (proper) European claim details the relationship between the parts. Such a claim is harder to write, and leads in the US to more problems. Guess what US patent agents do?
There are even courses for European patent agent to learn how to write obfuscated claims for the US. I refuse to give in, and try to write my claims as clear as possible. The patent system is a deal between society and an inventor, where the inventor reveals his invention in return for an exclusive right for a limited-time. I make this clear to my clients and the invention is written down with that in mind.
If my sticking to clarity means I overlook something and it falls outside the scope of protection, too bad. I hope my approach protects my clients from unnecessary lawsuits where they have to prove that something is within the scope of their poorly-written claim or some scumbag thinks he can reason himself out of the scope. So far, no lawsuits (I don't want to imply that all my claims were so well drafted to have had this effect. Perhaps I - and my clients - were just fortunate).
Bert
Examples of silly US things: If you describe an experiment in past tense, you have performed it. If you write it in present tense, you haven't. Uhm, how does this writing in present tense undo the fact that an applicant actually performed the experiments, again? If you discuss literature, you admit that it is prior art. Well, everything before the filing date is prior art, isn't it, so what is the problem? Oh, you mean relevant prior art limiting the scope of my claims? Well, what I write and read in a particular publication KNOWING THE INVENTION OF MY CLIENT isn't necessarily the same as what a person skilled in the art at the time of filing would read in that publication. In the US, you have conceded that it is known. In Europe, you can get back from what you said earlier (if there is a fair reason for that). In Europe: If I said that I saw Jesus yesterday, and today I say I was mistaken, it is OK if now stick to the latter. In the US it is solid legal proof that Jesus was here yesterday. Sigh.
Perhaps it is bad for businesses. It is obvious that this is detrimental to the economy, because consumers and companies have not a clue that they could spend that saved money on something else.
Perhaps it isn't bad for business, but bad for business models.
Bert Who is contemplating a business model that would allow him to charge other people for breathing. If I plant a tree, it generates oxygen molecules. Given the ratio between the number of oxygen molecules produced, and the total number in the atmosphere, plus the ratio between the volume of your lungs and the volume of the atmosphere, there is the likelihood that you are breathing in a molecule of MY OXYGEN, i.e. you are using MY PROPERTY!!. The oxygen-producing business is suffering from irreparable damages until people pay a modest fee of $365 per year (that is only $1 per day). People who plant a plant have to eat too, don't they? It isn't too much to continue living? Why are people in denial of the importance of oxygen? I must get the US government to consider this.
"new software recently uploaded to Opportunity will enable the rover to make its own decisions about how best to negotiate large rocks in its path"
What is the origin of that? I can speculate: 1) English origin: Very polite. You just don't go around the corner, you politely ask under what conditions it is allowed. "I beg your pardon, dear corner. Would it be inconvenient to you if we continue our way as indicated by you? 2) American origin: Don't take anything for granted. You may be sued by a corner before you know it. Call your lawyer. He'll do the negotiations. Oh boy, I hope he is tough, as this corner hasn't moved his position since I started talking to and yelling at it.
I don't think that would be understood very well. When I started my company 4 years ago, I made it all Mac, having experienced the inefficiency of my previous employer's PC-based business first hand.
I'm not married to Apple. I'll switch to Linux if need be, but it would take more than a $300 M ad campaign to make me consider a switch to Windows.
Kangaroos cannot run either. Elephants seem to be able to reach up to 40 km/hour without running. My car is faster. More seriously: It appears they don't run because their front and hind legs would clash. Now, I completely see T-rex having the same problem.
Sorry, it is the (not-uncommon) logic that you're displaying that is scary. It is called a non-sequitur. I know non-sequiturs are very popular, but that doesn't make your statement true.
General Tito was a dictator of the former Yugoslavia. Dictators are a bad thing in my book. During the decades he was in power, people in his country didn't kill each other (in a significant scale). After he died, we got the whole Serbia, Kroatia, etc. thing. You know, something like that is happening in Iraq. The US have made more casualties there than Saddam did. And the US pissed off and continues to piss off muslims all over the world, some of which may be enough of a religious nut to perform an attack on other people. I really don't see the improvement. 9/11 was what the US had sown earlier.
