Well, I can't say it's simple in practice, but in theory, most states already have that. The buyer is supposed to claim the purchase on their state tax filing and pay the tax then. The problem isn't that it's not simple in practice, it's that almost no individuals do it. Most businesses do, but the task of keeping up with the receipts and reporting them in your income tax filing once a year just isn't something most people do (or even know about). For states that have a sales and use tax, but no income tax, it's a completely separate filing that people don't even thing about because they don't have state income tax forms to file.
It's also nearly impossible to enforce. Where are you going to get records of each mail-order purchase made during the year, who purchased it, whether it was a taxable item, and where was the purchaser located (since sales taxes can vary by city, county/parish, and sometimes even other boundaries) so that you can enforce it?
I'm not talking about built-in voice commands. (Which have existed on every mobile phone I've ever owned for the past decade - the iPhone seriously didn't get that for three versions? I knew Apple was behind the curve, but I didn't realize they were THAT far behind. Then again, it took them that long to get copy and paste, didn't it?)
And exactly who implemented copy and paste on a touch screen before Apple did it in iOS 3? Let's see, I think the answer is "no one". Nothing like forgetting history when you try to slam a product/company.
You said that user friendlyness will gain Linux ground. Well... User friendlyness has never resulted in anything. Example is BeOS.
Android doesn't prove anything, because its adoption started because Google bought it. That's all there is about it.
Android has been on the market for a couple years since Google bought it and it's been heavily marketed. Yet the phones that have been successful are the ones where the phone manufacturer has added a simple UI (since Android has had no standard UI for most of it's life). That the Android phones with a decent UI are selling very well demonstrates my point quite clearly. Linux on the desktop has a slightly tougher road because it doesn't run all Windows software, so the applications users are most familiar with and/or need to use either won't run, or maybe they'll run under WINE with a few glitches. Android has the advantage that a phone is a completely separate platform and the 2-3 items of data people are concerned with preserving when changing phones are their contacts, music, and photos. Since most of the phone apps are cheap, that's not a major investment they care about preserving.
I'm sorry for not getting what you meant; I still don't.
My point exactly. You have no idea what users want, or what drives the market. Users don't care about specs, they care about ease of use, price, looks, and whether it does what they want it to do. Marketing is part of letting users know your product is available, but users don't care about marketing either.
Specs, reviews, price and brand asociation don't?
Most users don't read reviews and don't care about specs, especially on a phone. They've been trained to "care about specs" on computers, but they use those only because they don't have any other method of judging a computer. People don't want to learn about computers, any more than they want to learn about cars. They want devices that do what they need, at a price they can afford, and that they don't have to take classes to learn how to operate. Brand image is part of the appeal, as it is in cars, clothes, jewelry, but it's not the only factor, nor the largest factor.
I still don't get it. If usability is such a big thing, then why did people use Windows for years? I think it's marketing.
As I said, marketing is one part of it. People used Windows because that's what they were exposed to at work/school, because that's what their tech friends said to get, and because it was usable (even though it was/is clumsy, insecure, and unstable at times). Linux wasn't usable by a casual user, installation was completely out of the question, and it had far less software available. And "everybody knew" Apple was going out of business. So much for what "the experts and pundits" had to say. Windows by default. When you don't know, your follow others advice.
When Linux has a real new user friendly distro and UI, and when installing software and maintaining it is as effortless as Windows and Mac OS then it will start to gain some ground. Android is evidence of that. The phones that have added a good UI are selling well, other Android phones aren't doing nearly as well. Installing software on Android is relatively simple, but upgrading the OS hasn't been as simple or effortless, and that's been one of the huge complaints about Android phones.
If this was true, then we'd all be running BeOS by now. It's not what you think it is. It is marketing. It is marketing and enless marketing and then some more marketing... Android wasn't getting any attention before Google bought it and guess why? Because it didn't have a Google stamp on it.
