So, the response says that the office of the president is doing what it can to improve the patent system. The AIA eliminates some (but not all) of the ridiculousness associated with the patent system. The USPTO has issued revised guidance with the hopes that that will cut down on frivolous and low quality patents.
But, they correctly point out that "executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable". They also correctly point out that a good way to actually move forward on software patent reform is to contact your congressmen/women.
And you seem to think that this is an unreasonable and/or incorrect? I remind you that the president's real power is to approve or veto legislation, and appoint justices.
Wait, you know that the really wealthy people can take advantage of various tax ploys that are not available to people of lesser means? I pay roughly 30% of my income in taxes each year, but many of the truly rich pay less than 20%. Surely you've read Warren Buffet's Op-Ed by now, he does a nice job describing the situation.
All that, and honestly, I support raising MY taxes, so that our country could get it's act together. My family doesn't fit the american concept of "rich," (We're not millionaires, or even remotely close) but we make more than the median income, live modestly, and we could certainly afford a tax hike, Those people who complain that "$_ _ _,_ _ _ really isn't that much money" make me sick, we make less than that, and do just fine. (see http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/30/real-world-congressmans-money-troubles/)
What's the saying? "Taxes buy civilization"? I'd like some more civilization please. We seem to have a shortage here.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that good power generation on Mars is necessary for colonization, but a) it has downsides: - Solar cells do not produce much power per unit of mass. - The available sunlight is substantially weaker, due to the increased distance from the sun - Getting accumulated power off planet is still a difficult problem.
b) it's a solution to a different problem than we are really discussing. The problem that these suitcases are designed to address is this: where do you get power while you are building bigger and better things, and there is no easy power source available.
I have a highly specialized financial product to sell, and I am looking for aggressive, no-risk-no-reward investors who are willing to take this special offer. Please reply to this comment with your name, email, phone number, address, DOB, SSN, passport number, bank routing number and acct number (for identification purposes only - we will not share this information with any third parties). We are not able to guarantee exact returns, but our projections indicate that investors should be at least as rich as a Nigerian prince within a week.
Regards,
Brooke Lynne Bridge, PhD, MBA, CPA Chief Financial Advertiser Golden Sheepskin Financial Products, LLP New York, New York
The percentage of criminals who get caught who are "ragingly stupid" is likely higher than in the general criminal population. You just haven't heard about the smart ones. You know; the ones who would do diligent background checks, because they are careful and keep some idiots around to take the fall when things don't work out.
It's been great - by focusing on "news for nerds" you've built one of the most fascinating communities on the internet. I wish you the best at your future endeavors, and hope that you have many more wildly unexpected successes - and some expected ones too.
a) Please provide a link to the data you are using to draw these conclusions. If there are many data sets, you need not be exhaustive, a couple of links will do. b) The first weather satellite (TIROS-1) was launched in 1960, and functioned for less than 80 days. It was not until 1965 that we had complete coverage of the daytime side of the planet, and let's be honest, the sensors were primitive. Please tell me what pre-1965 temperature data you trusted enough to use to make your statement about "the entire 20th century." c) I have not attacked you personally. In fact, I was careful not to. Saying "I think you are wrong, and here's why" is not a personal attack. d) Applying critical thinking skills is indeed wonderful.
My data indicates that your claim that "we are in a cooling period" is wrong. It indicates exactly the opposite. If you feel that my data is not from a trustworthy source, please feel free to explain why.
"No one will trust my data so I'm not going to bother giving you any" is not an acceptable argument. You should be able to support your positions, and fortunately, you have made a claim for which plenty of data exists. Unfortunately, a great deal of it is contrary to your statement.
Anyone care to take bets on how long before some senator/representative (likely from a state where coal or oil extraction is a major source of revenue) denounces this as the perfect example of government waste and interference in "free market" for energy?
A local store that was running a test project using these things had kiosks with a scale and a printer. You put the item on it and touched the picture of the item you were buying (or entered the PLU code) and it printed a barcode that you could scan.
