If you think this is bad, go back and read about the last government shutdown, which was a fight over raising the government's debt limit.
Yes, that's right, the US government can pass legislation and budgets, but then has to vote again some time later on whether or not to actually pay the bills.
I'll bet if you could vacuum the upholstery you'd find a half-oz of some pretty decent weed I dropped there. It was green and had a 1.7 liter engine that supposedly could put out 74 horsepower...
$20? Where the fuck do you live? California is several hundred dollars (goes down the older your car is), and hell even Illinois is $100 for a renewal.
And Massachusetts gets a bad reputation for taxes? Registration for a regular passenger vehicle is $60 for two years, and annual inspection is $35, so total for the two is $65/year.
Yes, because I would rather have decisions regarding whether a certain chemical is a dangerous water pollutant or a certain drug is safe and effective made by people with scientific expertise than by lawyers that I barely trust to write a law correctly in the first place.
That does not mean that an agency can act arbitrarily. I'm not an expert on US law, but at least in my country every agency is duty bound to administer their respective areas in a transparent way and to be able to argue coherently for any policy they enact or procedure establish. You can't just go around changing things however you feel like without any factual basis - that's implicit in the mandate.
You are correct. See my post below regarding the Administrative Procedure Act.
The second problem is...
Congress cannot constitutionally grant any agency power to write regulations... they may only regulate with the laws congress wrote.
Agencies at best can only ask/recommend for Congress to make regulations for them to enforce.
Reality disagrees with you. Congress has, through laws legitimately passed by Congress, delegated the authority to make certain rules to executive agencies. You can go ahead and file lawsuits to get courts to agree to dissolve every executive agency, but I wouldn't bet any money on your success.
I've poked around and I can't find a good summary of the lawsuit. The claimants are saying it was unlawful for the FCC to repeal the network neutrality rules? Under what basis? There weren't rules, then there were, then there weren't. Did congress pass something instructing them to regulate network neutrality? Otherwise it seems pretty clear it's entirely up to the FCC.
The Administrative Procedure Act defines the rules and processes for an executive agency to enact, modify, or repeal regulations. If an agency does not follow the APA, the changes can be struck down by a court. That's why, for example, the EPA's removal of certain regulations was reversed by the courts; the EPA failed to show any fact-based reasoning for the changes. Whether or not the courts will rule same way regarding these changes by the FCC remains to be seen.
The title makes it seem as if Skype was the infection vector, but reading the article will tell you it wasn't. The problem, as usual, is stupid people doing stupid things, "during this interview [the Skype call], the Redbanc employee was asked to download, install, and run a file named ApplicationPDF.exe, a program that would help with the recruitment process and generate a standard application form."
Yes, Skype is a mess, but it didn't infect the computer system.
I think that's even less interesting than what I had imagined, which was the Redbanc employee leaving screen sharing turned on and allowing the other person to see something like login credentials that they could use to gain access.
So you can change your name at any moment later and are not forced to do it the moment you're getting married?
Yes, but otherwise it costs money (usually in the $100-500 range) to officially change your name with the government. Right after you get married is the only time that they'll do it for free.
but I seem to remember some pretty harsh passages about homosexuality in the old testament
Eh, not really. All the Torah says about it is "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman, it is an abomination." And that's pretty much only in one place (it's written in one place and then repeated, along with the other verses around it, a bit later). There are many commandments that are repeated much more often, and definitely much harsher stuff in other places.
The things covered by this patent have been done for years by makers enthusiasts...
Unless you can give examples of people making fabrics that look exactly like the illustration in the patent, your statement is incorrect. This is a design patent, not a utility patent.
How many Science Fiction stories have already been written on this subject?
It should be sufficient to declare as prior art.
Unless those stories included illustrations that are the same as the image in the patent, they aren't prior art.
This is a design patent. Design patents are more like trademarks than they are like utility patents (what we typically call just "patents"). Apple didn't receive a patent for "fabric with areas with contrasting appearance", they received a patent for the specific design shown. This design patent also doesn't cover anything about "smart" fabric, since design patents can't have any functional elements.
As for the "smart" fabric aspect, fiction stories generally can't be prior art for utility patents, since a utility patent is supposed to be only for a specific implementation, and even science fiction stories don't usually describe enough details to meet the disclosure requirements of a patent. If a science fiction story does describe everything that's in a patent, then either the patent is too broad (i.e. it covers the concept of some machine or device instead of a specific implementation) or the science fiction story has gone well outside the bounds of a good piece of fiction.
It was 8% from the third quarter to fourth quarter, which would be an annual growth rate of 36%. At that rate of growth, by 2035 Tesla would be selling 25 million cars every year, which is more than the total number of new car sales in the US (Tesla would reach 100% US market share about 2033). I would seriously question any stock broker who thinks that's a bad growth rate.
