The fact that nobody went to jail for US waterboarding is disturbing.
The US had used allegations of waterboarding against Japanese decision makers in the post WWII war-crimes trials to sentence them. Although, it should be noted that it was typically one of multiple torture allegations.
* Block all non-HTTPS sites * Prompt on all non-HTTPS sites (view/no-view confirmation, perhaps with a "remember choice for this site" option.) * Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, with a yellow warning bar and disabling of JavaScript. * Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, with a yellow warning bar. * Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, withOUT a warning bar.
(There may be a way to simplify this by putting some of the questions in the warning bar.)
Mozilla has gotten brazen lately about forcing questionable changes on users in the name of progress (per their view of "progress"). This includes forced tabs*, goofy search bar "split" (eventually fixed), and disabling "back" on POST forms (instead of prompting). They gave very round-about and fishy reasons for all 3 of these.
* Fortunately somebody created a "Hide tab bar for 1 tab" addon. Thank You, Fixers!
Before applications are allowed, they're judged by the Examiner and the Examiner's Supervisor
I am thinking of practitioners in the field, not career Patent Office workers.
Regarding the Apple slide-lock patent, my understanding is it's the result of jurors' feelings and impressions, and not based on issues of emulating existing physical objects. (But I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me.)
USPTO does random quality checks...
I recommend an organization independent of USPTO.
[questionably] constitutional, since you're making a rule that essentially seizes revenue from a company from a legal source...
Instead of seizure, how about taxing the heck out of it:-)
Obviousness can be graded on a scale. True, things seem more obvious once you figure out how they work, but we need some way to obtain an informed judgement call.
Perhaps require a relatively high percentage of the panel/jury to agree it's "obvious" to counter hindsight bias.
A tricky case may be one like Robert Kearns' windshield wiper patent. Solid state electronics (SSE) was relatively new at the time, but those who knew SEE well considered his technique fairly obvious, and that seems to be the consensus these days: Most SSE circuit designers would be able to construct a similar circuit without first knowing about Kearns' design.
Thus, if the claim is that it's obvious for those who know X, then the panel should probably be made up of X practitioners. But if X is so new that it's not considered a mainstream specialty (yet), then it gets into a sticky area.
If the planet were a point source of gravity, for example say Mercury was converted into a black hole, then I believe the probe's orbit would gradually cycle between round and elliptical over time due to that damned effect I forgot the name of and can't find on Google.
The sun's gravitational attraction caused the orbit to decay...
I'm not sure "decay" is the best choice of words. It grows from a (somewhat) round orbit to an elliptical orbit over time due to an effect I forgot the name of. The momentum is the same, it's just that if that momentum is translated into enough of an elliptical orbit, the probe happens to bump into the planet.
If the planet was a point source of gravity, say Mercury was converted into a black hole, then I believe the probe's orbit would cycle between round and elliptical over time due to that damned effect I forgot the name of and can't find an Google.
The biggest problem appears to be allowing wide interpretations of patents and ignoring what would be obviousness in the eyes of most practitioners. Here are some suggestions:
1) A jury-like panel of practitioners to judge obviousness.
2) Spell out that merely emulating common physical actions or behaviors should not be patentable, only specific algorithms of such emulation.
3) Reject the mere combining of existing ideas unless the combining is judged non-obvious (#1).
4) Limiting the percentage of revenue a medium or large company can receive from patent royalties.
5) An independent quality review board to make sure approved patents are not overly broad. They'd randomly sample patents.
Classification of political beliefs is a tricky issue, I will concede. But generally to most USA citizens, the USA "conservative" approach is to give companies what they ask for, and the companies want more visa workers.
But not all the variables are under our control. The cost of living is lower in many other countries in part because they have de-facto slaves, for example. Somebody else can take my job but I cannot do the equivalent and just move to live in a slaved up country so that I have a maid etc.
Visa workers come here, work long isolated hours for 5 years, and then retire back home as a rich person because their cost of living is so much lower. They have options I don't. It's not a "free" market because the flow of people is not free.