People all over the world, even the most horrible techno noobies knew where every feature of their phone was. Apple hasn't changed anything in that regard, even if you think it does.
And that doesn't address what I said at all. Re-read and respond to the actual points I made, because clearly Android has received plenty of marketing now and that still doesn't explain why some Android phones sell while others don't. The UI and how simple the phone vendor made it to use Android does explain it. Or continue living in denial, it makes no difference to me.
Giving credit where it's due, I can't deny that Apple made some realy slick phone. But then I have to turn around and observe the thousands of screaming "iiiTTTTTUUUUUNNNNEEEESSSS!!!!!! ANSWEEEERR MEEEEE!!!!!!!!" voices in the background. I realy have to disagree and say that the iPhone largely became so popular due to it's iPodness. Thinking about the iPod, I realy have to conclude it's the marketing and the sheep that bought it because everybody else bought it because WWDC.
Calling non-technical users "sheep" won't help you win anyone over to Linux or KDE.
As a GUI: KDE Windows UI ~= Mac UI Certainly there are number of people will debate the order of the last two, but very few will claim that KDE is comparable to either Mac OS X or Windows UI. KDE has come a long way, but it is not up to the level of the commercial GUIs.
When Linux has a real new user friendly distro and UI, and when installing software and maintaining it is as effortless as Windows and Mac OS then it will start to gain some ground. Android is evidence of that. The phones that have added a good UI are selling well, other Android phones aren't doing nearly as well. Installing software on Android is relatively simple, but upgrading the OS hasn't been as simple or effortless, and that's been one of the huge complaints about Android phones.
Here's the real reason Apple's iOS devices sell, they put the user experience first. Not the programmer or tech user, but your average, everyday user who has no particular interest is learning about computers, they just want a device that works and is simple to use and maintain. Until programmers and tech users understand that, all your favorite tech products will lag behind in sales because they don't address what 90% of the market wants; devices that do what the user bought them to do with a minimum of effort and/or technical knowledge required to use and maintain them.
States set their own tax rates, including property taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, and sales taxes. Some states have no sales tax (but higher property, income, and or excise taxes), others have high sales taxes (with lower income, property, or excise taxes). So the tax rate and total taxes paid by residents of each state vary, and sales tax is only one part of those taxes. A national internet/interstate sales tax would upset that balance. There is no way Congress can levy a national sales tax that does not upset that balance.
Furthermore, for states that have sales tax rates lower than whatever rate congress set, in-state sellers would have the advantage of lower sales taxes, while states with a rate higher than whatever Congress set would still be at a disadvantage compared to out-of-state sellers, and those states would still have the burden of trying to collect the difference in taxes as part of their "use tax". Such a system would be no better than what we currently have.
Finally, no state can impose taxes on a resident of another state if the transaction occurs outside the jurisdiction of the taxing state. Therefore, any tax would have to be imposed uniformly at the national level by Congress (and that money would all go the US Treasury, not to the states), or would require an amendment to the US Constitution (and probably some state Constitutions). Any other approach would be unconstitutional. As shown above, there is no way to such a tax to be levied fairly. It would impose a greater burden on purchasers in some states than in others, and the burden would be greater on some states than on others. And if you think the states are going to benefit by getting any significant portion of that money back from the US Treasury, you're delusional and/or haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years. Even if they earmarked that money for the states, the would use it as an excuse to reduce other payments to the states and Congress would spend the "additional revenue"
Any such attempt will drive mail-order suppliers from states with higher total property, income, corporate taxes into states with lower total property, income, corporate taxes and moderate to high sales taxes since that would be a benefit to the seller, while yielding the same sales tax rate for the buyer.
In theory, it may sound like a good idea, but without a constitutional amendment and some major changes in the way our government works, it's a REALLY BAD idea.
You let him pick his teachers and classes. You let him complete the coursework at his own pace, and you don't require him to do homework (he'll do however much homework he needs to understand and remember the material without any externally imposed requirements). When he completes the required coursework, you let him pick another topic and continue studying and learning.