Any time a change isn't gradual, very bad things can happen. China changed from a communistic country into a communistic capitalistic country. While still a bad country in my book, the life of the average Chinese improved tremendously. Yes, it can be much better, but the same - although to a lesser extent - can be said for the semi-police stated called the US.
The 8000 miles was just a large number to indicate that it was not within canon/rifle range of the US border. No country attacks the US. If you don't want that people fly airplanes into your buildings, start thinking why they consider that.
Yes, I'm very grateful that the US joined WOII. As you resented my use of the word "we", you'll be pleased to learn that I express myself clearly here: I'm not grateful to YOU. YOU didn't do shit during WOII. YOU are just leaching of the credit for something you had no part in, and have no problem with taking away credit from people from other countries who also fought, amongst which my uncle Bart.
Perhaps I may remind you: Europe was OCCUPIED by the Germans, like in having invaded another country. That is a clear indicator of being bad. The US (like the Brits, the Polish people, Australians and lots of people more) kicked the Germans out. When Bush jr. invaded Iraq, the US were attacking based on a delusion. Apart from that, other countries met with a very pleasant mentality we were not confronted with before. We were told: If you're not for us, you're against us. WTF??? The French dared to raise their voice, saying this WMD stuff was nonsense. Of course, they must have been proven wrong because they still have a bad rep.
If the possession of WMD is a reason to invade a country, shouldn't the US be bombed? We're not applying double standards, are we? I love the US as a cop in the world, but not as a corrupt cop. That would require to put justice first. E.g., it is very well possible to protect Israel and still give it a spanking when it doesn't behave properly to palestinians. You'll find out, that if you do that, the tendency to fly planes into buildings drops dramatically.
Well, I'm one of those people living outside the US borders not worth counting if we get shot because the US must be defended 8000 miles away, and WE are concerned when a (vice) president chooses to ignore facts just because there is something else he/she'd like to believe. Powerful people starting wars because they think their supreme being would like that or just because they have created an environment in which scare mongering over WMD can flourish scares the shit out of us. Your last regime caused tens of thousands of deaths among inhumans, and over 3000 patriots because of that.
A tendency not to want to hear facts is NOT something we'd like to see. Thank you.
No, it is not. There has been research and people of various races are not good at recognising people from another race. For example, westerners will look at hair colour as one of the parameter. Obviously, unless the hair is died, it is not a good parameter for distinguishing oriental people. As it turns out, various races use different sets of parameters to recognise individual people. If you're not trained in that, you'll easily conclude that they look alike. Witness testimonies where a witness is of a different race than the person he claims to recognise should be judged carefully.
There are some remarks that can be made about price too, which similarly may have to be taken into account.
A lower price may attract more buyers, but then, stealing a $10 item may not be perceived as stealing a $20 item.
With every purchase on the internet I perceive a little unease. There go my credit card details to yet another party. I may not be going to risk it for a low-priced item (come to think of it, I cannot recall buying low-priced items over the Internet). He talks about Steam, which I presume is a sales outlet for software/games. He wants the buyer to buy from him (as it is not easy to join Steam). He could do something else: Contact other indie game developers and make a portal for their games. People will have to buy from only 1 shop, and it could attract even more potential buyers because there is more to see.
The problem with most religions is that the believers exert control over other believers. You are gay/atheist/porc-eater/sinner against silly rule, you go to hell. I've not too much problems with people having a religion, but - with the about 2500 religions and about 10k gods humans have come up with - I'm not too optimistic about even one having it right. One thing is that apart from a legal matter, the followers will be pressured by their environment to go along with the religious court/sharia (or you won't have a life at all). What is a person to do? You agree with it! Judge: since you agree, it is fine. The only way to prevent religious nonsense to creep in is to not allow it. Religious freedom must be no more than the right to believe what you want, and no license to strong-arm other people into it.
