Good point. There has to be some physical process involved somewhere though, so I'm sure that's what they argue is the process - i.e. the physical process controlled by the logical process.
But it has to be "new and useful" - so by definition if it is not new then it is not patentable matter.
As to what a process constitutes, I'd suggest that each process should have to be evaluated on its own to determine whether it is in fact worthy of being considered a process. E.g. forming a queue, while a process, should not on its own be considered a process worthy of patenting. There would have to be something else that makes it novel.
I wonder if the Jewish people want to wipe the rest of the world off of the map? After all they are God's chosen people - with a religious mandate to destroy anyone who gets in their way.
An expectation of privacy does not equate to a nanny state.
Where I live you can FOI to your hearts content but you'll get all information that could infringe upon the privacy of a citizen redacted to protect the citizens reasonable expectation of privacy.
If the information is currently freely available where you live then you're not doing anything technically wrong - but a lot of us believe you are doing something morally wrong and that your local laws need changing to protect a citizens privacy.
There are as many or more peer reviewed (unlike the news articles and firearm control advocates you quote) papers showing that the ban had no effect on the already falling murder and suicide rates in Australia:
And I bet a lot of the 50 officers killed were at a traffic stop or something and weren't firing back either, the numbers were tough to dig up and I couldn't find more details. Regardless I don't think it's hard to assume that in an armed confrontation the trained party has a big advantage.
As for the 2nd amendment your situation is over 200 year old, and the fighting was done by militias which were effectively small armies run by the colonies and don't really exist in the modern US. The French or Iraqi resistances would probably be better examples for gun advocates, but I don't think they apply either since there's a lot of ex-military and guns from that military in that situation and it's resisting a foreign power. The world has changed a lot, and for a modern population defending itself from its own government I don't see the precedence that shows it's useful.
You're probably right about how the officers were killed - but you obviously see my point. I agree with you that the better or more trained party will have an advantage over the badly or less trained opponent.
Taking that into consideration though, I think that with the incredibly high ownership rate, even when you discount all the people with no training at all, badly trained, or not able to effectively fight otherwise, that you will still be left with millions of very well trained and competent firearms owners that could put up enough resistance to either an invading foreign army or a domestic threat that it would make it an unmanageable situation to try and subjugate that population. This would be made up of current and ex-military, current and ex-police, well trained regular citizens and natural born killers. Yes they would lose against aircraft, armoured vehicles, etc - but if it boiled down to that it would be a guerrilla war (as you've shown with your good examples).
The fighting being done by militias is very much a part of the 2nd amendment. A militia is a citizen army and it really does exist in the modern US in the form of gun clubs and other informal organisations that would I have no doubt rise to their citizen obligation and defend their nation from invaders both foreign and domestic if the regular army failed. As above the WOI is a good example of this. I agree the world has changed - but people are still people.
Keep in mind to fullfil the 2nd Amendment you need to have the people armed so that they can actually from a militia as prescribed by the 2nd Amendment. If you disarm the population then they have no opportunity to "bear arms" and form a militia.
A well considered solution would take the opportunity to implement a greater onus on the 2nd Amendment militia and require citizens to be active members of gun clubs. This gives the peers of firearm owners the ability to effectively police other members (i.e. don't meet the clubs stringent requirements and you lose your firearms). Additionally mandatory firearms security, mandatory firearms registration, and a nationwide free mental health program would go a long way to reducing the problems America suffers.
I think gun advocates overestimate how effective they'd be against government forces, every year police kill around 300 armed people, while only about 50 police are killed by gunfine (numbers fairly approximate). If you start adding military personnel that are explicitly trained to kill armed opponents I don't think having a gun will do you nearly as much good as you think.
These are the qualities which defend freedom, concentrating on guns you're risking that freedom for a last line of defence that doesn't even work
I bet of the 300 armed people that police (in the USA) kill each year that most of them are not firing back and attempting to kill the police officers.
The USA's 2nd amendment specifically came from a situation where the people did rise up and defeat their parent government - so for the USA it does have a history of working.
The problems with that state of affairs had 1000 more causes than some gun masturbatory fantasy you have.
