Re: ATCO's whim or standards?
But like any standards manual, it can be amended, revised, and edited.
9996 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
But like any standards manual, it can be amended, revised, and edited.
Two ways to handle this. First, the heading could be fed back and correctly followed directions act as acknowledgement of routine directions. Second, an audible confirmation could still be used. This is still the testing phase and the pace is noted to be slow. There's still time to account for vigilance.
They're going by the book Make Room! Make Room!, not the movie. There's a reason for the name SoyLent (hint: it's an acronym).
They don't care because they'll have you money by then and can vanish.
Or they'll just move where such onerous regulations don't exist.
Or they'll just play fly-by-night and vanish and reappear whack-a-mole style if the regulators loom.
"And finally, what is porn? There's no coherent argument that covers why Michelangelo's David is art, and (for example) the picture at the top of the article is not."
The people you're talking about would consider it, images of the Lady Godiva, and probably a legal supermodel in a bikini as pornographic. We're talking 1950's "Don't even THINK about sex, the thought of the deed is as evil as the deed" kind of puritanical.
"However, the way the independents who voted for him looked at it, a vote for Trump was a vote against the status quo, and gave them an outlet for their anger. It made them happy to reject Clinton, since they KNEW things wouldn't get better for them under her, and could at least HOPE things would get better for them under Trump."
So to use a satirical comic plot, they rejected the Beast and voted in the Smiler. Now I feel like wanting a bandolier of grenades to blow up in frustration.
"One of those wonderful suggestions that die in committee when it's learned that large corporations will move to a saner state if the bill gets passed into law."
Oh? North Carolina HB2 (concerning gender and bathrooms) passed AND was signed into law...IN SPITE of threats (which were in turn carried out) of varied businesses up and leaving the state.
So don't hold out your hopes of bills like this dying in committee. Some people would rather live the life of a destitute bumpkin than defy the supposed words of their deity.
Without killing the computer itself? What about suicide circuits?
Like I said, it's hard to really vet things on a shoestring budget. Plus they're under orders to grant by default because patents and the like a Constitutionally-listed duty.
The reason companies incorporate in Delaware is because they have probably the most business-friendly tax structure in the country. Being one of the smallest states geographically, and with a fair chunk of it taken by the feds (like Dover Air Force Base), they're doing the same thing Ireland and other small countries do in Europe: offsetting by attracting businesses with favorable taxes.
Moving to Texas means losing that favorable tax structure (Texas is one of the biggest states, with a sizeable and varied population and lots of people passing through; they basically run things very differently).
"You could then argue the same for medical patents, mechanical patents, and everything else."
Not really. Because there's a lot of chemistry, hit-or-miss, and most importantly legal compliance involved, medical developments will necessarily be slow. You basically have to prove your medicine safe by contradiction, and especially in humans, these things take time to make sure you don't miss on long-term consequences. Not to mention in this day and age every single attempt at a new medicine can run easily into nine figures (with no guarantees at all), you soon realize that pharmaceutical companies may be among the most lucrative but also among the most volatile.
"Autonomous vehicles are another example. The deep learning portion is nonphysical, but the basis of those various implementations might live on for decades in cars, drones, etc. Should it be granted only transient protection, even if the product line it first appears in will last for 15+ years?"
But they manifest in a physical product. That would be considered worthy of a longer patent. I'm talking about stuff that only exists in programs like pure algorithm patents (remember CompuServe and the GIF tussle?).
"What motivation does Google, MIT, Uber, or others have to patent those algorithms and designs if they know protection might only last a short time."
As long as it's long enough, the economics will prompt them to do it. The trick is finding the right length that it's economically worthwhile but not so long as to smother continuing innovation.
To counter your counter, consider that nonphysical patents are probably the most trolled patents in litigation today. Also why there's a lot of talk about submarine patents and other attempts to stifle competitive innovation. It's a two-way street; protecting your own interests and blocking the competition go hand in hand, and sometimes the give-and-take needs to be re-evaluated.
"Patents are limited to 20 years; the original Patent Act limited them to 14 years."
For machinery patents (machines tend to be used for decades) and medical patents (which take almost that long just to pass the testing to see they're safe), that's OK. But software and other nonphysical patents live in a world running at breakneck speed, and this length is now inappropriate. While some would say you shouldn't patent ideas, the flip side is that people won't divulge their ideas without some protection. And ideas that go to the grave can be lost forever, defeating one of the purposes of the USPTO of bringing ideas to the light of day. So the most suitable compromise would be to shorten the length of a nonphysical patent (with loophole protection to prevent them being presented in things like ICs which ARE physical) to reflect the speed of that industry (say, 3-5 years at most).