I highly favour that evidence about evolution is taught at religious schools by outside teachers (like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), and that people of other religions think they are 100% right too, to make sure that all people in (religious) schools are properly educated with a modicum of respect for facts and that they should leave any judgement to their infinitely powerful god.
The US being first to ask for extradition, the Chinese government found it was too late to have him extradited to China for getting security measures in place on a weakly secured US DoD computer system, causing a stop of the stream of intelligence that is considered vital to the chinese government. Too bad for the guy I don't have any evidence of this on paper, as the US government would have easily awarded him $900,000 for bringing the hack to their attention by operating clumsily.
Bert Doesn't the US realise that putting him in prison for 60 years does cost a multiple of $900,000?
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't get the Jews connection with embryos.
I'm not promoting abortion. I'm promoting a choice and want every child born to be wanted by his parents. And I'm not promoting to be it an easy procedure to enter. Like euthanasia, there must be strict rules for a proper course of action (and they are there, in my country). It is just that the presumption that there is a god, or gods is not shared by everyone and could be wrong. No one has a red phone to contact him/her/them to find out how to deal with the issue. It takes quite a bit of guts to say that you're better at determining his/her/their will.
If everybody thinks abortion is a bad idea, there will be no abortions. If some people are willing to risk the wrath of supreme beings, it should be their choice, not yours.
But I'm wondering, is one of the women I mentioned now guilty of 3 murders because she didn't get the suppositories right away? Or is her doctor guilty of murder by neglect for not recognising the problem quickly enough? And x years ago, those pills weren't available, so no body could be blamed, but now we suddenly have more opportunities to go to hell. Great!
I hope you'll enjoy heaven and can strike up a good conversation there will all the foetuses and embryos, irrespective of how they got there. It must be a fun place.
In my country, there were 32.992 abortions in 2006, (I included the ones within 16 days after the period that should have occurred and 4.114 of women coming from abroad to have it done here. I admit the number is higher than I expected). For non-immigrants in my country, there are 7.8 terminated pregnancies per 100 pregnancies.
Finding data on miscarriages was a bit harder (lots of noise by stories on the events). For the age groups 25-34, 35-39 and 40-44 the percentages were 12% 25% 48% per pregnancy. So, older women are more likely to kill their baby than younger ones. They could have elected to get pregnant at an earlier age (plenty of slashdotters available). And the number of abortions is less than the naturally terminated pregnancies.
My parents were catholics and my mother used the pill for a while. They were great people and I just happen to believe that counts more than the way in which they prevented their family from becoming bigger than they wanted.
Bert
Supreme beings like people who wear their seat belts better than those that don't. And they like rich people better than poor people (who live shorter). Oh, if the pharmacists gives the money he earns with the sale to a charity, he may save the life of a kid in Africa with it. Well, I guess that most people aren't that concerned about saving lives given the state over there. They prefer to control other people to feel well themselves.
I think that the man who sells fertiliser to the farmer who grows potatoes eaten by the gas station owner who sells gas to the janitor of the hospital the obstetrician works in should go straight to hell.
Bert
'The government is forcing Christian pharmacists to dispense drugs that are abortifacient, thus forcing them to be morally complicit in the termination of an unborn life. Christian doctors who wish to practice obstetrics are forced to learn how to perform abortions.'
Perhaps your government is more to blame for providing insufficient information before these people started their studies. I'm very sorry to hear that they cannot find another job.
'Schools are teaching birth control in such a way as to all but force it upon teenagers -- at least in my school, we were taught that everyone should use birth control and that natural methods were not methods at all.'
Generally society bears the brunt if horny teenagers, some of whom may not have learned that it is OK to say no, get pregnant. I believe there is no law in Germany that forbids parents to tell their kids a thing or two.
'For that matter, the Nazis (sorry for the Godwin's Law thing) didn't force non-military personnell to murder Jews, so I suppose that was alright.'