Plus, we don't want 3rd world conditions in this country like de-facto slaves, sewers flowing in the streets, etc. If the free-market is a pushing us toward a Mad-Max waste-land of gated communities for the rich versus poisoned mutant masses fighting for scraps, then I don't want a "free market". Unfettered capitalism is not a religion (to me); it's a tool. If it doesn't work well, I'll stop supporting it or alter it, if given a choice.
The benefits of imported labor and offshoring appear to have mostly benefited the 1%. The rest here are getting a raw deal. The 1% get the profits and the rest only get more competition and longer hours.
That's just an example. If taxi's are over-regulated then the real solution would be to remove the excess regulations. Most regulations are in place because some sleazy company did bad. (Some are also in place because the dominant players bought politicians in order to put rules in that keep small companies out.)
I don't necessarily mean "space" technology, but more along the lines of reliable robots that can assist in creating dwellings and working the land. It's hard to get a lot done in a spacesuit.
We are far from ready to colonize space. It's my opinion we need to wait for technology to catch up to make it practical. We are prematurely blowing our wad.
When America loses a few astronauts, they shut down the program...
Actually that may be a good thing. Robot probes are far better science for the buck. Let other nations do the costly and risky "tests" on humans in space.
With the same money, we could have soon* had robotic probes visiting nearby stars and their planets by now traveling in nuclear powered rockets going 15% the speed of light.
And a boat probe on a Titan lake, a submarine bot in Europa, rock samples from Mars and Venus, etc. etc. etc.
We'll be watching a Titan cruse on our living room TV's in our pajamas while their x-nauts are roasting on a wayward re-entry or suffocating during an oxygen mishap. Few care if a bot occasionally dies.
* If we had launched such a probe in the mid 70's, then it could just about be arriving at the nearest stars at 15c.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that nobody went to jail for US waterboarding is disturbing.
The US had used allegations of waterboarding against Japanese decision makers in the post WWII war-crimes trials to sentence them. Although, it should be noted that it was typically one of multiple torture allegations.
http://www.politifact.com/virg...
We are filthy hypocrites. Somebody(s) should be locked up a good long time.
Plus, some nations want warming.
I hope they give a setting choice similar to:
* Block all non-HTTPS sites
* Prompt on all non-HTTPS sites (view/no-view confirmation, perhaps with a "remember choice for this site" option.)
* Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, with a yellow warning bar and disabling of JavaScript.
* Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, with a yellow warning bar.
* Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, withOUT a warning bar.
(There may be a way to simplify this by putting some of the questions in the warning bar.)
Mozilla has gotten brazen lately about forcing questionable changes on users in the name of progress (per their view of "progress"). This includes forced tabs*, goofy search bar "split" (eventually fixed), and disabling "back" on POST forms (instead of prompting). They gave very round-about and fishy reasons for all 3 of these.
* Fortunately somebody created a "Hide tab bar for 1 tab" addon. Thank You, Fixers!
That's it! I kept searching with words like "...effect", "...phenomenon", "...principle", etc. "Mechanism" I couldn't remember.
Thanks Much!
It could pretty much point its instruments at all bright things not in its star map.
I am thinking of practitioners in the field, not career Patent Office workers.
Regarding the Apple slide-lock patent, my understanding is it's the result of jurors' feelings and impressions, and not based on issues of emulating existing physical objects. (But I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me.)
I recommend an organization independent of USPTO.
Instead of seizure, how about taxing the heck out of it :-)
Obviousness can be graded on a scale. True, things seem more obvious once you figure out how they work, but we need some way to obtain an informed judgement call.
Perhaps require a relatively high percentage of the panel/jury to agree it's "obvious" to counter hindsight bias.
A tricky case may be one like Robert Kearns' windshield wiper patent. Solid state electronics (SSE) was relatively new at the time, but those who knew SEE well considered his technique fairly obvious, and that seems to be the consensus these days: Most SSE circuit designers would be able to construct a similar circuit without first knowing about Kearns' design.
Thus, if the claim is that it's obvious for those who know X, then the panel should probably be made up of X practitioners. But if X is so new that it's not considered a mainstream specialty (yet), then it gets into a sticky area.