And you do exactly what his parents and school have been doing, keep him involved with other kids his age, sports, arts, music, etc. And you allow him to continue to study college level material at his own pace. He's got the drive and the interest, let him run with it as long as he's got those other interactions and activities to keep him balanced to help him deal with the stuff we all have to deal with growing up, being teenagers, dating, etc.
As a very gifted student myself, those are the types of things that I was usually able to work out with my teachers and parents that made a huge difference for me. I wasn't (am not?) as advanced as Gabriel, but I was/am out on the fringes of the intelligence curve. I would love to meet Gabriel, to share my experience, and share knowledge. I suspect I could learn more from him than he learns from me, but I have about 30 years of experience on him and I've been down a road similar to his, so I have wisdom and knowledge to add to his knowledge.
It's free if you're running OS X Lion (10.7). If you're running Snow Leopard (10.6), Lion is a $29 upgrade. It's also free if you're a member of the Developer program, and if you're not, it's $99 to become a member. So, it's somewhere between $0 and $99 depending upon what you already have.
Granted, the Android SDK is free (as long as you have a supported version Linux, Windows, or Mac OS X and suitable computer). And the Windows Phone 7 SDK is free if you already have a suitable computer running Windows 7 or Vista (not a starter edition) with a DX10 compatible video card.
Any way you look at it, cost of the development tools for any of those platforms is cheap. It can be more expensive if you don't already have suitable hardware and OS, but the SDKs are all somewhere between free and cheap.
Apple net income FY 2010 (ended Sept 2010) = $14.01 Billion Microsoft net income FY 2010 (ended June 2010 using your link above) = $18.67 Billion 18.76 / 14.01 = 1.34 (134%), so what you meant is that for FY 2010, MS was 34% more profitable than Apple, not 65%.
But wait, those aren't for the same time period, they're FYs are off by 3 months. Let's compare the 4 most recent quarters reported for each company. Apple's July 2010-June 2011 profit = Q4'10 = $4.31B + Q1'11 = $6B + Q2'11 = $5.99B + Q3'11 = 7.31B = $23.61B (each from Apple's website) MS July 2010-June 2011 (FY 2011) profit = $23.15B (again, from your link above) So, what you really meant is that MS is almost as profitable as Apple.
Your point that MS is making money, lots of it, is completely valid. However, you should be more careful with your comparisons.
As soon as someone releases an LTE chipset that doesn't kill battery life, and LTE becomes widely available, it'll be in the next iPhone. Right now, LTE would raise the cost of the phone, shorten the battery life, and only benefit a small percentage of the buyers.
LTE Deployment map, most of the world doesn't even have any LTE deployment. North America, parts of Europe, southeast Asia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Uzebekistan are the only current deployments, and most of those offer only spotty coverage. AT&T is claiming"LTE planned for up to 15 cities by the end of 2011" Verizon has wider LTE coverage, but it's nowhere near nationwide and won't be for several more years. Sprint's LTE coverage is in a similar situation.
By the time that LTE is actually available to a sizable percentage of buyers, it'll be time to upgrade the phone anyway. And HSDPA+ @ 14.4Mbps is fast enough for most users in the meantime.
One thing Apple understands that most competitors (and critics) don't is that most users care about usability, not about specifications. Battery life is more important to most users than somewhat faster downloads (that are only available to a small percentage of users anyway). Only the small percentage of technically savvy users care about specs (and those users and critics are the same ones who would complain about the lack of 4G coverage if it did include LTE).
Use Services to transmit voice over the data networks Transmit does not necessarily mean you're the one sending it. While that's one possible interpretation, simply causing the data to be sent over the network is a valid interpretation of the above. In that interpretation, clicking on a link that requests voice data be sent to you would still be a violation.