As an example of a non-sequitur perhaps? I don't get it. My basic point is that religions (or more generally anyone) should leave other people (including those of other religions) free to do what they want, as long as they don't harm someone. Killing Jews should not be a pass-time.
'Remember that most Christians believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.'
Don't worry. Yagolah must positively hate those pre-born human beings. Next time you visit the ladies room and see the trash can for sanitary towels, put some flowers next to it and pray. If it is there for a while and the ladies room is visited fairly frequently, there is a large likelihood that at some point in time it contained your beloved 46 chromosome entity. A very large portion of fertilized eggs never make it to the full 9 month development period. Abortions barely increase the number. Of the 3 women I have data for: One with 3 kids and 1 miscarriage (I know of). One with 3 kids and 3 miscarriages (just a hormone thing. When the doctor gave her suppositories against the violent morning sickness causing the rejection the kids kept coming. Apparently yagolah liked the doctor's action. Or allowed the doctor to compensate for the birth control pills he had prescribed in his carrier. And the last woman I know of has 2 kids and one miscarriage. Oh the humanity! And I couldn't count the times they just missed a period, because I'm not privy to that.
'If embryonic testing is used to promote abortion ("I'm sorry Ms. Smith, your child has Down Syndrome. When can we schedule the abortion?"), then this also comes here.'
The doctor would be an asshole and probably face the medical profession's court. The nice thing about abortion is that every child being born is a wanted child, warts and all. Parents' decision. No interference from third parties, whether they are doctors or theists.
'Against gay marriage, yes, there is a movement, but you didn't mention that one in your litany above.'
Thanks for bringing it up. Another one for my "litany" then. Nobody is forcing churches that gay people can marry in front of their god, in their religious building or according to their religious rules. There is a difference between a marriage before the law and for the church. There is no reason why gay people cannot have the first one. It is an arrangement that gives security (and some obligations) to the marital partners, e.g. in case of pensions, in case of the custody in case there is off-spring involved, and if one of the partners dies. There is no reason why these regulations cannot be open for gay people. But in most countries theists have still hijacked the whole concept of marriage, conveniently ignoring the difference between a marriage before the law and before the church, even though that goes in their country as well.
Bert
Under attack?
Pro-choice people don't force abortions on other people who are against abortions.
Pro-alcohol people don't force muslims and mormons to drink the stuff.
Pro-stem cell research people don't require you to have your DNA fixed.
Would-be parents with a serious inheritable disease don't force other people to have their embryo/egg tested.
Pro sex toy people don't want to force the use of the toys on other people who think sex is sin.
Gay people don't want to force you to have sex with a same sex person.
Nobody is trying to force christians to have premarital sex.
Nobody is trying to force catholics to use birth control.
Atheists are not trying to bully other peoples' children into saying out loud brainwashing slogans such as "one nation, god is imaginary" five times a week. (You are free to do your brainwashing at home.)
Atheists are not trying to get their "ten reasons" plaques displayed in courtrooms.
Now, who is under attack and what bad things were atheists doing? Calling theists who wreck other peoples lives something you don't want to hear? How does that compare to the above list?
Xtians are skilled at turning the oppressing majority into the underdog. If theists only had confidence in their deity that it is indeed almighty, then people could be free. The theists would be confident that their deity would get back at the "sinners" later.
Bert
Freedom means free to do something without harming someone else. Now, in view of the above, try to explain "home of the free" to me.
"Unlike my uncle (not my grandpa"
Sorry, did quote from my head.
Patentable ideas that don't relate to my employment I generally don't worry about selling, I just post them on the internet somewhere. I don't need to be rich, but I hate it whan someone takes my work and my ideas and calls it their own; I've had quite a bit of stuff plagarized.
Possibly. I do recall reading a book about starting a business (did that before I started my own company some 5 years ago) where a guy related his story about starting a company. He got some publicity and subsequently letters from an odd 30 people that he stole their idea. His conclusion was that his idea wasn't so original as he'd originally thought.
Bert
I believe the book is called "Complete idiot's guide to starting your own business" by Ed Paulson and Marcia Layton.