They went to far in proactively fining a person for merely calling himself "engineer" in a context where he was not providing a professional service or engaging in a function where a licensed Professional Engineer was required.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If he repeatedly called himself an engineer, that would imply that he felt using the title would convince people that they should follow his advice because he has the requisite knowledge and experience. I could easily see someone considering that to be providing a professional service. No state is going come after any of us just for posting on Slashdot "I'm an engineer!", just like nobody would be fined just for posting "I'm a physician!" Practicing "Professional Engineering" or medicine without being licensed will almost always get you into trouble, though.
The question is, did Jarlstrom cross the line from mere speech to practicing. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue either side.
Tesla also reported strong production and sales for the just completed fourth quarter. Total sales were up 8% and Model 3 sales were up even more, about 13%
And yet their stock price dropped about 7%, supposedly because total sales were up 8% from the previous quarter instead of 9% (a.k.a. "failed to meet Wall Street expectations). Sometimes I completely fail to understand stock market investors.
Laches is slightly different. For example, you could file a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone 20 years after they release a movie, game, etc. that infringes your copyright, and you're still legally entitled to stop them from selling it anymore. Laches limits the monetary damages that you can get to the time period before you found out about the infringing product (plus some reasonable amount of time to fill out all the paperwork to file the lawsuit). The point of laches is to prevent someone from purposely waiting to file a lawsuit until an infringing product becomes popular and/or makes a lot of money just so they can collect more in damages.
In all seriousness, it's just politics as usual. The 'scary' government shutdown can go on for months for all I care.
As one opinion piece I saw today said, it's rather disturbing how Americans now see a government shutdown as a commonly-used political tool instead of the crisis of governance that it used to be.
Well, Viagra was kind of an accident. They developed a medication for controlling blood pressure, and it turned out to have an interesting side effect.
I have lived under the British (UK) health care system and it Sucks! The reports of wait times for surgery, scans, procedures & treatment are much longer than in the USA. The overall Quality is much poorer than the USA. The overall "out-of-pocket" price may be lower but the human costs are definitely lower.
How much of that is from certain political parties in the UK spending the last 30 years sabotaging the NHS for the sole purpose of "proving" that single-payer can't work?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think this is bad, go back and read about the last government shutdown, which was a fight over raising the government's debt limit.
Yes, that's right, the US government can pass legislation and budgets, but then has to vote again some time later on whether or not to actually pay the bills.
I'll bet if you could vacuum the upholstery you'd find a half-oz of some pretty decent weed I dropped there. It was green and had a 1.7 liter engine that supposedly could put out 74 horsepower...
You're right, that is some pretty decent weed.
$20? Where the fuck do you live? California is several hundred dollars (goes down the older your car is), and hell even Illinois is $100 for a renewal.
And Massachusetts gets a bad reputation for taxes? Registration for a regular passenger vehicle is $60 for two years, and annual inspection is $35, so total for the two is $65/year.
Yes, because I would rather have decisions regarding whether a certain chemical is a dangerous water pollutant or a certain drug is safe and effective made by people with scientific expertise than by lawyers that I barely trust to write a law correctly in the first place.
That does not mean that an agency can act arbitrarily. I'm not an expert on US law, but at least in my country every agency is duty bound to administer their respective areas in a transparent way and to be able to argue coherently for any policy they enact or procedure establish. You can't just go around changing things however you feel like without any factual basis - that's implicit in the mandate.
You are correct. See my post below regarding the Administrative Procedure Act.
The second problem is... Congress cannot constitutionally grant any agency power to write regulations... they may only regulate with the laws congress wrote.
Agencies at best can only ask/recommend for Congress to make regulations for them to enforce.
Reality disagrees with you. Congress has, through laws legitimately passed by Congress, delegated the authority to make certain rules to executive agencies. You can go ahead and file lawsuits to get courts to agree to dissolve every executive agency, but I wouldn't bet any money on your success.
I've poked around and I can't find a good summary of the lawsuit. The claimants are saying it was unlawful for the FCC to repeal the network neutrality rules? Under what basis? There weren't rules, then there were, then there weren't. Did congress pass something instructing them to regulate network neutrality? Otherwise it seems pretty clear it's entirely up to the FCC.
The Administrative Procedure Act defines the rules and processes for an executive agency to enact, modify, or repeal regulations. If an agency does not follow the APA, the changes can be struck down by a court. That's why, for example, the EPA's removal of certain regulations was reversed by the courts; the EPA failed to show any fact-based reasoning for the changes. Whether or not the courts will rule same way regarding these changes by the FCC remains to be seen.
The title makes it seem as if Skype was the infection vector, but reading the article will tell you it wasn't. The problem, as usual, is stupid people doing stupid things, "during this interview [the Skype call], the Redbanc employee was asked to download, install, and run a file named ApplicationPDF.exe, a program that would help with the recruitment process and generate a standard application form." Yes, Skype is a mess, but it didn't infect the computer system.
I think that's even less interesting than what I had imagined, which was the Redbanc employee leaving screen sharing turned on and allowing the other person to see something like login credentials that they could use to gain access.