One of the store chains in my area ran a test with them too. Unfortunately, they were discontinued. I'm not privy to the real reasons, but I suspect that there was a lot of theft. The store had to trust that you had actually scanned all the items in your cart. The other problem from my perspective was that the little kiosks that let you price produce (they gave you a barcoded sticker to scan) kept breaking.
First, I appreciate that you approached this in a cautious way. Nicely stated.
Before we go any further, I wish to respectfully point out a couple of things: 1. The whole idea behind insurance of any sort is that many low-cost users will subsidize the costs incurred by a few high cost users. Nothing has changed here. 2. If I apportion my thanks as you suggest, I can't really thank any government act for any benefit, since they are all paid for by taxpayers. (I suppose I could be thankful if the government gave me a tax break, but my kids are going to pay for that . . . besides, taxes buy civilization.)
Now, to the specifics: I am aware of how the system works, and honestly, I think this is an improvement. In the previous system, EXACTLY the same thing happens, with the exception that insurance companies (who are motivated by shareholder profit, not any sense of altruism) can selectively price populations out of the market. That they choose to do this to people with expensive medical problems is no coincidence, I am sure.
Now, I believe that insurance serves a valuable purpose, but it requires that lots of people participate in order to work efficiently, and "Obamacare" has been able to extend it to a larger population, in a much more equitable way. I have no objections to this. Also, as a person who kibitzes with doctors on a regular basis, I would point out a benefit that is often overlooked: giving a person access to affordable insurance, even if it is subsidized, reduces healthcare costs for everyone else because hospitals no longer have to recoup the cost of unpaid services from all other patients.
Ultimately, my attitude is this: I, as a taxpayer, am happy to pay a bit extra to help others get the medical care they need. I'm not rich, but I have everything I need, and I can afford to pay a bit more to help out my fellow citizens who lack the means to help themselves. If I may get up on my soap box for a moment: We like to say that we belong to the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. To say that we cannot make a relatively small sacrifice to ensure that our fellow citizens get access to basic medical care says something entirely different about us, something I never want to hear truthfully said about myself.
My mother-in-law (a small business owner) can afford health insurance now, via the high risk pool in her state. Thanks to "Obamacare" she can get insurance for herself and her husband for $700 a month, rather than the $2,000 a month that the insurance company offers.
Look at this from a professor's perspective: "If I have 4 big projects and 12 grant applications in the works, and 2 grad students, I should waste their time on editing wikipedia? I have carefully interviewed and selected these students because I think they are smart enough to do good work. Having them spend time on wikipedia is no less of a waste than if I spend my time doing it. I need to consistently produce results so that I can get grants to support further research, including grad students. If you think they are free, think again."
Now try another perspective - that of the grad student: 1. I've sunk most of my life so far into my education 2. I'm doing this so that I can get a good job in academics or industry 3. My research results are the metric that I will be measured against, and they need to be valuable if I'm going to get me that job.
One of the major ways that a professor wins recognition by helping grad students and associates produce excellent research. Grad students become good academics by doing good work on their research. Detracting from that mission damages the professor and the grad student.
Hey now! As a station wagon owner, I would like to protest. My Outback (2001) gets 25 miles per gallon in normal driving (YMMV), and can move 5 people in seat belts, their stuff, and a dog all at once (picture creative packing here). Comparing that to a pickup or SUV is slander!
As a rule, the ham's I've met, especially the ones with an interest in public safety, are some of the most selfless people I have ever had the chance to meet. I suggest that you don't mess with them for exactly the same reason that I suggest that you don't mess with firefighters. They've done absolutely nothing to deserve poor treatment from you, and in the unfortunate circumstance that you need their help, you'll feel like less of a heel.
Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference. Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
1) They're everywhere. There are over 600,000 licensed amateur radio operators in the US. If you live in the US, odds are, a ham lives or works less than half a mile from you. 2) A quick example of what they can do:
a) talk to people in the ISS
b) access email from nearly anywhere on the planet (no cell coverage? no problem!)
c) move information into and out of countries where infrastructure is not available or does not exist (Libya)
d) provide communications networks for very large events (marathons, etc)
e) tell emergency services to dig you out of your (mother's) hurricane-flattened house. (Ask the folks in New Orleans)
Hams are frequently very active in the public safety sphere. Don't mess with them.