Bert
I live in a country that is trust-based. That is not to say I've never run into a case where an invention was stolen, but it is really very rare. And as to IBM, I think I'd trust them. While they would survive a USA-TODAY article on "IBM steals invention from small-time inventor", the people you're dealing with are probably too honest or at least weary of the hassle it gives if they were to take something from someone away.
I sent an idea of my own to Kodak once. They had a strict policy when it came to unsolicited ideas, but as a patent agent I recognized it as well-balanced between their interests and that of an inventor.
Your granddad did it the right way. You are a creative guy and didn't make a buck out of your creative ideas. So, you're as well off as if every invention had been stolen from you. Do you really think that your chances were that bad in your country? You could have taken a shot at it! Nothing to lose! People applying for a patent start with a loss of a couple of thousand!
Honest people don't make the news because there are so many of them. Don't let fear rule you, however much that is instilled in people in the US (try watching Canadian TV, at least the news; much better for your mental health).
Bert
I consider my earlier post a bit rude, and appreciate it that your response showed more class.
While your European patent application for that is still in the secret 18 months phase, you forget that THEY can read it. So, as you could read in the post, they had their strike on Friday, circumventing any problems, even for future strikes.
Bert
Patent agent
If you're not capable of convincing someone to invest a couple of thousand in one of your ideas, your ideas were either shit or you're incapable of monetising an idea. The cost of a patent application are minor compared to what else you need to invest to get a product to market.
A patent is not a conditio sine qua non to enter the market. So, if your ideas were any good, you'd have the first mover advantage. If you went bankrupt because other people saw your idea, copied it and were more successful with it, then I'd like to hear your story. But it would still prove that you're not an entrepreneur.
In the USA, you have the (despicable) first to invent system, so you could apply for a patent a year after you've entered the market with your invention. But apparently your ideas didn't make you the money. Or you didn't get out of your recliner too busy moaning on /.
Sorry.
Bert
Patent agent here.
An abstract is a requirement. An applicant has to provide one. If there is something wrong in the application and correct in the abstract, the applicant is not allowed to rely on the abstract to fix the error in the application. Guess what, patent agents spend as little time on the abstract as possible. Personaly, I appreciate clear abstracts, so I may tend to do a bit better than average, but still it isn't at the top of my priority list. Having said that, I never propose a drawing to go with the abstract, as that involves more work (providing reference numerals etc.). Sincere apologies to the rest of the world. During the PCT phase, the Examiner often picks one, and adds the numbers. Thanks.
As to clarity of the application. Unfortunately stupid US case law (which stupid people from a country that shall not be named defend, because doing otherwise would be probably considered unpatriotic, or something) favours unclarity and incompleteness. (It is like that famous: "Everything you say can and will be held against you?". ). A US patent claim is like a bag of loose wrist watch parts. A (proper) European claim details the relationship between the parts. Such a claim is harder to write, and leads in the US to more problems. Guess what US patent agents do?
There are even courses for European patent agent to learn how to write obfuscated claims for the US. I refuse to give in, and try to write my claims as clear as possible. The patent system is a deal between society and an inventor, where the inventor reveals his invention in return for an exclusive right for a limited-time. I make this clear to my clients and the invention is written down with that in mind.
If my sticking to clarity means I overlook something and it falls outside the scope of protection, too bad. I hope my approach protects my clients from unnecessary lawsuits where they have to prove that something is within the scope of their poorly-written claim or some scumbag thinks he can reason himself out of the scope. So far, no lawsuits (I don't want to imply that all my claims were so well drafted to have had this effect. Perhaps I - and my clients - were just fortunate).
Bert
Examples of silly US things:
If you describe an experiment in past tense, you have performed it. If you write it in present tense, you haven't. Uhm, how does this writing in present tense undo the fact that an applicant actually performed the experiments, again?