So you can change your name at any moment later and are not forced to do it the moment you're getting married?
Yes, but otherwise it costs money (usually in the $100-500 range) to officially change your name with the government. Right after you get married is the only time that they'll do it for free.
A point is one dimension, an ares is two.
One dimension would be a line, not a point. Ares, being a god, is in an entirely different dimension.
I would definitely put "getting screwed" under "pursuit of happiness".
Can you cite to actual data, or just repeat an unverifiable anecdote?
Here we go again.
One meaning of "dark", when referencing places, is "not known or explored because of remoteness".
See definition #4: https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Using that definition of "dark", "dark side" and "far side" are the same thing, so the original post is still wrong.
You know, aside from me missing an 'n' in an 'an'...
"Admiration" isn't a countable noun, so you don't use "an" (meaning one) with it. You would normally say "worthy of admiration".
but I seem to remember some pretty harsh passages about homosexuality in the old testament
Eh, not really. All the Torah says about it is "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman, it is an abomination." And that's pretty much only in one place (it's written in one place and then repeated, along with the other verses around it, a bit later). There are many commandments that are repeated much more often, and definitely much harsher stuff in other places.
The things covered by this patent have been done for years by makers enthusiasts...
Unless you can give examples of people making fabrics that look exactly like the illustration in the patent, your statement is incorrect. This is a design patent, not a utility patent.
How many Science Fiction stories have already been written on this subject?
It should be sufficient to declare as prior art.
Unless those stories included illustrations that are the same as the image in the patent, they aren't prior art.
This is a design patent. Design patents are more like trademarks than they are like utility patents (what we typically call just "patents"). Apple didn't receive a patent for "fabric with areas with contrasting appearance", they received a patent for the specific design shown. This design patent also doesn't cover anything about "smart" fabric, since design patents can't have any functional elements.
As for the "smart" fabric aspect, fiction stories generally can't be prior art for utility patents, since a utility patent is supposed to be only for a specific implementation, and even science fiction stories don't usually describe enough details to meet the disclosure requirements of a patent. If a science fiction story does describe everything that's in a patent, then either the patent is too broad (i.e. it covers the concept of some machine or device instead of a specific implementation) or the science fiction story has gone well outside the bounds of a good piece of fiction.
(8% growth is bad)
It was 8% from the third quarter to fourth quarter, which would be an annual growth rate of 36%. At that rate of growth, by 2035 Tesla would be selling 25 million cars every year, which is more than the total number of new car sales in the US (Tesla would reach 100% US market share about 2033). I would seriously question any stock broker who thinks that's a bad growth rate.
They went to far in proactively fining a person for merely calling himself "engineer" in a context where he was not providing a professional service or engaging in a function where a licensed Professional Engineer was required.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If he repeatedly called himself an engineer, that would imply that he felt using the title would convince people that they should follow his advice because he has the requisite knowledge and experience. I could easily see someone considering that to be providing a professional service. No state is going come after any of us just for posting on Slashdot "I'm an engineer!", just like nobody would be fined just for posting "I'm a physician!" Practicing "Professional Engineering" or medicine without being licensed will almost always get you into trouble, though.
The question is, did Jarlstrom cross the line from mere speech to practicing. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue either side.
Tesla also reported strong production and sales for the just completed fourth quarter. Total sales were up 8% and Model 3 sales were up even more, about 13%
And yet their stock price dropped about 7%, supposedly because total sales were up 8% from the previous quarter instead of 9% (a.k.a. "failed to meet Wall Street expectations). Sometimes I completely fail to understand stock market investors.
The term for that is "laches".
Laches is slightly different. For example, you could file a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone 20 years after they release a movie, game, etc. that infringes your copyright, and you're still legally entitled to stop them from selling it anymore. Laches limits the monetary damages that you can get to the time period before you found out about the infringing product (plus some reasonable amount of time to fill out all the paperwork to file the lawsuit). The point of laches is to prevent someone from purposely waiting to file a lawsuit until an infringing product becomes popular and/or makes a lot of money just so they can collect more in damages.
...the PUBLIC wants a wall...
The polls I've seen, a.k.a. reality, disagree.
In all seriousness, it's just politics as usual. The 'scary' government shutdown can go on for months for all I care.
As one opinion piece I saw today said, it's rather disturbing how Americans now see a government shutdown as a commonly-used political tool instead of the crisis of governance that it used to be.
That's how we ended up with Viagra...
Well, Viagra was kind of an accident. They developed a medication for controlling blood pressure, and it turned out to have an interesting side effect.
I have lived under the British (UK) health care system and it Sucks! The reports of wait times for surgery, scans, procedures & treatment are much longer than in the USA. The overall Quality is much poorer than the USA. The overall "out-of-pocket" price may be lower but the human costs are definitely lower.
How much of that is from certain political parties in the UK spending the last 30 years sabotaging the NHS for the sole purpose of "proving" that single-payer can't work?