Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: ...sufficiently tested by now (Score 1) 570

the brilliant and promising Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The only thing Wakefield was promising was profit from his own alt-vaccine endeavors. His research has been as thoroughly examined--and as throughly debunked--as just about anything in medicine. There's no global cabal behind this. The science is in, and the "big red flag" is not a conspiracy theorist's recitation. It's the numerous independent determinations by medical professionals around the world that Wakefield's results were the result of scientific fraud, and not a reflection of medical truth.

However, you probably already know this, because you seem to be interested in the subject. So I'm left with the conclusion that you're either a) willfully ignorant, b) a very subtle troll who thinks the return of vaccine-preventable diseases would be funny, or c) a shill.

I hate it when people toss the word "shill" around on /., but you don't strike me as a troll. And I dont think there's enough cotton in the world to stuff in your ears that you could still honestly believe Wakefield anything other than a criminally negligent huckster. So... enjoy your checks?

Comment Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score 1) 115

Each and every falsely approved patent is a sure sign of corruption, each and every single one, that was not novel or unique or new. That it the job of any patent office and they are failing at it and that is corruption of office.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Comment Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score 1) 115

"Constitutional requirements" - there are no Constitutional requirements for patents. That is in the law.

I like the points you're making above, but this statement is incorrect. There *are* constitutional requirements on patents (and copyrights, which come from the same clause). Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Nearly every word in that clause circumscribes -- and has thus been enshrined in -- patent law.

"Useful arts" - What we now think of as science and engineering; the requirement to "promote" the "useful arts" by securing "discoveries" gives us utility and novelty requirements. Congress does not have the power to pass a law allowing you to patent something with no known use (like a random chemical formula) or that is nonfunctional by its very nature (trying to patent a perpetual motion machine).

By this language, Congress also does not have the power to pass a law taking knowledge back from the public domain, i.e. abrogating novelty. Stuff we already know is not a discovery, nor is it promoting the useful arts to grant a monopoly on such.

"Limited times" - Congress does not have the power to pass a law that gives patents unlimited duration (or copyrights, for that matter, but that perpetual +20yr end-run around the Constitution is a clusterfuck for a different day).

"Inventors" - Gives us the inventorship requirements, including the mandate that each of (and only) the actual inventors be listed. The standard used to be first to invent, now it's first inventor to file, but in every era you still had to be the inventor (with some new allowances for employers of inventors). Congress cannot pass a law giving rando non-inventors the right to seek patent protection. That's what assignments are for.

Comment Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score 1) 115

-1 Baseless Namecalling. There are many problems with the patent system, and IP laws in general. Corruption at the USPTO isn't one of them. If you have evidence of actual corruption -- you know, bribery, graft, extortion, embezzlement, favoritism based on political patronage -- please provide. Or are we all just going to become little Donald Trumps and say mean words instead of making reasoned arguments?

Comment Re:Durability (Score 3, Insightful) 111

"Cool clock, I hear it's accurate for a billion years!"
"Yeah. But I keep it in this chaotic field of hypervelocity space debris where millions of tiny bits of junk are whizzing around, constantly threatening to punch a big hole in my clock."
"So... you don't think it's going to last a billion years?"
"I'm not optimistic."

Comment Re:You're Lost In a Directionless Universe... (Score 5, Funny) 213

So... just for my own understanding, the Slashdot Hierarchy of Evil goes, in order from Most Evil to Most Good:

systemd - First Post AC trolls - Voldemort - "GOTO" statements - Satan, the Great Deceiver Himself - SCO - Uber - Hitler - RCA (wtf did cash registers ever do to you?) - North Korea - Flash - Apple - Sony - Microsoft - JavaScript - parking tickets - Google - not getting a raise, but not getting fired - Ruby on $whatever - Linus - "free as in speech" - Python - Stallman - "free as in beer" - xkcd - (extremely) Hot Grits - C and its variants - rolling a natural 20 - meeting a girl outside of Mom's basement who is not Mom

Is that about right?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"