Binding arbitration says you agree to first go through the process of arbitration, and IF you reach a settlement in arbitration, then it's binding. Binding arbitration clauses do NOT prohibit you from proceeding to a lawsuit if the arbitration is unsuccessful.
IANAL, but I seriously doubt this clause will survive a challenge.
From TFA: However, in the majority of cases (e.g., if there is no derivation issue), the America Invents Act implements a "first to file" rule, and I would strongly advise clients to regard the Act in that manner, and to promptly perform a prior art search and, if the invention appears to be patentable, file a patent application before taking any other action, particularly before using, disclosing, selling or offering the invention for sale. Thus, the rule should be "file first" as well as "first to file."
Thus it encourages early filing and disclosure, which helps prevent people keeping ideas secret. Disseminating info to encourage progress is the primary reason for having patents, so changes that encourage disclosure earlier are good. This also helps simplify prior art claims in patent approval because unpublished prior art does not prevent the patent.
The extension of the Prior Use defense is also a net benefit. While it does allow companies to keep information private (partially offsetting the advantages above), as soon as someone else files a patent application for the same idea, the company who kept it private loses the ability to patent it, thus giving them an incentive to apply for a patent rather than keep it secret. It does allow the company to continue to use their method without infringing on the patent since they were using it prior to the patent filing. You no longer have to worry about someone patenting what you're already doing and making you license it from them.
There are other aspect of the overall act that are only beneficial to specific industries, and some that could be a disadvantage to individual inventors or smaller companies, so it not all good news, but first to file is a good change.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I can't say it's simple in practice, but in theory, most states already have that. The buyer is supposed to claim the purchase on their state tax filing and pay the tax then. The problem isn't that it's not simple in practice, it's that almost no individuals do it. Most businesses do, but the task of keeping up with the receipts and reporting them in your income tax filing once a year just isn't something most people do (or even know about). For states that have a sales and use tax, but no income tax, it's a completely separate filing that people don't even thing about because they don't have state income tax forms to file.
It's also nearly impossible to enforce. Where are you going to get records of each mail-order purchase made during the year, who purchased it, whether it was a taxable item, and where was the purchaser located (since sales taxes can vary by city, county/parish, and sometimes even other boundaries) so that you can enforce it?
I'm not talking about built-in voice commands. (Which have existed on every mobile phone I've ever owned for the past decade - the iPhone seriously didn't get that for three versions? I knew Apple was behind the curve, but I didn't realize they were THAT far behind. Then again, it took them that long to get copy and paste, didn't it?)
And exactly who implemented copy and paste on a touch screen before Apple did it in iOS 3? Let's see, I think the answer is "no one". Nothing like forgetting history when you try to slam a product/company.
You said that user friendlyness will gain Linux ground. Well... User friendlyness has never resulted in anything. Example is BeOS.
Android doesn't prove anything, because its adoption started because Google bought it. That's all there is about it.
Android has been on the market for a couple years since Google bought it and it's been heavily marketed. Yet the phones that have been successful are the ones where the phone manufacturer has added a simple UI (since Android has had no standard UI for most of it's life). That the Android phones with a decent UI are selling very well demonstrates my point quite clearly. Linux on the desktop has a slightly tougher road because it doesn't run all Windows software, so the applications users are most familiar with and/or need to use either won't run, or maybe they'll run under WINE with a few glitches. Android has the advantage that a phone is a completely separate platform and the 2-3 items of data people are concerned with preserving when changing phones are their contacts, music, and photos. Since most of the phone apps are cheap, that's not a major investment they care about preserving.
I'm sorry for not getting what you meant; I still don't.
My point exactly. You have no idea what users want, or what drives the market. Users don't care about specs, they care about ease of use, price, looks, and whether it does what they want it to do. Marketing is part of letting users know your product is available, but users don't care about marketing either.
Specs, reviews, price and brand asociation don't?