If you discuss literature, you admit that it is prior art. Well, everything before the filing date is prior art, isn't it, so what is the problem? Oh, you mean relevant prior art limiting the scope of my claims? Well, what I write and read in a particular publication KNOWING THE INVENTION OF MY CLIENT isn't necessarily the same as what a person skilled in the art at the time of filing would read in that publication. In the US, you have conceded that it is known. In Europe, you can get back from what you said earlier (if there is a fair reason for that). In Europe: If I said that I saw Jesus yesterday, and today I say I was mistaken, it is OK if now stick to the latter. In the US it is solid legal proof that Jesus was here yesterday. Sigh.
Perhaps it is bad for businesses. It is obvious that this is detrimental to the economy, because consumers and companies have not a clue that they could spend that saved money on something else.
Perhaps it isn't bad for business, but bad for business models.
Bert
Who is contemplating a business model that would allow him to charge other people for breathing. If I plant a tree, it generates oxygen molecules. Given the ratio between the number of oxygen molecules produced, and the total number in the atmosphere, plus the ratio between the volume of your lungs and the volume of the atmosphere, there is the likelihood that you are breathing in a molecule of MY OXYGEN, i.e. you are using MY PROPERTY!!. The oxygen-producing business is suffering from irreparable damages until people pay a modest fee of $365 per year (that is only $1 per day). People who plant a plant have to eat too, don't they? It isn't too much to continue living? Why are people in denial of the importance of oxygen? I must get the US government to consider this.
"new software recently uploaded to Opportunity will enable the rover to make its own decisions about how best to negotiate large rocks in its path"
What is the origin of that? I can speculate:
1) English origin: Very polite. You just don't go around the corner, you politely ask under what conditions it is allowed. "I beg your pardon, dear corner. Would it be inconvenient to you if we continue our way as indicated by you?
2) American origin: Don't take anything for granted. You may be sued by a corner before you know it. Call your lawyer. He'll do the negotiations. Oh boy, I hope he is tough, as this corner hasn't moved his position since I started talking to and yelling at it.
Bert
I don't think that would be understood very well. When I started my company 4 years ago, I made it all Mac, having experienced the inefficiency of my previous employer's PC-based business first hand.
I'm not married to Apple. I'll switch to Linux if need be, but it would take more than a $300 M ad campaign to make me consider a switch to Windows.
Bert
If we store it in empty natural gas fields, we can release when the next ice age hits us.
Bert
Kangaroos cannot run either. Elephants seem to be able to reach up to 40 km/hour without running. My car is faster. More seriously: It appears they don't run because their front and hind legs would clash. Now, I completely see T-rex having the same problem.
Bert
Sorry, it is the (not-uncommon) logic that you're displaying that is scary. It is called a non-sequitur. I know non-sequiturs are very popular, but that doesn't make your statement true.
General Tito was a dictator of the former Yugoslavia. Dictators are a bad thing in my book. During the decades he was in power, people in his country didn't kill each other (in a significant scale). After he died, we got the whole Serbia, Kroatia, etc. thing. You know, something like that is happening in Iraq. The US have made more casualties there than Saddam did. And the US pissed off and continues to piss off muslims all over the world, some of which may be enough of a religious nut to perform an attack on other people. I really don't see the improvement. 9/11 was what the US had sown earlier.
Any time a change isn't gradual, very bad things can happen. China changed from a communistic country into a communistic capitalistic country. While still a bad country in my book, the life of the average Chinese improved tremendously. Yes, it can be much better, but the same - although to a lesser extent - can be said for the semi-police stated called the US.
Bert
The 8000 miles was just a large number to indicate that it was not within canon/rifle range of the US border. No country attacks the US. If you don't want that people fly airplanes into your buildings, start thinking why they consider that.
Yes, I'm very grateful that the US joined WOII. As you resented my use of the word "we", you'll be pleased to learn that I express myself clearly here: I'm not grateful to YOU. YOU didn't do shit during WOII. YOU are just leaching of the credit for something you had no part in, and have no problem with taking away credit from people from other countries who also fought, amongst which my uncle Bart.