I disagree, this also helps the little people. If you file a patent for a cool idea, and IBM files for the same idea two days later (Keep in mind that the important date here is the postmark), you win. There's no expensive and lengthy court case (where you can lose by running out of money) to determine who invented it first. The debate will be over the day that they look at the postmarks. Keep in mind that prior art applies here also: if you publish a patent in another country, that is prior art, and you can use it to invalidate patents that are filed at a later date in the USA.
Now, if you want to stick with a system where a court case is necessary to determine who gets the patent, I guarantee that will primarily benefit the side with the most cash available for lawyers.
Food for thought, the rest of the world uses a first-to-file system, and it does not appear to have destroyed society yet.
Oh, one more thing: if you, as a "small entity", are willing to do the legwork and write up the patent application yourself, you can have a patent of reasonable length for less than $1000. The current fee schedule is available here:
Chrome lets you run apps (of the browser extension sort) that are "not trusted." It just runs them in an I-don't-trust-you-any-further-than-I-can-throw-you" sort of way"
Sort of like how you'll carry cash in the street around people that you don't inherently trust. You put it in a safe spot rather than hold it in your hand.
The difference between Google's Chrome OS and Apple's iOS is this: while Google assumes everyone is a pickpocket and takes sensible precautions, Apple just says that you are not permitted go to Mexico.
Actually, there are not "lower" forms, instead, more competitive forms force less competitive forms into more specialized niches that happen to be available.
The "crazy religious niche" apparently had an opening.
Hopefully there aren't too many more similar niches available in this biome. (Park-ome?)
Slashdot Mirror
So, the response says that the office of the president is doing what it can to improve the patent system. The AIA eliminates some (but not all) of the ridiculousness associated with the patent system. The USPTO has issued revised guidance with the hopes that that will cut down on frivolous and low quality patents.
But, they correctly point out that "executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable". They also correctly point out that a good way to actually move forward on software patent reform is to contact your congressmen/women.
And you seem to think that this is an unreasonable and/or incorrect? I remind you that the president's real power is to approve or veto legislation, and appoint justices.
Wait, you know that the really wealthy people can take advantage of various tax ploys that are not available to people of lesser means? I pay roughly 30% of my income in taxes each year, but many of the truly rich pay less than 20%. Surely you've read Warren Buffet's Op-Ed by now, he does a nice job describing the situation.
All that, and honestly, I support raising MY taxes, so that our country could get it's act together. My family doesn't fit the american concept of "rich," (We're not millionaires, or even remotely close) but we make more than the median income, live modestly, and we could certainly afford a tax hike, Those people who complain that "$_ _ _,_ _ _ really isn't that much money" make me sick, we make less than that, and do just fine. (see http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/30/real-world-congressmans-money-troubles/)
What's the saying? "Taxes buy civilization"? I'd like some more civilization please. We seem to have a shortage here.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that good power generation on Mars is necessary for colonization, but a) it has downsides:
- Solar cells do not produce much power per unit of mass.
- The available sunlight is substantially weaker, due to the increased distance from the sun
- Getting accumulated power off planet is still a difficult problem.
b) it's a solution to a different problem than we are really discussing. The problem that these suitcases are designed to address is this: where do you get power while you are building bigger and better things, and there is no easy power source available.
Cheers!
Dear Sir,
I have a highly specialized financial product to sell, and I am looking for aggressive, no-risk-no-reward investors who are willing to take this special offer. Please reply to this comment with your name, email, phone number, address, DOB, SSN, passport number, bank routing number and acct number (for identification purposes only - we will not share this information with any third parties). We are not able to guarantee exact returns, but our projections indicate that investors should be at least as rich as a Nigerian prince within a week.
Regards,
Brooke Lynne Bridge, PhD, MBA, CPA
Chief Financial Advertiser
Golden Sheepskin Financial Products, LLP
New York, New York
That DOES sound easier than sending suitcase sized devices to places where we actually need power.
The percentage of criminals who get caught who are "ragingly stupid" is likely higher than in the general criminal population. You just haven't heard about the smart ones. You know; the ones who would do diligent background checks, because they are careful and keep some idiots around to take the fall when things don't work out.