Most users don't read reviews and don't care about specs, especially on a phone. They've been trained to "care about specs" on computers, but they use those only because they don't have any other method of judging a computer. People don't want to learn about computers, any more than they want to learn about cars. They want devices that do what they need, at a price they can afford, and that they don't have to take classes to learn how to operate. Brand image is part of the appeal, as it is in cars, clothes, jewelry, but it's not the only factor, nor the largest factor.
I still don't get it. If usability is such a big thing, then why did people use Windows for years? I think it's marketing.
As I said, marketing is one part of it. People used Windows because that's what they were exposed to at work/school, because that's what their tech friends said to get, and because it was usable (even though it was/is clumsy, insecure, and unstable at times). Linux wasn't usable by a casual user, installation was completely out of the question, and it had far less software available. And "everybody knew" Apple was going out of business. So much for what "the experts and pundits" had to say. Windows by default. When you don't know, your follow others advice.
When Linux has a real new user friendly distro and UI, and when installing software and maintaining it is as effortless as Windows and Mac OS then it will start to gain some ground. Android is evidence of that. The phones that have added a good UI are selling well, other Android phones aren't doing nearly as well. Installing software on Android is relatively simple, but upgrading the OS hasn't been as simple or effortless, and that's been one of the huge complaints about Android phones.
If this was true, then we'd all be running BeOS by now. It's not what you think it is. It is marketing. It is marketing and enless marketing and then some more marketing... Android wasn't getting any attention before Google bought it and guess why? Because it didn't have a Google stamp on it.
People all over the world, even the most horrible techno noobies knew where every feature of their phone was. Apple hasn't changed anything in that regard, even if you think it does.
And that doesn't address what I said at all. Re-read and respond to the actual points I made, because clearly Android has received plenty of marketing now and that still doesn't explain why some Android phones sell while others don't. The UI and how simple the phone vendor made it to use Android does explain it.
Or continue living in denial, it makes no difference to me.
Giving credit where it's due, I can't deny that Apple made some realy slick phone. But then I have to turn around and observe the thousands of screaming "iiiTTTTTUUUUUNNNNEEEESSSS!!!!!! ANSWEEEERR MEEEEE!!!!!!!!" voices in the background. I realy have to disagree and say that the iPhone largely became so popular due to it's iPodness. Thinking about the iPod, I realy have to conclude it's the marketing and the sheep that bought it because everybody else bought it because WWDC.
Calling non-technical users "sheep" won't help you win anyone over to Linux or KDE.
That should be KDE is inferior to Windows UI or Mac OS X UI.
Obviously, you didn't RTFA. He participates in swimming every week. He also attends a magnet school focused on arts and music.
As a GUI: KDE Windows UI ~= Mac UI
Certainly there are number of people will debate the order of the last two, but very few will claim that KDE is comparable to either Mac OS X or Windows UI. KDE has come a long way, but it is not up to the level of the commercial GUIs.
When Linux has a real new user friendly distro and UI, and when installing software and maintaining it is as effortless as Windows and Mac OS then it will start to gain some ground. Android is evidence of that. The phones that have added a good UI are selling well, other Android phones aren't doing nearly as well. Installing software on Android is relatively simple, but upgrading the OS hasn't been as simple or effortless, and that's been one of the huge complaints about Android phones.
Here's the real reason Apple's iOS devices sell, they put the user experience first. Not the programmer or tech user, but your average, everyday user who has no particular interest is learning about computers, they just want a device that works and is simple to use and maintain. Until programmers and tech users understand that, all your favorite tech products will lag behind in sales because they don't address what 90% of the market wants; devices that do what the user bought them to do with a minimum of effort and/or technical knowledge required to use and maintain them.
States set their own tax rates, including property taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, and sales taxes. Some states have no sales tax (but higher property, income, and or excise taxes), others have high sales taxes (with lower income, property, or excise taxes). So the tax rate and total taxes paid by residents of each state vary, and sales tax is only one part of those taxes. A national internet/interstate sales tax would upset that balance. There is no way Congress can levy a national sales tax that does not upset that balance.
