Unfortunately, it looks like in this case the patent thief succeeds in that he can still use it, because it becomes void and unpatentable due to the prior art. The first inventor will most likely lose interest and not perfect the patent, but on the bright side (what little there is in a patent theft) anyone can come in and finish the idea. Generic drugs would get a boost from such corporate espionage, but I don't see any other group benefitting from actually thieving patents.
I agree with zymurgyboy to some extent, but he's forgetting that already copyrighted software can have it's use pulled out from under it by patents.
Snotman, what your forgetting is that this makes first inventors equivalent to prior art. This punches holes in any patent that is "stolen" by filing first. It does make it so that the original inventor can't get a patent, but the patent thief is rendered void by the fact that the invention existed before he patented it.
His proposal is to use the non-government rating system just like some states have ID laws regarding underage movie viewing for R rated movies. It's actually exactly like those laws if I'm not mistaken.
The majority of voters in America are seniors who still hate comic books for "destroying America's youth." So, of course, politicians are going to use anything they can to leverage more votes. Look at how many Democrats are trying to propose this type of legislation. 10 years ago the Dems would never support anything that has been struck down as a free speech violation.
Unfortunately, in the USA, baby boomers are the ruling party.
They would have the tools if laws like this weren't fought tooth and nail. What tools can they have if their children take the money they got from their paper route (or other legal job for minors) and buy a game their parents aren't allowing? If they don't happen to catch them in the act, whose fault is it? It's just like the laws against purchasing pornography for a minor. The parents can't stop their children if they are being helped by outsiders (such as the video game store clerks).
Now see, this is what I like to see. An evolutionary theorist who follows the logic of the theory all the way to the end.
Evolution = No Free Will
If we were truly nothing more than the sum of our parts, then our will would be dictated by the reactions between our parts, which, in turn, are dictated by the laws of physics, which would mean free will does not exist. There wouldn't even be an illusion of free will because there would be no actual mind to conceptualize such an illusion.
Obviously, I disagree with the basic premise of the theory, however, it is nice to see that there are at least a couple logical people on that side of the universal(multiversal) origins debate.
Why 18? What's so magic about 18? It is most likely the lowest common denominator as to development of a moral compass, but it's still an arbitrary number. As best I can figure, I was morally stable at 14 years old, so why did I have to wait until I was 19 (Alabama law) to be held accountable for my choices (except in cases of murder or rape)?
My point is that I think the age of accountability should be based on individual mental development, not some number that some politician pulled out of his campaign fund supporter's to-do list.
You say:
Wow! You sure have an interesting mind-reading capability, there, or think you do. Too bad it's off-line at the moment.
And later you say:
You would have me, though, wait until he got through the door, and see what damage he could do in the 15 minutes we waited for the police?
I understand that you are very emotional. After all I just called into question an ideal that you clearly hold dear. But, "physician, heal thyself."
Also, with your question:
Has it ever occurred to you that the primary use of a gun under those circumstances is as a deterrent?
you are clearly, albeit unsuccessfully, attempting to act like I never said this:
It's one thing to have the ability to nuke a country out of existence while it is an entirely evil thing to actually nuke a country out of existence.
so that you can conveniently ignore my follow up hypothetical to your hypothetical:
Let's go back to this hypothetical rape situation and make it more hypothetical. What if, it's not a case of rape and this unfortunate husband has actually found his wife cheating on him. Sucks to be him because he's now getting the chair for a crime of passion when he thought he was "defending his [non-existent] family." The intelligence is astounding. The fact that a person is a coward for not confronting evil does not make the fearful action devoid of consequences.
But in answer to your question, I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun. I said you shouldn't kill people. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
The fact that I have morals does not make my views cartoonish. It makes them of moral character.
I think any "reason" to kill is any "easy dodge," as you put it. There are plenty of ways to disable a person without killing him or her. I can understand you not taking the time to learn them if you don't value life. It makes things easier if you can just kill a man and blame him for it. But who pulled the trigger, i.e., who decided that his life is worth less than yours? He didn't. He decided that your life is worth less than his by his actions.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I shot you for threatening to scratch my car, walking towards my wife with your hands in your pockets, or tripping on the sidewalk and stepping on my grass, you'd present me with a thumbs up before your body hit the ground. My point here is that you have apparently not heard (or chose to ignore) my mentor's teachings:
"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."