And by that exact same token, the problems with the USA's state of affairs has 1000 more causes than some gun masturbatory fantasy that anyone might have.
Bad data and analysis don't equate to supporting statistics. Or in other words, garbage in, garbage out.
Look at Australia. For years the anti-gun lobby have bandied about false figures showing that a lowered firearms ownership rate in Australia caused a lowered homicide rate. It turns out of course that immediately after the gun buy-back (where there was an outlier drop in ownership) the ownership rate of firearms continually grew whilst the homicide rate continually dropped (and is still dropping). The anti-gun lobby aren't admitting there mistake of course.
The anti-gun lobby also don't like to admit that the homicide rate was dropping before the gun buyback (and as above has continued to drop at a fairly constant rate through the buyback up until the present day).
I'll tell you what did work - our very good mental health programs and mandatory gun security.
Population of the USA is approximately 312000000 people. So there are 312 million people per 3.79 million sq miles = 82.32 people per sq mile. So there are 0.00359788918 homicides per sq mile per 82.32 people = 0.0000437 homicides per person.
Population of Norway is approximately 4952000 people. So there are 4.952 million people per 0.14872 million sq miles = 33.30 people per sq mile. So there are 0.00019502353 homicides per sq mile per 33.30 people = 0.00000586 homicides per person.
USA 0.0000437 homicides per person / Norway 0.00000586 homicides per person = USA has 7.48 times the homicide rate per person than Norway.
Lets bump that up times 100k to get a standardised figure:
USA = 4.37 homicides per 100k people Norway = 0.586 homicides per 100k people
And roughly 1/3 of Australia is banging on my door for my LED tech, plus Morocco, the UK, China, Japan, and the USA.
Sun-grown food is so inefficient that it's becoming passe, and every major country on the planet is realizing it.
And whomever pays me enough will own this world by controlling its food.
Hint: I'm never going to give it to the USA and will renounce my citizenship and move before they ever get a chance to figure it out or steal it.
So if you stay in the USA, you're on the losing team. Just a heads-up.
Think means the thought process going through my head. So whatever I think is what I know.
I don't believe 1/3 of Australian farmers are interested or intend to switch to artificially grown food any time soon. Go look at http://abs.gov.au/ for statistics on Australia - if you can show me some statistics or numbers from there or somewhere else showing that sort of demand then I'll believe it.
I'm sure there are lots of people interested in whatever lighting tech you have and I hope you succeed.
Hey, at least you still have semi-automatics, you should try living in a country which is about to criminalise anyone who doesn't register/license their fucking air weapons..
I don't think the food supply industry is small (and really I never wrote it was). My relatives are farmers in Australia - arguably the most efficient dry land farming community in the world - and it's one of our largest industries - I've seen first hand how big the food sector is.
I think the artificially lighted food growing industry is small. In fact it is tiny compared to the sun grown food industry. This was the small industry I was referring to (the LED artificially lighted food growing industry).
As above, compare this plus all the other industries that use LEDs to the household and business lighting sector and you'll find that they are minuscule in comparison.
Yes, it will be at low junction temperature and low current (which will last for all of 3 seconds). All of their real world figures are at J/T of 85C. The K2 bin gets max 1290 lumens at 700mA (85C), at about 8.2W according to their charts, which would be 157 lumens/watt in a real world user scenario.
An example of a small industry that is using LEDs doesn't make me wrong (unfortunately I might add - I wish I was wrong).
LEDs are also being adopted for fish tank lighting. But torches, horticultural lighting, and fish tank lighting combined don't even begin to compare what I was referring too - which is household and business lighting.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Go look it up. The end result is that a politician is often a bureaucrat, but bureaucrats are mostly not politicians.
I totally forgot about that category of patents. If you can call them that. They shouldn't exist.
Good point. There has to be some physical process involved somewhere though, so I'm sure that's what they argue is the process - i.e. the physical process controlled by the logical process.
But it has to be "new and useful" - so by definition if it is not new then it is not patentable matter.
As to what a process constitutes, I'd suggest that each process should have to be evaluated on its own to determine whether it is in fact worthy of being considered a process. E.g. forming a queue, while a process, should not on its own be considered a process worthy of patenting. There would have to be something else that makes it novel.