Only one thing. Some of the trolls have deep pockets, too, and don't so much troll as bully you.
Isn't a Court of Appeals panel a fixed size, though, somewhere around 13 (at least 3 since that's the minimum needed to hear an appeal)?
"The fact that they seem inclined (and even incentivised) to grant patents and let the courts sort it out is a big part of this problem."
That's due to the USPTO's biggest problem: shoestring budgets.
I believe the judges in question are federal. ALL Federal judges, per the Constitution, Article III, MUST be nominated, then confirmed.
"So, I'm an engineer. If I was to spend years designing and developing, say, a radically new car engine design, it is acceptable for another company to come along and copy my design? I should not be allowed to make a penny from my own design, which I have spent years on?
I would have to disagree with you on that. While I believe patent law, especially in the USA, needs reform, it certainly should NOT be abandoned."
For really, REALLY big companies, patents are just ink on a page. They can simply bully you nonstop until either your patent expires, you cave, or they engineer a way to get around your patent.
But Courts of Appeal are never ruled by juries but by panels of judges: in this case, usually a panel of three but sometimes the entire court. Thing is, this particular district is, as noted, very patent-friendly. The reasons judges don't get spanked is because they're supposed to be insulated from that kind of discipline. Once confirmed, they serve until death or voluntary retirement. The only exception to that case is to be impeached in the House and then convicted in the Senate (which requires a 2/3 majority).
Countered with ad-blocker-blockers. Soon they'll just inline them with all the Internet content, making them part and parcel. Then it'll be the spam calls and junk mail all over again with no relief in sight.
They'll just find ways to make them unblockable the way phone spam and junk mail are now (false ID'S and returned returns prevent countermeasures with the latter two).
But that's not what they REALLY need. What journalists behind enemy lines REALLY need is a trusted and clandestine egress. The only way to prevent the State from taking your footage is to never encounter them until you're under a DIFFERENT sovereign power.
Even against radio jammers?
No, the REAL goal is preventing ANYONE (local OR international) from being able to access it. And once it's out of their sovereign control, the genie's out of the bottle, so to speak, so a paranoid State will take any measures within their sovereign borders to block bad news. By controlling the airwaves and employing radio sniffers, they can block pirate broadcasts and mesh networks. By searching photographers at the points of exit, they can seize (and destroy) anything that could hold compromising footage. Heck, there are even ways to guard against things being smuggled inside the photographer's body. And since they DO hold sovereign power, there's sod all the photographer can do to stop these countermeasures being used.
And last I checked, these countermeasures ARE being used in places like Iran, so it's not just theoretical, either.
They'll just declare ANY search under perpetual existential threat (which they'll then prove) can be deemed reasonable. If the USA can be destroyed in an instant, nothing is taboo anymore.
Not my personal thought, BTW.
"You need to factor in how much you will tolerate, and how much you will not, as by going too draconian, you throw good money after bad e.g Why prosecute a £500 fraud, if it will cost you £250,000. Equally if it's too much the other way, you make huge losses or go out of Business."
And what happens when the two start overlapping, such that the happy medium turns into the UNhappy medium?
"You can't protect people from their own stupidity or greed. Just can't be done. I'd rather we devoted out efforts to improving the lot of people who aren't greedy - as Einstein observed, there's little that can be done about human stupidity."
Trouble is, human stupidity often has knock-on effects that extend beyond the stupid person. If we don't stop stupid people, society ends up with innocent casualties, and innocent casualties tend to raise the common's wrath. Raise it enough and things get ugly.
Not necessarily. That could make them harder to pick up if they can tick all the boxes and pose near-perfectly as the actual firm. Some of the crooks are sophisticated enough to go that far.
Well, you got any better ideas that won't produce lots of collateral damage?
Still indirect. A bank transfer can't stop your heart, but inhaling hydrogen cyanide vapors can and probably will.
No, chemicals can kill. Directly. So they're exceptions, subject to extra regulation. Since when has wire stupidity directly killed anyone?
Potential collateral damage, as honest shareholders may not be able to sell, either.