Furthermore, for states that have sales tax rates lower than whatever rate congress set, in-state sellers would have the advantage of lower sales taxes, while states with a rate higher than whatever Congress set would still be at a disadvantage compared to out-of-state sellers, and those states would still have the burden of trying to collect the difference in taxes as part of their "use tax". Such a system would be no better than what we currently have.
Finally, no state can impose taxes on a resident of another state if the transaction occurs outside the jurisdiction of the taxing state. Therefore, any tax would have to be imposed uniformly at the national level by Congress (and that money would all go the US Treasury, not to the states), or would require an amendment to the US Constitution (and probably some state Constitutions). Any other approach would be unconstitutional. As shown above, there is no way to such a tax to be levied fairly. It would impose a greater burden on purchasers in some states than in others, and the burden would be greater on some states than on others. And if you think the states are going to benefit by getting any significant portion of that money back from the US Treasury, you're delusional and/or haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years. Even if they earmarked that money for the states, the would use it as an excuse to reduce other payments to the states and Congress would spend the "additional revenue"
Any such attempt will drive mail-order suppliers from states with higher total property, income, corporate taxes into states with lower total property, income, corporate taxes and moderate to high sales taxes since that would be a benefit to the seller, while yielding the same sales tax rate for the buyer.
In theory, it may sound like a good idea, but without a constitutional amendment and some major changes in the way our government works, it's a REALLY BAD idea.
You let him pick his teachers and classes. You let him complete the coursework at his own pace, and you don't require him to do homework (he'll do however much homework he needs to understand and remember the material without any externally imposed requirements). When he completes the required coursework, you let him pick another topic and continue studying and learning.
And you do exactly what his parents and school have been doing, keep him involved with other kids his age, sports, arts, music, etc. And you allow him to continue to study college level material at his own pace. He's got the drive and the interest, let him run with it as long as he's got those other interactions and activities to keep him balanced to help him deal with the stuff we all have to deal with growing up, being teenagers, dating, etc.
As a very gifted student myself, those are the types of things that I was usually able to work out with my teachers and parents that made a huge difference for me. I wasn't (am not?) as advanced as Gabriel, but I was/am out on the fringes of the intelligence curve. I would love to meet Gabriel, to share my experience, and share knowledge. I suspect I could learn more from him than he learns from me, but I have about 30 years of experience on him and I've been down a road similar to his, so I have wisdom and knowledge to add to his knowledge.
It's free if you're running OS X Lion (10.7). If you're running Snow Leopard (10.6), Lion is a $29 upgrade. It's also free if you're a member of the Developer program, and if you're not, it's $99 to become a member. So, it's somewhere between $0 and $99 depending upon what you already have.
Granted, the Android SDK is free (as long as you have a supported version Linux, Windows, or Mac OS X and suitable computer). And the Windows Phone 7 SDK is free if you already have a suitable computer running Windows 7 or Vista (not a starter edition) with a DX10 compatible video card.
Any way you look at it, cost of the development tools for any of those platforms is cheap. It can be more expensive if you don't already have suitable hardware and OS, but the SDKs are all somewhere between free and cheap.
Apple net income FY 2010 (ended Sept 2010) = $14.01 Billion
Microsoft net income FY 2010 (ended June 2010 using your link above) = $18.67 Billion
18.76 / 14.01 = 1.34 (134%), so what you meant is that for FY 2010, MS was 34% more profitable than Apple, not 65%.
But wait, those aren't for the same time period, they're FYs are off by 3 months. Let's compare the 4 most recent quarters reported for each company.
Apple's July 2010-June 2011 profit = Q4'10 = $4.31B + Q1'11 = $6B + Q2'11 = $5.99B + Q3'11 = 7.31B = $23.61B (each from Apple's website)
MS July 2010-June 2011 (FY 2011) profit = $23.15B (again, from your link above)
So, what you really meant is that MS is almost as profitable as Apple.