I wonder if the Jewish people want to wipe the rest of the world off of the map? After all they are God's chosen people - with a religious mandate to destroy anyone who gets in their way.
Seriously - does anyone know?
Please, name a single nation of innocent saints.
An expectation of privacy does not equate to a nanny state.
Where I live you can FOI to your hearts content but you'll get all information that could infringe upon the privacy of a citizen redacted to protect the citizens reasonable expectation of privacy.
If the information is currently freely available where you live then you're not doing anything technically wrong - but a lot of us believe you are doing something morally wrong and that your local laws need changing to protect a citizens privacy.
We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower.
Except to the government.
In general any citizens life is not worth less than anyone else's life to themselves.
That's right - this page shows that crime rates were dropping before the buyback - and continued to drop after.
Well said.
The solution is to implement a nationwide free of charge mental health system.
There are as many or more peer reviewed (unlike the news articles and firearm control advocates you quote) papers showing that the ban had no effect on the already falling murder and suicide rates in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws
This sums it up nicely.
Bullshit.
Classy. He says "bullshit" with an abc news article as evidence.
How about some scientific papers instead of commentary by a politician who is very unlikely to be critical of his own laws.
Lee, Wang-Sheng; & Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy 28 (1): 65–79.
or
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract (disclosure: this was written by known firearms advocates but it is peer reviewed - unlike John Howard's comments).
I read your article, I'm sure you'll do likewise and read mine.
And I bet a lot of the 50 officers killed were at a traffic stop or something and weren't firing back either, the numbers were tough to dig up and I couldn't find more details. Regardless I don't think it's hard to assume that in an armed confrontation the trained party has a big advantage.
As for the 2nd amendment your situation is over 200 year old, and the fighting was done by militias which were effectively small armies run by the colonies and don't really exist in the modern US. The French or Iraqi resistances would probably be better examples for gun advocates, but I don't think they apply either since there's a lot of ex-military and guns from that military in that situation and it's resisting a foreign power. The world has changed a lot, and for a modern population defending itself from its own government I don't see the precedence that shows it's useful.
You're probably right about how the officers were killed - but you obviously see my point. I agree with you that the better or more trained party will have an advantage over the badly or less trained opponent.
Taking that into consideration though, I think that with the incredibly high ownership rate, even when you discount all the people with no training at all, badly trained, or not able to effectively fight otherwise, that you will still be left with millions of very well trained and competent firearms owners that could put up enough resistance to either an invading foreign army or a domestic threat that it would make it an unmanageable situation to try and subjugate that population. This would be made up of current and ex-military, current and ex-police, well trained regular citizens and natural born killers. Yes they would lose against aircraft, armoured vehicles, etc - but if it boiled down to that it would be a guerrilla war (as you've shown with your good examples).
The fighting being done by militias is very much a part of the 2nd amendment. A militia is a citizen army and it really does exist in the modern US in the form of gun clubs and other informal organisations that would I have no doubt rise to their citizen obligation and defend their nation from invaders both foreign and domestic if the regular army failed. As above the WOI is a good example of this. I agree the world has changed - but people are still people.
Keep in mind to fullfil the 2nd Amendment you need to have the people armed so that they can actually from a militia as prescribed by the 2nd Amendment. If you disarm the population then they have no opportunity to "bear arms" and form a militia.
A well considered solution would take the opportunity to implement a greater onus on the 2nd Amendment militia and require citizens to be active members of gun clubs. This gives the peers of firearm owners the ability to effectively police other members (i.e. don't meet the clubs stringent requirements and you lose your firearms). Additionally mandatory firearms security, mandatory firearms registration, and a nationwide free mental health program would go a long way to reducing the problems America suffers.
I think gun advocates overestimate how effective they'd be against government forces, every year police kill around 300 armed people, while only about 50 police are killed by gunfine (numbers fairly approximate). If you start adding military personnel that are explicitly trained to kill armed opponents I don't think having a gun will do you nearly as much good as you think.
These are the qualities which defend freedom, concentrating on guns you're risking that freedom for a last line of defence that doesn't even work
I bet of the 300 armed people that police (in the USA) kill each year that most of them are not firing back and attempting to kill the police officers.
