I hope they give a setting choice similar to:

* Block all non-HTTPS sites
* Prompt on all non-HTTPS sites (view/no-view confirmation, perhaps with a "remember choice for this site" option.)
* Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, with a yellow warning bar and disabling of JavaScript.
* Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, with a yellow warning bar.
* Automatically allow all non-HTTPS sites, withOUT a warning bar.

(There may be a way to simplify this by putting some of the questions in the warning bar.)

Mozilla has gotten brazen lately about forcing questionable changes on users in the name of progress (per their view of "progress"). This includes forced tabs*, goofy search bar "split" (eventually fixed), and disabling "back" on POST forms (instead of prompting). They gave very round-about and fishy reasons for all 3 of these.

* Fortunately somebody created a "Hide tab bar for 1 tab" addon. Thank You, Fixers!

That's it! I kept searching with words like "...effect", "...phenomenon", "...principle", etc. "Mechanism" I couldn't remember.

Thanks Much!

It could pretty much point its instruments at all bright things not in its star map.

Before applications are allowed, they're judged by the Examiner and the Examiner's Supervisor

I am thinking of practitioners in the field, not career Patent Office workers.

Regarding the Apple slide-lock patent, my understanding is it's the result of jurors' feelings and impressions, and not based on issues of emulating existing physical objects. (But I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me.)

USPTO does random quality checks...

I recommend an organization independent of USPTO.

[questionably] constitutional, since you're making a rule that essentially seizes revenue from a company from a legal source...

Instead of seizure, how about taxing the heck out of it :-)

Obviousness can be graded on a scale. True, things seem more obvious once you figure out how they work, but we need some way to obtain an informed judgement call.

Perhaps require a relatively high percentage of the panel/jury to agree it's "obvious" to counter hindsight bias.

A tricky case may be one like Robert Kearns' windshield wiper patent. Solid state electronics (SSE) was relatively new at the time, but those who knew SEE well considered his technique fairly obvious, and that seems to be the consensus these days: Most SSE circuit designers would be able to construct a similar circuit without first knowing about Kearns' design.

Thus, if the claim is that it's obvious for those who know X, then the panel should probably be made up of X practitioners. But if X is so new that it's not considered a mainstream specialty (yet), then it gets into a sticky area.

Let me rework that last paragraph:

If the planet were a point source of gravity, for example say Mercury was converted into a black hole, then I believe the probe's orbit would gradually cycle between round and elliptical over time due to that damned effect I forgot the name of and can't find on Google.

The sun's gravitational attraction caused the orbit to decay...

I'm not sure "decay" is the best choice of words. It grows from a (somewhat) round orbit to an elliptical orbit over time due to an effect I forgot the name of. The momentum is the same, it's just that if that momentum is translated into enough of an elliptical orbit, the probe happens to bump into the planet.

If the planet was a point source of gravity, say Mercury was converted into a black hole, then I believe the probe's orbit would cycle between round and elliptical over time due to that damned effect I forgot the name of and can't find an Google.

A shortage of managers? We gotta import more! The PH1B program is born.

The biggest problem appears to be allowing wide interpretations of patents and ignoring what would be obviousness in the eyes of most practitioners. Here are some suggestions:

1) A jury-like panel of practitioners to judge obviousness.

2) Spell out that merely emulating common physical actions or behaviors should not be patentable, only specific algorithms of such emulation.

3) Reject the mere combining of existing ideas unless the combining is judged non-obvious (#1).

4) Limiting the percentage of revenue a medium or large company can receive from patent royalties.

5) An independent quality review board to make sure approved patents are not overly broad. They'd randomly sample patents.

So that Nigerian prince lives? I hope so, he owes me 10 grand.

Classification of political beliefs is a tricky issue, I will concede. But generally to most USA citizens, the USA "conservative" approach is to give companies what they ask for, and the companies want more visa workers.

Note that the H1-B problems have only intensified under this administration.

It's amazing how right-wing somebody can be on most policies and STILL constantly be called a "communist" and "socialist". It shows the power of BS.

But not all the variables are under our control. The cost of living is lower in many other countries in part because they have de-facto slaves, for example. Somebody else can take my job but I cannot do the equivalent and just move to live in a slaved up country so that I have a maid etc.

Visa workers come here, work long isolated hours for 5 years, and then retire back home as a rich person because their cost of living is so much lower. They have options I don't. It's not a "free" market because the flow of people is not free.

Plus, we don't want 3rd world conditions in this country like de-facto slaves, sewers flowing in the streets, etc. If the free-market is a pushing us toward a Mad-Max waste-land of gated communities for the rich versus poisoned mutant masses fighting for scraps, then I don't want a "free market". Unfettered capitalism is not a religion (to me); it's a tool. If it doesn't work well, I'll stop supporting it or alter it, if given a choice.

The benefits of imported labor and offshoring appear to have mostly benefited the 1%. The rest here are getting a raw deal. The 1% get the profits and the rest only get more competition and longer hours.

Jobs: "You got the wrong tattoo"

That's just an example. If taxi's are over-regulated then the real solution would be to remove the excess regulations. Most regulations are in place because some sleazy company did bad. (Some are also in place because the dominant players bought politicians in order to put rules in that keep small companies out.)