|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2016 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote:
Quick comment on "greedy doctors", 4 years of school taking on > 200k loan. Then Slaving away for 3-7 years making 50k. Then after finally becoming independent and making good money you have to basically practice defensive medicine which is inefficient as fuck but everyone is ready to sue, all adding to the stress on a physician. We have the best doctors in the world and that is simply because of the "greed" plus extensive training. If you want socialized shit where we make no pay then med school better be free, and people better be ok with inefficient and slow medicine. Just a lazy example. Maybe I should have gone with health system or hospital instead of pointing out the practitioners. I 100% agree that doctors deserve to be richly compensated given the qualifications they have to acquire and the environments in which they practice. It was more a jab at the physicians who charge for way too many units of medication (some which they don't even use) and ancillary dumb shit.
what about the obese doctors who recommend lap band surgeries to their ignorant clients who have no idea what the consequences will be or how to adjust their living habits just to make money on the surgery? and that obese doctor who recommends the lap band surgeries but never discloses his own failed lap band?
|
On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game.
The states where religious freedom bills make it to the governor's desks are generally not going to vote democrat whether Clinton or Sanders is the representative, and as such are kind of irrelevant here. As for Trump, he's more of a far right european figure than a conservative. He's probably going to go for conservative policies given that he's pushing for people like James Woolsey (and more generally, cause he'll be a republican with a republican majority), but that's not what he's pushing to get elected. If you look at the criticism Clinton is getting, and how Trump is closing in on her based on this criticism, your argument is hard to defend. Trump has never attacked her using the angle that she's too left wing. Of course, if that was Sanders against him, he would be using different arguments, that's a given. But would he be successful with that? It's hard to just assume it after you see the scores of popularity of each of these people, and how well he's doing using the arguments he's using against Clinton right now.
|
On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job.
It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president.
|
On September 22 2016 09:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:07 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote:On September 22 2016 08:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 08:16 zlefin wrote:
Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job. trademark people have to process between 6 and 10 applications a day. how long do you want them scouring gaming forums for obscure gaming genres? if they had more time to search they might catch it, but theyd also probably be excoriated for being lazy scumbags the rest of the time when the applications take a fraction of the time. tower defense isn't exactly an obscure genre. and a few simple google searches would've shown it was invalid. I expect them to have people knowledgeable in an area reviewing things, and not to make obvious and basic mistakes which are symptomatic of a failure to have decent oversight systems in place. that you make the unsound claim of tower defense being obscure reduces the strength of your point substantially. ok im not defending it. im saying that its understandable how a bad trademark gets issued. imagine some middle aged woman getting the application. it's not that hard to see how any combination of two words that is not already in the trademark database in the computer games market would be prima facie valid. i don't really view it as the main problem affecting the IP system; in fact i don't really view it as that big of a problem at all. trademarks are pretty worthless without tangible evidence in litigation, and a trademark on tower defense is obviously a flimsy legal document. there are a number of bad patents issued every year too. just google ip blogs making fun of idiotic patents that were issued. but in any organization with 10,000+ examiners issuing millions of intellectual property rights you are going to have some things fall through the cracks. i don't think the tower defense anecdote amounts to much. what it amounts to, is them using the improperly granted name to bully other people into not using a valid generic term; and more importantly, reducing (by a tiny amount) the social perception of the validity of the government system, by violating the rule of law. patents are a bit too important a thing to have a lot of stuff falling through the cracks; if they are, it means they should FIX THE CRACKS. I find the granting of stuff in violation of the law due to failure by the gov't to perform due diligence, and malfeasance by the filling attorneys attesting to things that are not true (isn't that perjury?), to be a serious matter.
have you ever worked in or dealt with on a day to day basis a large bureaucratic organization before? in this example searching is something that is never complete. issuance of monopolies on intellectual property is always provisional in the sense that there is only a certain time allotted and the universe cannot be completely searched in that time. the public can always challenge a bad patent. third party submissions are accepted. if you are looking for blame here some falls on the poor government drone who, human, has failings. the rest belongs on the jackass sending cease and desist letters to bully people with the invalid trademark he obtained.
and since when have you been one to take so seriously anecdotal arguments like this? i thought you were a man of science. data not datum.
|
The protests in Charlotte are getting nastier. Someone was apparently shot earlier (no cops involved).