Your comment is both funny and has a good point. The problem is that there are actually people out there that think that "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out," is an intelligent way of thinking. It's one thing to have the ability to nuke a country out of existence while it is an entirely evil thing to actually nuke a country out of existence.
Let's go back to this hypothetical rape situation and make it more hypothetical. What if, it's not a case of rape and this unfortunate husband has actually found his wife cheating on him. Sucks to be him because he's now getting the chair for a crime of passion when he thought he was "defending his [non-existent] family." The intelligence is astounding. The fact that a person is a coward for not confronting evil does not make the fearful action devoid of consequences.
Sorry, for degenerating so far off topic (though, we are talking about defending one's family from sexual predators). This will be my last comment on the issue unless further repliers ask for such.
Your assumption that I have not faced such a situation is interesting. Ever consider that being in such a situation led me to this belief? No, because your pious "defense of my family by taking a life" attitude clouds your judgment. It's one thing to kill a man while he rapes your wife. It is another thing to disable a man as he attempts to rape your wife.
The difference:
You would shoot him in the head if possible.
I would shoot him in the leg or arm or both if possible.
People like you, who hide behind your family because you are too much of a coward to face evil, disgust me.
I use something similar for myself (no kids yet). I asked my wife to set the password so I wouldn't be tempted to override it. Doesn't help as well as I wish since I have a linux server that I can VNC into, but it helps a whole lot at avoiding nasty ads that I wouldn't want to see in my nightmares.
Restricting constitutionally defined rights is not the way to fix this issue. The correct way is to let the free market decide. Interesting how the Republicans conveniently claim free market economics to restrict protections of rights only to turn around and ignore free market economics to restrict rights.
You ask for bravery and I will show you an unarmed man who stands in front of a gun to give time for complete strangers to get away and tells the would-be assassin that he should think about the consequences of what he is doing.
You ask for cowardice... and I will show you a man standing over a dead would-be burglar dialing 911 with a smoking gun in his hand.
I disagree with the responses you're getting, MikeRT.
If you can't manage two cars and a big, or even medium sized, house without both parents working, here's a novel idea to help you out:
Sell the house and get a smaller one. Poof! Less debt, and if you managed your equity correctly, you have a major down payment on a smaller house, giving you a substantially lower house payment as opposed to just a lower one.
Then when the kids are old enough for their own jobs (and thus old enough that you have little else that they will learn without experience) you can re-upgrade your house and the homemaker probably won't even need to get a job if the commuter has impressed his/her employer.
It's all about "what you've got" in our society. It's been so since the beginning of man. Some would even say it's genetic.
There was a man, a couple of millenia ago, that said something about taking care of one's family being more than "providing" for them. He advocated change to make both governments and parents, even individuals, responsible for their actions. His mentor's book is the number one best seller every month. It's been at the top of the list for so long that people don't even mention it on the list anymore. I think everyone should give it a read once in a while.
Microshaft's team of 200 lawyers: "Clearly this business is cybersquatting because their business model has nothing to do with their domain name." Defendant's single underpaid lawyer: "It's the $@#!ing owner's $@#!in' last name!" Judge (who has stock in Microshaft): "Clearly Microsoft is correct here because their owner operates a shoddy foundation that causes more problems than it fixes. I find in favor of the complainant and summarily deny all appeals."
This satire brought to you by the Truth in Advertising Coalition, unless they actually exist, in which case, it's brought to you by some guy who's too afraid to leave his basement.
This is exactly what stopped me from getting BF2142 (besides EA's notoriety for releasing beta software). How exactly will the game target advertising to you? By sending information to the publisher about your web browsing habits or at the very least scanning your web browser cookies/cache.
The really ironic part of this whole situation is this:
They run the "Don't steal movies" advertisements in movie theaters exclusively because the MPAA gets to run them there for FREE. The exact same reasoning that the movie thieves use.
Hmmm... I like the way you think... *Starts plotting the end of Microshaft Winblows Genuine A$$vantage* Hoohoohahahahahahaaaa!... Wait, did I type that out loud?
So if the PTO manages to lock their master card in the office, then they cannot legally open the door, due to their own actions. I believe that qualifies as inherent stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, it looks like in this case the patent thief succeeds in that he can still use it, because it becomes void and unpatentable due to the prior art. The first inventor will most likely lose interest and not perfect the patent, but on the bright side (what little there is in a patent theft) anyone can come in and finish the idea. Generic drugs would get a boost from such corporate espionage, but I don't see any other group benefitting from actually thieving patents.