Your point that MS is making money, lots of it, is completely valid. However, you should be more careful with your comparisons.
As soon as someone releases an LTE chipset that doesn't kill battery life, and LTE becomes widely available, it'll be in the next iPhone. Right now, LTE would raise the cost of the phone, shorten the battery life, and only benefit a small percentage of the buyers.
LTE Deployment map, most of the world doesn't even have any LTE deployment. North America, parts of Europe, southeast Asia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Uzebekistan are the only current deployments, and most of those offer only spotty coverage.
AT&T is claiming "LTE planned for up to 15 cities by the end of 2011"
Verizon has wider LTE coverage, but it's nowhere near nationwide and won't be for several more years.
Sprint's LTE coverage is in a similar situation.
By the time that LTE is actually available to a sizable percentage of buyers, it'll be time to upgrade the phone anyway. And HSDPA+ @ 14.4Mbps is fast enough for most users in the meantime.
One thing Apple understands that most competitors (and critics) don't is that most users care about usability, not about specifications. Battery life is more important to most users than somewhat faster downloads (that are only available to a small percentage of users anyway). Only the small percentage of technically savvy users care about specs (and those users and critics are the same ones who would complain about the lack of 4G coverage if it did include LTE).
They better be prepared for the cease and desist order from LucasFilm.
Use Services to transmit voice over the data networks
Transmit does not necessarily mean you're the one sending it. While that's one possible interpretation, simply causing the data to be sent over the network is a valid interpretation of the above. In that interpretation, clicking on a link that requests voice data be sent to you would still be a violation.
$3B is horribly over budget, for a $1B project.
Wouldn't 3.4.4 as written also prohibit downloading or streaming of songs and video containing voice? It appears it could be interpreted that way.
it will either work poorly, or will be scrapped.
...known as Adobe Flash.
Wrong. There may be something more recent, but Sept 8, 1994 Boeing 737 rudder issue is the latest one I can think of.
He's Irish, therefore, he must have been drinking, and he's 76, so was probably taking nitro glycerine for his heart. Mystery solved.
Now, does that make me a forensic investigator?
That's a heavy sheet. I'm betting it's not very good for making airplanes.
Binding arbitration says you agree to first go through the process of arbitration, and IF you reach a settlement in arbitration, then it's binding. Binding arbitration clauses do NOT prohibit you from proceeding to a lawsuit if the arbitration is unsuccessful.
IANAL, but I seriously doubt this clause will survive a challenge.
...in a forest in Canada, does anybody notice?
From TFA: However, in the majority of cases (e.g., if there is no derivation issue), the America Invents Act implements a "first to file" rule, and I would strongly advise clients to regard the Act in that manner, and to promptly perform a prior art search and, if the invention appears to be patentable, file a patent application before taking any other action, particularly before using, disclosing, selling or offering the invention for sale. Thus, the rule should be "file first" as well as "first to file."
Thus it encourages early filing and disclosure, which helps prevent people keeping ideas secret. Disseminating info to encourage progress is the primary reason for having patents, so changes that encourage disclosure earlier are good. This also helps simplify prior art claims in patent approval because unpublished prior art does not prevent the patent.
The extension of the Prior Use defense is also a net benefit. While it does allow companies to keep information private (partially offsetting the advantages above), as soon as someone else files a patent application for the same idea, the company who kept it private loses the ability to patent it, thus giving them an incentive to apply for a patent rather than keep it secret. It does allow the company to continue to use their method without infringing on the patent since they were using it prior to the patent filing. You no longer have to worry about someone patenting what you're already doing and making you license it from them.
There are other aspect of the overall act that are only beneficial to specific industries, and some that could be a disadvantage to individual inventors or smaller companies, so it not all good news, but first to file is a good change.
FDIC is the US government. So, we're the one's ultimately backing the banks holding our money. Not a very comforting thought.