Reading conservative comments on it are bile inducing.
|
On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president.
Kasich confirmed it
|
@ zlefin
here's an idea. look at the reversal rate of the PTAB. or if you want to talk about patent "quality" or patents "violating" statutes let's look at the average patent issued. you will learn a lot more about the system looking at the average product than you will by looking at outliers.
|
On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it
It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of.
|
On September 22 2016 10:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:57 zlefin wrote:On September 22 2016 09:07 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote:On September 22 2016 08:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 08:16 zlefin wrote:
Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job. trademark people have to process between 6 and 10 applications a day. how long do you want them scouring gaming forums for obscure gaming genres? if they had more time to search they might catch it, but theyd also probably be excoriated for being lazy scumbags the rest of the time when the applications take a fraction of the time. tower defense isn't exactly an obscure genre. and a few simple google searches would've shown it was invalid. I expect them to have people knowledgeable in an area reviewing things, and not to make obvious and basic mistakes which are symptomatic of a failure to have decent oversight systems in place. that you make the unsound claim of tower defense being obscure reduces the strength of your point substantially. ok im not defending it. im saying that its understandable how a bad trademark gets issued. imagine some middle aged woman getting the application. it's not that hard to see how any combination of two words that is not already in the trademark database in the computer games market would be prima facie valid. i don't really view it as the main problem affecting the IP system; in fact i don't really view it as that big of a problem at all. trademarks are pretty worthless without tangible evidence in litigation, and a trademark on tower defense is obviously a flimsy legal document. there are a number of bad patents issued every year too. just google ip blogs making fun of idiotic patents that were issued. but in any organization with 10,000+ examiners issuing millions of intellectual property rights you are going to have some things fall through the cracks. i don't think the tower defense anecdote amounts to much. what it amounts to, is them using the improperly granted name to bully other people into not using a valid generic term; and more importantly, reducing (by a tiny amount) the social perception of the validity of the government system, by violating the rule of law. patents are a bit too important a thing to have a lot of stuff falling through the cracks; if they are, it means they should FIX THE CRACKS. I find the granting of stuff in violation of the law due to failure by the gov't to perform due diligence, and malfeasance by the filling attorneys attesting to things that are not true (isn't that perjury?), to be a serious matter. have you ever worked in or dealt with on a day to day basis a large bureaucratic organization before? in this example searching is something that is never complete. issuance of monopolies on intellectual property is always provisional in the sense that there is only a certain time allotted and the universe cannot be completely searched in that time. the public can always challenge a bad patent. third party submissions are accepted. if you are looking for blame here some falls on the poor government drone who, human, has failings. the rest belongs on the jackass sending cease and desist letters to bully people with the invalid trademark he obtained. and since when have you been one to take so seriously anecdotal arguments like this? i thought you were a man of science. data not datum.
Having retained and worked with patent attorneys on these matters, I can attest to what Igne's saying.
|
I find it alittle odd that he calling zlefin out for an anecdotal argument, when his post contains an anecdotal argument, with some professional experience on the top.
The whole IP, both patent and copyright could be reworked. But throwing it out entirely and seeing how that work out it isn't a solution, which is what IgnE seems to be pushing for. I will say that I have not been following the discussion as closely in the last couple hours, so he may have filled in more details.
|
|
|
On September 22 2016 10:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote:
Quick comment on "greedy doctors", 4 years of school taking on > 200k loan. Then Slaving away for 3-7 years making 50k. Then after finally becoming independent and making good money you have to basically practice defensive medicine which is inefficient as fuck but everyone is ready to sue, all adding to the stress on a physician. We have the best doctors in the world and that is simply because of the "greed" plus extensive training. If you want socialized shit where we make no pay then med school better be free, and people better be ok with inefficient and slow medicine. Just a lazy example. Maybe I should have gone with health system or hospital instead of pointing out the practitioners. I 100% agree that doctors deserve to be richly compensated given the qualifications they have to acquire and the environments in which they practice. It was more a jab at the physicians who charge for way too many units of medication (some which they don't even use) and ancillary dumb shit. what about the obese doctors who recommend lap band surgeries to their ignorant clients who have no idea what the consequences will be or how to adjust their living habits just to make money on the surgery? and that obese doctor who recommends the lap band surgeries but never discloses his own failed lap band?