Perhaps I may remind you: Europe was OCCUPIED by the Germans, like in having invaded another country. That is a clear indicator of being bad. The US (like the Brits, the Polish people, Australians and lots of people more) kicked the Germans out. When Bush jr. invaded Iraq, the US were attacking based on a delusion. Apart from that, other countries met with a very pleasant mentality we were not confronted with before. We were told: If you're not for us, you're against us. WTF??? The French dared to raise their voice, saying this WMD stuff was nonsense. Of course, they must have been proven wrong because they still have a bad rep.
If the possession of WMD is a reason to invade a country, shouldn't the US be bombed? We're not applying double standards, are we? I love the US as a cop in the world, but not as a corrupt cop. That would require to put justice first. E.g., it is very well possible to protect Israel and still give it a spanking when it doesn't behave properly to palestinians. You'll find out, that if you do that, the tendency to fly planes into buildings drops dramatically.
Bert
Well, I'm one of those people living outside the US borders not worth counting if we get shot because the US must be defended 8000 miles away, and WE are concerned when a (vice) president chooses to ignore facts just because there is something else he/she'd like to believe. Powerful people starting wars because they think their supreme being would like that or just because they have created an environment in which scare mongering over WMD can flourish scares the shit out of us. Your last regime caused tens of thousands of deaths among inhumans, and over 3000 patriots because of that.
A tendency not to want to hear facts is NOT something we'd like to see. Thank you.
Bert
Is Ellen Degeneris still living in New Orleans, then?
Bert
No, it is not. There has been research and people of various races are not good at recognising people from another race. For example, westerners will look at hair colour as one of the parameter. Obviously, unless the hair is died, it is not a good parameter for distinguishing oriental people. As it turns out, various races use different sets of parameters to recognise individual people. If you're not trained in that, you'll easily conclude that they look alike. Witness testimonies where a witness is of a different race than the person he claims to recognise should be judged carefully.
Bert
There are some remarks that can be made about price too, which similarly may have to be taken into account.
A lower price may attract more buyers, but then, stealing a $10 item may not be perceived as stealing a $20 item.
With every purchase on the internet I perceive a little unease. There go my credit card details to yet another party. I may not be going to risk it for a low-priced item (come to think of it, I cannot recall buying low-priced items over the Internet). He talks about Steam, which I presume is a sales outlet for software/games. He wants the buyer to buy from him (as it is not easy to join Steam). He could do something else: Contact other indie game developers and make a portal for their games. People will have to buy from only 1 shop, and it could attract even more potential buyers because there is more to see.
Bert
I saw the women's bicycle race this morning. They got soaked for over 3 hours in heavy rain.
Bert
It improves on good-old pepper.
Bert
The problem with most religions is that the believers exert control over other believers. You are gay/atheist/porc-eater/sinner against silly rule, you go to hell.
I've not too much problems with people having a religion, but - with the about 2500 religions and about 10k gods humans have come up with - I'm not too optimistic about even one having it right. One thing is that apart from a legal matter, the followers will be pressured by their environment to go along with the religious court/sharia (or you won't have a life at all). What is a person to do? You agree with it! Judge: since you agree, it is fine. The only way to prevent religious nonsense to creep in is to not allow it. Religious freedom must be no more than the right to believe what you want, and no license to strong-arm other people into it.
I highly favour that evidence about evolution is taught at religious schools by outside teachers (like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), and that people of other religions think they are 100% right too, to make sure that all people in (religious) schools are properly educated with a modicum of respect for facts and that they should leave any judgement to their infinitely powerful god.
Bert
How did it work? Did it have springs?
Bert
The US being first to ask for extradition, the Chinese government found it was too late to have him extradited to China for getting security measures in place on a weakly secured US DoD computer system, causing a stop of the stream of intelligence that is considered vital to the chinese government. Too bad for the guy I don't have any evidence of this on paper, as the US government would have easily awarded him $900,000 for bringing the hack to their attention by operating clumsily.
Bert
Doesn't the US realise that putting him in prison for 60 years does cost a multiple of $900,000?