I agree with zymurgyboy to some extent, but he's forgetting that already copyrighted software can have it's use pulled out from under it by patents.
Snotman, what your forgetting is that this makes first inventors equivalent to prior art. This punches holes in any patent that is "stolen" by filing first. It does make it so that the original inventor can't get a patent, but the patent thief is rendered void by the fact that the invention existed before he patented it.
His proposal is to use the non-government rating system just like some states have ID laws regarding underage movie viewing for R rated movies. It's actually exactly like those laws if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, that and the villiage idiot.
The majority of voters in America are seniors who still hate comic books for "destroying America's youth." So, of course, politicians are going to use anything they can to leverage more votes. Look at how many Democrats are trying to propose this type of legislation. 10 years ago the Dems would never support anything that has been struck down as a free speech violation.
Unfortunately, in the USA, baby boomers are the ruling party.
They would have the tools if laws like this weren't fought tooth and nail. What tools can they have if their children take the money they got from their paper route (or other legal job for minors) and buy a game their parents aren't allowing? If they don't happen to catch them in the act, whose fault is it? It's just like the laws against purchasing pornography for a minor. The parents can't stop their children if they are being helped by outsiders (such as the video game store clerks).
Such a band could only be described as "average."
Now see, this is what I like to see. An evolutionary theorist who follows the logic of the theory all the way to the end.
Evolution = No Free Will
If we were truly nothing more than the sum of our parts, then our will would be dictated by the reactions between our parts, which, in turn, are dictated by the laws of physics, which would mean free will does not exist. There wouldn't even be an illusion of free will because there would be no actual mind to conceptualize such an illusion.
Obviously, I disagree with the basic premise of the theory, however, it is nice to see that there are at least a couple logical people on that side of the universal(multiversal) origins debate.
I totally agree with you, don't get me wrong...
But...
Why 18? What's so magic about 18? It is most likely the lowest common denominator as to development of a moral compass, but it's still an arbitrary number. As best I can figure, I was morally stable at 14 years old, so why did I have to wait until I was 19 (Alabama law) to be held accountable for my choices (except in cases of murder or rape)?
My point is that I think the age of accountability should be based on individual mental development, not some number that some politician pulled out of his campaign fund supporter's to-do list.
"Curiouser and curiouser"
You say:
Wow! You sure have an interesting mind-reading capability, there, or think you do. Too bad it's off-line at the moment.
And later you say:
You would have me, though, wait until he got through the door, and see what damage he could do in the 15 minutes we waited for the police?
I understand that you are very emotional. After all I just called into question an ideal that you clearly hold dear. But, "physician, heal thyself."
Also, with your question:
Has it ever occurred to you that the primary use of a gun under those circumstances is as a deterrent?
you are clearly, albeit unsuccessfully, attempting to act like I never said this:
It's one thing to have the ability to nuke a country out of existence while it is an entirely evil thing to actually nuke a country out of existence.
so that you can conveniently ignore my follow up hypothetical to your hypothetical:
Let's go back to this hypothetical rape situation and make it more hypothetical. What if, it's not a case of rape and this unfortunate husband has actually found his wife cheating on him. Sucks to be him because he's now getting the chair for a crime of passion when he thought he was "defending his [non-existent] family." The intelligence is astounding. The fact that a person is a coward for not confronting evil does not make the fearful action devoid of consequences.
But in answer to your question, I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun. I said you shouldn't kill people. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
The fact that I have morals does not make my views cartoonish. It makes them of moral character.
I think any "reason" to kill is any "easy dodge," as you put it. There are plenty of ways to disable a person without killing him or her. I can understand you not taking the time to learn them if you don't value life. It makes things easier if you can just kill a man and blame him for it. But who pulled the trigger, i.e., who decided that his life is worth less than yours? He didn't. He decided that your life is worth less than his by his actions.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I shot you for threatening to scratch my car, walking towards my wife with your hands in your pockets, or tripping on the sidewalk and stepping on my grass, you'd present me with a thumbs up before your body hit the ground. My point here is that you have apparently not heard (or chose to ignore) my mentor's teachings:
"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."
Your comment is both funny and has a good point. The problem is that there are actually people out there that think that "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out," is an intelligent way of thinking. It's one thing to have the ability to nuke a country out of existence while it is an entirely evil thing to actually nuke a country out of existence.