Yeah they bad too. There are bad actors in all professions though.
On September 22 2016 10:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 09:57 zlefin wrote:On September 22 2016 09:07 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote:On September 22 2016 08:46 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 08:16 zlefin wrote:
Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job. trademark people have to process between 6 and 10 applications a day. how long do you want them scouring gaming forums for obscure gaming genres? if they had more time to search they might catch it, but theyd also probably be excoriated for being lazy scumbags the rest of the time when the applications take a fraction of the time. tower defense isn't exactly an obscure genre. and a few simple google searches would've shown it was invalid. I expect them to have people knowledgeable in an area reviewing things, and not to make obvious and basic mistakes which are symptomatic of a failure to have decent oversight systems in place. that you make the unsound claim of tower defense being obscure reduces the strength of your point substantially. ok im not defending it. im saying that its understandable how a bad trademark gets issued. imagine some middle aged woman getting the application. it's not that hard to see how any combination of two words that is not already in the trademark database in the computer games market would be prima facie valid. i don't really view it as the main problem affecting the IP system; in fact i don't really view it as that big of a problem at all. trademarks are pretty worthless without tangible evidence in litigation, and a trademark on tower defense is obviously a flimsy legal document. there are a number of bad patents issued every year too. just google ip blogs making fun of idiotic patents that were issued. but in any organization with 10,000+ examiners issuing millions of intellectual property rights you are going to have some things fall through the cracks. i don't think the tower defense anecdote amounts to much. what it amounts to, is them using the improperly granted name to bully other people into not using a valid generic term; and more importantly, reducing (by a tiny amount) the social perception of the validity of the government system, by violating the rule of law. patents are a bit too important a thing to have a lot of stuff falling through the cracks; if they are, it means they should FIX THE CRACKS. I find the granting of stuff in violation of the law due to failure by the gov't to perform due diligence, and malfeasance by the filling attorneys attesting to things that are not true (isn't that perjury?), to be a serious matter. have you ever worked in or dealt with on a day to day basis a large bureaucratic organization before? in this example searching is something that is never complete. issuance of monopolies on intellectual property is always provisional in the sense that there is only a certain time allotted and the universe cannot be completely searched in that time. the public can always challenge a bad patent. third party submissions are accepted. if you are looking for blame here some falls on the poor government drone who, human, has failings. the rest belongs on the jackass sending cease and desist letters to bully people with the invalid trademark he obtained. and since when have you been one to take so seriously anecdotal arguments like this? i thought you were a man of science. data not datum.
Also, a real in depth patent review is a massive expensive pain in the ass. and it still doesnt catch everything.
|
On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of.
Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it.
I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter.
|
|
|
Igne, you already provided plenty of data, as have others. It is a case study that is emblematic of larger issues with the system. The larger issues do need correcting.
Also, as a minimum standard, even a government drone can do a google search. That's a standard which they should have, and which they failed to do in this case, regardless of what they have for a policy in general.
whatever attorney filed the original paperwork should be disbarred for perjury.
i'm also grumpy, and have a low tolerance for failure by gov't (and boy is it annoying how much they fail)
|
|
|
On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that. On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise. Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:11 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)? I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters. How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision? I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage. Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter.
Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation.
The Pence thing, another convenient anonymous source. Even if there were any truth to it, the significance is...? I get cold feet picking a dentist, let alone a running mate for leader of the free world. They seem very happy together. + Show Spoiler + You're using gossip to substantiate gossip, be aware of this, it's why "narrative" is such a popular pejorative.
|
That should work out well.
|
The rumors about Pence being substitute President are probably Trump campaign-planted (seriously, Pence himself said he would be like Dick Cheney). It's a way to placate establishment conservatives who think Trump is a lunatic/completely incompetent when it comes to governance.
Dyed in the wool Trump supporters won't believe it. Independents won't hear about it or really care.
|
On September 22 2016 09:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that. On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances. Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
Or perhaps reasonable and saw that bernie was just a bad weak candidate who had populist appeals but had zero clue how to accomplish anything he promised to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/content/uploads/2016/07/21095504/Trump-and-pence-11.jpg)