It's been great - by focusing on "news for nerds" you've built one of the most fascinating communities on the internet. I wish you the best at your future endeavors, and hope that you have many more wildly unexpected successes - and some expected ones too.
Best Regards,
-coldfarnorth
Shouldn't have left this alone so long, but:
a) Please provide a link to the data you are using to draw these conclusions. If there are many data sets, you need not be exhaustive, a couple of links will do.
b) The first weather satellite (TIROS-1) was launched in 1960, and functioned for less than 80 days. It was not until 1965 that we had complete coverage of the daytime side of the planet, and let's be honest, the sensors were primitive. Please tell me what pre-1965 temperature data you trusted enough to use to make your statement about "the entire 20th century."
c) I have not attacked you personally. In fact, I was careful not to. Saying "I think you are wrong, and here's why" is not a personal attack.
d) Applying critical thinking skills is indeed wonderful.
My data indicates that your claim that "we are in a cooling period" is wrong. It indicates exactly the opposite. If you feel that my data is not from a trustworthy source, please feel free to explain why.
"No one will trust my data so I'm not going to bother giving you any" is not an acceptable argument. You should be able to support your positions, and fortunately, you have made a claim for which plenty of data exists. Unfortunately, a great deal of it is contrary to your statement.
Hence the quotation marks in my original post.
Anyone care to take bets on how long before some senator/representative (likely from a state where coal or oil extraction is a major source of revenue) denounces this as the perfect example of government waste and interference in "free market" for energy?
A local store that was running a test project using these things had kiosks with a scale and a printer. You put the item on it and touched the picture of the item you were buying (or entered the PLU code) and it printed a barcode that you could scan.
One of the store chains in my area ran a test with them too. Unfortunately, they were discontinued. I'm not privy to the real reasons, but I suspect that there was a lot of theft. The store had to trust that you had actually scanned all the items in your cart. The other problem from my perspective was that the little kiosks that let you price produce (they gave you a barcoded sticker to scan) kept breaking.
First, I appreciate that you approached this in a cautious way. Nicely stated.
Before we go any further, I wish to respectfully point out a couple of things:
1. The whole idea behind insurance of any sort is that many low-cost users will subsidize the costs incurred by a few high cost users. Nothing has changed here.
2. If I apportion my thanks as you suggest, I can't really thank any government act for any benefit, since they are all paid for by taxpayers. (I suppose I could be thankful if the government gave me a tax break, but my kids are going to pay for that . . . besides, taxes buy civilization.)
Now, to the specifics:
I am aware of how the system works, and honestly, I think this is an improvement. In the previous system, EXACTLY the same thing happens, with the exception that insurance companies (who are motivated by shareholder profit, not any sense of altruism) can selectively price populations out of the market. That they choose to do this to people with expensive medical problems is no coincidence, I am sure.
Now, I believe that insurance serves a valuable purpose, but it requires that lots of people participate in order to work efficiently, and "Obamacare" has been able to extend it to a larger population, in a much more equitable way. I have no objections to this. Also, as a person who kibitzes with doctors on a regular basis, I would point out a benefit that is often overlooked: giving a person access to affordable insurance, even if it is subsidized, reduces healthcare costs for everyone else because hospitals no longer have to recoup the cost of unpaid services from all other patients.
Ultimately, my attitude is this: I, as a taxpayer, am happy to pay a bit extra to help others get the medical care they need. I'm not rich, but I have everything I need, and I can afford to pay a bit more to help out my fellow citizens who lack the means to help themselves. If I may get up on my soap box for a moment: We like to say that we belong to the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. To say that we cannot make a relatively small sacrifice to ensure that our fellow citizens get access to basic medical care says something entirely different about us, something I never want to hear truthfully said about myself.
My mother-in-law (a small business owner) can afford health insurance now, via the high risk pool in her state. Thanks to "Obamacare" she can get insurance for herself and her husband for $700 a month, rather than the $2,000 a month that the insurance company offers.