The USA's 2nd amendment specifically came from a situation where the people did rise up and defeat their parent government - so for the USA it does have a history of working.
Go to hell.
The problems with that state of affairs had 1000 more causes than some gun masturbatory fantasy you have.
And by that exact same token, the problems with the USA's state of affairs has 1000 more causes than some gun masturbatory fantasy that anyone might have.
Bad data and analysis don't equate to supporting statistics. Or in other words, garbage in, garbage out.
Look at Australia. For years the anti-gun lobby have bandied about false figures showing that a lowered firearms ownership rate in Australia caused a lowered homicide rate. It turns out of course that immediately after the gun buy-back (where there was an outlier drop in ownership) the ownership rate of firearms continually grew whilst the homicide rate continually dropped (and is still dropping). The anti-gun lobby aren't admitting there mistake of course.
The anti-gun lobby also don't like to admit that the homicide rate was dropping before the gun buyback (and as above has continued to drop at a fairly constant rate through the buyback up until the present day).
I'll tell you what did work - our very good mental health programs and mandatory gun security.
Adding to your figures:
Population of the USA is approximately 312000000 people.
So there are 312 million people per 3.79 million sq miles = 82.32 people per sq mile.
So there are 0.00359788918 homicides per sq mile per 82.32 people = 0.0000437 homicides per person.
Population of Norway is approximately 4952000 people.
So there are 4.952 million people per 0.14872 million sq miles = 33.30 people per sq mile.
So there are 0.00019502353 homicides per sq mile per 33.30 people = 0.00000586 homicides per person.
USA 0.0000437 homicides per person / Norway 0.00000586 homicides per person = USA has 7.48 times the homicide rate per person than Norway.
Lets bump that up times 100k to get a standardised figure:
USA = 4.37 homicides per 100k people
Norway = 0.586 homicides per 100k people
Which are very close to your original numbers.
Key word, think, not know.
And roughly 1/3 of Australia is banging on my door for my LED tech, plus Morocco, the UK, China, Japan, and the USA.
Sun-grown food is so inefficient that it's becoming passe, and every major country on the planet is realizing it.
And whomever pays me enough will own this world by controlling its food.
Hint: I'm never going to give it to the USA and will renounce my citizenship and move before they ever get a chance to figure it out or steal it.
So if you stay in the USA, you're on the losing team. Just a heads-up.
Think means the thought process going through my head. So whatever I think is what I know.
I don't believe 1/3 of Australian farmers are interested or intend to switch to artificially grown food any time soon. Go look at http://abs.gov.au/ for statistics on Australia - if you can show me some statistics or numbers from there or somewhere else showing that sort of demand then I'll believe it.
I'm sure there are lots of people interested in whatever lighting tech you have and I hope you succeed.
Hey, at least you still have semi-automatics, you should try living in a country which is about to criminalise anyone who doesn't register/license their fucking air weapons..
I already live there = Australia.
I don't think the food supply industry is small (and really I never wrote it was). My relatives are farmers in Australia - arguably the most efficient dry land farming community in the world - and it's one of our largest industries - I've seen first hand how big the food sector is.
I think the artificially lighted food growing industry is small. In fact it is tiny compared to the sun grown food industry. This was the small industry I was referring to (the LED artificially lighted food growing industry).
As above, compare this plus all the other industries that use LEDs to the household and business lighting sector and you'll find that they are minuscule in comparison.
Yes, it will be at low junction temperature and low current (which will last for all of 3 seconds). All of their real world figures are at J/T of 85C. The K2 bin gets max 1290 lumens at 700mA (85C), at about 8.2W according to their charts, which would be 157 lumens/watt in a real world user scenario.
Wow - that's crazy stuff - I would not have guessed that. Good link.
Haha - funny, a bit of a dad joke (the sort I do all the time).
As others have pointed out torch = flashlight (especially for UK and Australia), so we may not get the joke straight away.
An example of a small industry that is using LEDs doesn't make me wrong (unfortunately I might add - I wish I was wrong).
LEDs are also being adopted for fish tank lighting. But torches, horticultural lighting, and fish tank lighting combined don't even begin to compare what I was referring too - which is household and business lighting.