Let's go back to this hypothetical rape situation and make it more hypothetical. What if, it's not a case of rape and this unfortunate husband has actually found his wife cheating on him. Sucks to be him because he's now getting the chair for a crime of passion when he thought he was "defending his [non-existent] family." The intelligence is astounding. The fact that a person is a coward for not confronting evil does not make the fearful action devoid of consequences.
Sorry, for degenerating so far off topic (though, we are talking about defending one's family from sexual predators). This will be my last comment on the issue unless further repliers ask for such.
Your assumption that I have not faced such a situation is interesting. Ever consider that being in such a situation led me to this belief? No, because your pious "defense of my family by taking a life" attitude clouds your judgment. It's one thing to kill a man while he rapes your wife. It is another thing to disable a man as he attempts to rape your wife.
The difference:
You would shoot him in the head if possible.
I would shoot him in the leg or arm or both if possible.
People like you, who hide behind your family because you are too much of a coward to face evil, disgust me.
I use something similar for myself (no kids yet). I asked my wife to set the password so I wouldn't be tempted to override it. Doesn't help as well as I wish since I have a linux server that I can VNC into, but it helps a whole lot at avoiding nasty ads that I wouldn't want to see in my nightmares.
Restricting constitutionally defined rights is not the way to fix this issue. The correct way is to let the free market decide. Interesting how the Republicans conveniently claim free market economics to restrict protections of rights only to turn around and ignore free market economics to restrict rights.
You ask for bravery and I will show you an unarmed man who stands in front of a gun to give time for complete strangers to get away and tells the would-be assassin that he should think about the consequences of what he is doing.
You ask for cowardice... and I will show you a man standing over a dead would-be burglar dialing 911 with a smoking gun in his hand.
Bravery != Killing People
Bravery == Saving Lives
I disagree with the responses you're getting, MikeRT.
If you can't manage two cars and a big, or even medium sized, house without both parents working, here's a novel idea to help you out:
Sell the house and get a smaller one. Poof! Less debt, and if you managed your equity correctly, you have a major down payment on a smaller house, giving you a substantially lower house payment as opposed to just a lower one.
Then when the kids are old enough for their own jobs (and thus old enough that you have little else that they will learn without experience) you can re-upgrade your house and the homemaker probably won't even need to get a job if the commuter has impressed his/her employer.
It's all about "what you've got" in our society. It's been so since the beginning of man. Some would even say it's genetic.
There was a man, a couple of millenia ago, that said something about taking care of one's family being more than "providing" for them. He advocated change to make both governments and parents, even individuals, responsible for their actions. His mentor's book is the number one best seller every month. It's been at the top of the list for so long that people don't even mention it on the list anymore. I think everyone should give it a read once in a while.
Did they ever pass another law to defeat Roe v. Wade?
(For those who don't know, that's the court case that overturned the anti-abortion laws.)
<sarcasm>You're right! Let's encourage companies to support the MPAA and RIAA in their holy crusade to stop fair use!</sarcasm>
Maybe your tune will change when your dead grandmother, who never used a computer in her life, gets sued for "stealing" rap music mp3s.
Probably because I left out the word "isn't"
File sharing software doesn't threaten national security:
People threaten national security.
By the same token
File sharing software harmful to children:
People are harmful to children... wait... that one doesn't sound right.
I can see where this is headed:
Microshaft's team of 200 lawyers: "Clearly this business is cybersquatting because their business model has nothing to do with their domain name."
Defendant's single underpaid lawyer: "It's the $@#!ing owner's $@#!in' last name!"
Judge (who has stock in Microshaft): "Clearly Microsoft is correct here because their owner operates a shoddy foundation that causes more problems than it fixes. I find in favor of the complainant and summarily deny all appeals."
This satire brought to you by the Truth in Advertising Coalition, unless they actually exist, in which case, it's brought to you by some guy who's too afraid to leave his basement.
This is exactly what stopped me from getting BF2142 (besides EA's notoriety for releasing beta software). How exactly will the game target advertising to you? By sending information to the publisher about your web browsing habits or at the very least scanning your web browser cookies/cache.
The really ironic part of this whole situation is this: They run the "Don't steal movies" advertisements in movie theaters exclusively because the MPAA gets to run them there for FREE. The exact same reasoning that the movie thieves use.
Hmmm... I like the way you think... *Starts plotting the end of Microshaft Winblows Genuine A$$vantage* Hoohoohahahahahahaaaa! ... Wait, did I type that out loud?
So if the PTO manages to lock their master card in the office, then they cannot legally open the door, due to their own actions. I believe that qualifies as inherent stupidity.