Look at this from a professor's perspective:
"If I have 4 big projects and 12 grant applications in the works, and 2 grad students, I should waste their time on editing wikipedia? I have carefully interviewed and selected these students because I think they are smart enough to do good work. Having them spend time on wikipedia is no less of a waste than if I spend my time doing it. I need to consistently produce results so that I can get grants to support further research, including grad students. If you think they are free, think again."
Now try another perspective - that of the grad student:
1. I've sunk most of my life so far into my education
2. I'm doing this so that I can get a good job in academics or industry
3. My research results are the metric that I will be measured against, and they need to be valuable if I'm going to get me that job.
One of the major ways that a professor wins recognition by helping grad students and associates produce excellent research. Grad students become good academics by doing good work on their research. Detracting from that mission damages the professor and the grad student.
Hey now! As a station wagon owner, I would like to protest. My Outback (2001) gets 25 miles per gallon in normal driving (YMMV), and can move 5 people in seat belts, their stuff, and a dog all at once (picture creative packing here). Comparing that to a pickup or SUV is slander!
Nah. He figures he can find someone who has taken the time to be prepared and take their stuff.
Aaaaannnnd in other news, if you read the link I posted, it contains the answers you seek . . .
One more thing: Is it just me or is your second comment a restatement of what I said in the line above it?
As a rule, the ham's I've met, especially the ones with an interest in public safety, are some of the most selfless people I have ever had the chance to meet. I suggest that you don't mess with them for exactly the same reason that I suggest that you don't mess with firefighters. They've done absolutely nothing to deserve poor treatment from you, and in the unfortunate circumstance that you need their help, you'll feel like less of a heel.
First, read the article written by the folks who did the test: http://www.blaze.io/uncategorized/mobile/iphone-vs-android-45000-tests-prove-whose-browser-is-faster/
Here, they address this point. First, they compared their app's times with Safari's times, and found no noticeable difference. Second, they point out that javascript performance accounts for a small fraction of the load times (see large yellow box at the top of the page), and if Nitro was not in use, they estimate that using it would improve Safari's load times, but would not dramatically change the results.
Two quick points:
1) They're everywhere. There are over 600,000 licensed amateur radio operators in the US. If you live in the US, odds are, a ham lives or works less than half a mile from you.
2) A quick example of what they can do:
a) talk to people in the ISS
b) access email from nearly anywhere on the planet (no cell coverage? no problem!)
c) move information into and out of countries where infrastructure is not available or does not exist (Libya)
d) provide communications networks for very large events (marathons, etc)
e) tell emergency services to dig you out of your (mother's) hurricane-flattened house. (Ask the folks in New Orleans)
Hams are frequently very active in the public safety sphere. Don't mess with them.
I disagree, this also helps the little people. If you file a patent for a cool idea, and IBM files for the same idea two days later (Keep in mind that the important date here is the postmark), you win. There's no expensive and lengthy court case (where you can lose by running out of money) to determine who invented it first. The debate will be over the day that they look at the postmarks. Keep in mind that prior art applies here also: if you publish a patent in another country, that is prior art, and you can use it to invalidate patents that are filed at a later date in the USA.
Now, if you want to stick with a system where a court case is necessary to determine who gets the patent, I guarantee that will primarily benefit the side with the most cash available for lawyers.
Food for thought, the rest of the world uses a first-to-file system, and it does not appear to have destroyed society yet.
Oh, one more thing: if you, as a "small entity", are willing to do the legwork and write up the patent application yourself, you can have a patent of reasonable length for less than $1000. The current fee schedule is available here:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm
No.
Chrome lets you run apps (of the browser extension sort) that are "not trusted." It just runs them in an I-don't-trust-you-any-further-than-I-can-throw-you" sort of way"
Sort of like how you'll carry cash in the street around people that you don't inherently trust. You put it in a safe spot rather than hold it in your hand.
The difference between Google's Chrome OS and Apple's iOS is this: while Google assumes everyone is a pickpocket and takes sensible precautions, Apple just says that you are not permitted go to Mexico.
Actually, there are not "lower" forms, instead, more competitive forms force less competitive forms into more specialized niches that happen to be available.
The "crazy religious niche" apparently had an opening.
Hopefully there aren't too many more similar niches available in this biome. (Park-ome?)