Finland doesn't have a lot of people. Plus they haven't had much issues with ballot-switching and ballot-stuffing. Try doing that with a nation of over 350 million who expect results by the morning news. At that scale, you're going to have to rely at least partially on machine-readable and serialized formats. It takes a certain intricacy of structure to keep things as honest as possible. Thankfully, this structure only needs to be effective for a short time so that cheats can't be effective anymore. If pollsters can't interpret critical parts of the ballot, they can't snitch (which is why I proposed a format that ONLY machines can interpret so that pollsters can't make the connections on site; a second group can check things form logs later but not know who was on site then).
So what if instead the serial is not human readable? You scan it as it's issued and then as it's recorded, with timestamps and everything printed in a closed box?
The problem is a Catch-22. How can you be positive every vote is BOTH true AND anonymous at the same time. The true requirement is obvious; the anonymous is to prevent voter pressure. It also prevents any kind of personal review outside the poll, lest a frog march ensues.
The problem is, who among the hoi polloi really give a flying Facebook about that?
WIC can't be trademarked anyway because it's actively used as the acronym for a federal program (Women with Infants and Children, a voucher program for baby supplies). Confusion test would fail and the feds get priority on use.
"The employee is basically screwed in that even if they win, they've lost the time the court case takes."
Isn't that countered with punitive damage settlements which can take hardships (such as being out of work) into consideration?
But those rights aren't constitutional. The Bill of Rights only protects you against government encroachment of your rights. They say nothing about private encroachment of your rights when it's just between the two of you.
"If this kind of thing didn't exist, then people (employers or otherwise) would be able to coerce others in to signing contracts which essentially say "You are now my bitch". In my example, one employer would be able to stop you from ever working again, via that non-compete clause. Contract law should not be able to trump other laws or rights."
So noted, but businesses are bigger and richer than your average person as well as more focused, so they tend to have greater influence over legislators. Which is why legislation in the long run tends to favor them barring something "going too far" and either triggering a crisis or raising public outcry. I think in this case it's the last: increasing outcry forced their hand before things got taken to the courts, which are (at the moment) more people-friendly-versus-business.
"This isn't about govts overturning contracts willy nilly, it is about you not being coerced in to signing a contract which gives away certain basic rights - in my example, the right to work, and in the article, the right to free speech."
But freedom of speech in the Constitution (as well as all the other freedoms and rights accorded in the Bill of Rights) are specifically written to prevent government action against the individual. Action between private entities are subject to negotiable terms and conditions.
That being said, the law here is about balancing knowledge in common, which is critical for capitalism to work properly. People can only make informed decisions if they're informed of both strengths and faults. That's why we have fraud laws. But the catch is that it's hard to nail a fraud case due to lack of knowledge (misinformation by absence). If the seller has the ability to bias the public knowledge, this increases the imbalance of knowledge (which already inherently favors the seller--they know more about the product than the buyer does because they usually make it).
"I also hate anonymous cowards and tend to ignore their views as probably being trolls (some cases are different where they could be putting themselves at risk but otherwise....). If you write something because you mean it then you should have the guts to put your name (or user ID) against it and not hide behind anonymity."
Unless, like you said earlier, some sellers don't like taking flak and start firing back. That's the reason for anonymity in the first place: to protect against retaliation.
That's the thing. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Neither side has had 60 Senators (what you need to invoke cloture which breaks a filibuster) for a long time, so if the GOP expect to get a lot through their administration they have another thing coming.
"I can see Trump removing that law pretty quick. There will be no negative reviews allowed of Trump."
How when the Republicans lack cloture power in the Senate?
How do you stop cheapskate vendors from cheating, then?
As the article notes, any talk about UBI is going to hit a very hard wall.
Who's going to PAY for this UBI when practically the only people you can draw payments from are also the most mobile, able to just pack up and leave if you try?
Bureaucratic nightmare of the highest order. You forget one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition: people are going to CHEAT...AND find ways to get away with it. If money doesn't talk, how about a tank or a nuke instead?
"Called a basement."
You didn't invoke the Joke Alert. After all, how do you install a basement in the middle of the ocean? And big ships already have below-sea-level areas due to their displacement (meaning, technically, they already exist).
Not really. The more sheer info there is, the more that can be claimed is fake. Remember, you can never convince an irrational person.
"The answer is obvious: don't charge sales tax. Set that tax rate to zero, and adjust the income tax to make up the shortfall, with the emphasis on those having the free cash available."
Some of the richest technically don't have taxable income due to them borrowing against their assets instead (buy, borrow, die, aka Tax Planning 101). Last I checked, loans can't be taxed as income, and since asset value is ephemeral, a lot of it normally can't be taxed while they're held, only when they're sold (when a real value if finally attached to it).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017