Let me rework that last paragraph:
If the planet were a point source of gravity, for example say Mercury was converted into a black hole, then I believe the probe's orbit would gradually cycle between round and elliptical over time due to that damned effect I forgot the name of and can't find on Google.
I'm not sure "decay" is the best choice of words. It grows from a (somewhat) round orbit to an elliptical orbit over time due to an effect I forgot the name of. The momentum is the same, it's just that if that momentum is translated into enough of an elliptical orbit, the probe happens to bump into the planet.
If the planet was a point source of gravity, say Mercury was converted into a black hole, then I believe the probe's orbit would cycle between round and elliptical over time due to that damned effect I forgot the name of and can't find an Google.
A shortage of managers? We gotta import more! The PH1B program is born.
The biggest problem appears to be allowing wide interpretations of patents and ignoring what would be obviousness in the eyes of most practitioners. Here are some suggestions:
1) A jury-like panel of practitioners to judge obviousness.
2) Spell out that merely emulating common physical actions or behaviors should not be patentable, only specific algorithms of such emulation.
3) Reject the mere combining of existing ideas unless the combining is judged non-obvious (#1).
4) Limiting the percentage of revenue a medium or large company can receive from patent royalties.
5) An independent quality review board to make sure approved patents are not overly broad. They'd randomly sample patents.
So that Nigerian prince lives? I hope so, he owes me 10 grand.
Classification of political beliefs is a tricky issue, I will concede. But generally to most USA citizens, the USA "conservative" approach is to give companies what they ask for, and the companies want more visa workers.
It's amazing how right-wing somebody can be on most policies and STILL constantly be called a "communist" and "socialist". It shows the power of BS.
But not all the variables are under our control. The cost of living is lower in many other countries in part because they have de-facto slaves, for example. Somebody else can take my job but I cannot do the equivalent and just move to live in a slaved up country so that I have a maid etc.
Visa workers come here, work long isolated hours for 5 years, and then retire back home as a rich person because their cost of living is so much lower. They have options I don't. It's not a "free" market because the flow of people is not free.
Plus, we don't want 3rd world conditions in this country like de-facto slaves, sewers flowing in the streets, etc. If the free-market is a pushing us toward a Mad-Max waste-land of gated communities for the rich versus poisoned mutant masses fighting for scraps, then I don't want a "free market". Unfettered capitalism is not a religion (to me); it's a tool. If it doesn't work well, I'll stop supporting it or alter it, if given a choice.
The benefits of imported labor and offshoring appear to have mostly benefited the 1%. The rest here are getting a raw deal. The 1% get the profits and the rest only get more competition and longer hours.
Jobs: "You got the wrong tattoo"
That's just an example. If taxi's are over-regulated then the real solution would be to remove the excess regulations. Most regulations are in place because some sleazy company did bad. (Some are also in place because the dominant players bought politicians in order to put rules in that keep small companies out.)
I don't necessarily mean "space" technology, but more along the lines of reliable robots that can assist in creating dwellings and working the land. It's hard to get a lot done in a spacesuit.
Mikimu Mousajan
I can't go on the "small small world" ride now without thinking of it as their sourcing plan.
We are far from ready to colonize space. It's my opinion we need to wait for technology to catch up to make it practical. We are prematurely blowing our wad.
It's the Death Star's aiming laser. The damned thing has to be re-categorized yet again...
A meteoroid scraped off the first "A" in the probe's "NASA" logo
Actually that may be a good thing. Robot probes are far better science for the buck. Let other nations do the costly and risky "tests" on humans in space.
With the same money, we could have soon* had robotic probes visiting nearby stars and their planets by now traveling in nuclear powered rockets going 15% the speed of light.
And a boat probe on a Titan lake, a submarine bot in Europa, rock samples from Mars and Venus, etc. etc. etc.
We'll be watching a Titan cruse on our living room TV's in our pajamas while their x-nauts are roasting on a wayward re-entry or suffocating during an oxygen mishap. Few care if a bot occasionally dies.
* If we had launched such a probe in the mid 70's, then it could just about be arriving at the nearest stars at 15c.
You have to learn to walk before you can run. SpaceX experience with unnamed launches will hopefully build up to manned launch quality.