If we had anti-gravity cars like those in "The Jetsons" then I think it'd be fine, we'd need some kind of virtual lane system with upwards/downwards corridors as a heads up display and an emergency parachute (space capsule style?) to save your ass but it'd work and you could stay to sane consumer speeds with high speed high altitude "interstates". Anything that depends on wings for lift though has to stay at very high speeds and can't practically stop for anything, even if you have a VTOL system hovering for even an extremely brief time will burn through your fuel in no time. If you think it's bad now, wait until slamming the brakes is not an option.

And yet, simultaneously, is quite different from the "anti-vaccination" position the article claims she has or held. As I said, she's wrong about the science, but that doesn't mean that she's lying about her position.

Here's the rest of that quote:

If we acknowledge that people want what's safer, even if they're making bad choices about what actually is safer, then we can work towards that common goal and educate them. If, on the other hand, we misrepresent their words in order to call them liars, then they're never going to listen to us, because we've just destroyed our own credibility: if someone sees us misquoting McCarthy or misrepresenting her position, then why should they believe us about what's safe for their kids?

That's true, but if every person who was ever wrong acted conciliatory and apologetic instead of defensive, we'd live in a very different and utopian society.

Yeah, but the problem is that if you say "you're listening to someone who is well-meaning, but wrong, and here's why," they'll listen. If you say "you're listening to a liar who wants to kill kids," they won't listen. You're misrepresenting her position in the latter, which reduces your credibility, even if you're 100% right about the science.

It's referenced in the BA piece. The full quote is:

That's consistent with her stated belief that there are too many vaccinations, given too quickly, and doesn't show any change in her position.

I agree that this does harm, but it's mainly because there are real anti-vaxxers who don't get any vaccines, primarily out of religious belief. The ones who are following McCarthy aren't in that camp, but are simply misinformed and gullible people who want to do the best they can for their kids. Their minds can be changed, but not with hyperbole and misrepresentations.

I did. Did you? Here's a quote from her in January 2011:

That seems to coincide with what she's saying now - that she's in favor of slower and reduced vaccination schedules.

Similarly, here's the transcript of her Larry King appearance, where she says (emphasis added):

Again, that's not anti-vaccination generally, that's opposed to the current schedule. Farther down in the transcript:

Again, that was 2011. If she's in favor of measles, mumps, and polio vaccinations, it's tough to claim she's anti-vaccination, and you can't really claim she's changed her story by saying she's not anti-vaccination now.

Now, let me be clear - I disagree with her about the science, and don't believe that the vaccinations contain toxins that must be "cleaned out" between rounds, nor do I think there's any link between autism and vaccination. I also think that many of the new vaccinations are great and should be given to kids, such as the HPV vaccination. But this isn't a dichotomy - she's clearly not "anti-vaccination" in any general sense, and she doesn't appear to have changed her argument at all from "let's space out vaccinations and return to the fewer number that were given in the 80s". I can disagree with her without having to call her a liar.

Then why are you asking it on Slashdot? Isn't this really just shouting to an echo chamber, and not really attempting to get a response?

Except that's not what she means. From her op-ed:

If, as you say, she refused vaccines until they were 100% effective with no side effects and no unexpected reactions, then she wouldn't be vaccinating her child at all. Instead, she is vaccinating him, just at a slower rate. She even quotes another blogger, saying:

Now, that may not comport with the science, nor is it what the AMA or APA advise, but it's a far cry from being "anti-vax" or lumping her in with people who are opposed to all forms of medicine and use "prayer" instead. Consider this parallel - there are plenty of people who are anti-GMO food, even though there are no scientifically proven adverse effects from it. But we don't brand them "anti-food".

No, this whole thing is a hit piece, trying to lump her in with the real anti-vax loonies, and in doing so, it does a disservice to people like her who don't understand the science behind vaccinations, and nonetheless want what's best for her kids. This is not a religious fight with people who will never change their minds, but rather an argument with a bunch of well-meaning idiots who can still be educated... unless we treat it as a religious fight and refuse to try to enlighten them.

I know what rhetorical means but really, there's so many obvious ways. Take a piece of string, tie down one end and draw a circle in the sand with the other. Now use the same piece of string to measure out the circle. You'll get an approximation of pi more than good enough for any practical purpose, the only thing "special" about it is that numbers that aren't fractions like pi, e and the square root of 2 was fucking with their understanding of math. Even the ancient druids of Stonehenge could map out a circle, long before Euclid.

You're confusing two concepts: "different" and "innovative", or in legal terms, "new" and "nonobvious". Something can be new, but obvious - and similarly, something can be different, but not innovative. As I've said and as you admit, both of the features we're discussing are not shown in the prior art reference - they are different, period, full stop. Whether they're innovative is a separate question, and nothing about that is implied by admitting that, yes, the video shows three frames of movement, while the patent claims "continuous" movement.

So, yes, the patent claim is different from the video. The claim has at least those two features that are not shown in the video. But I'm sure you can find them elsewhere in other prior art references, no? If so, you can use the combination of the two references to show that everything recited in the patent claim is known. That's the legal process - you can't simply pound the table and say "clearly obvious", because without using prior art references, at best, all you've done is shown that it's obvious now to someone who has lived with iPhones sliding-to-unlock for years. Show me that it was obvious in 2006. And that requires evidence, not just you saying that it's "clear".

Well, he's using the only sales argument he has from the customer's point of view. From the store's point of view though they won't sell it at the same price you get online because they need to pay for location, staff, deal with shoplifters and books that go stale and unsold that need to be taken off the shelves again. It's better for them not to take your business rather than open up Pandora's box and have people coming in expecting to be price matched, taking up sales rep time and getting angry if they're refused. And if word got around you could get it cheaper just by pointing to a webpage on a smartphone, other people buying it at normal markup could feel cheated and generate a lot of negative publicity about you. As sales pitches go it's a honest one, but it's not the real reason why they won't price match.

Well that's maybe relevant for those coming from another European language or reading old English texts, but to users only interested in contemporary English that's more of a historical curiosity. Their challenge is that the rules aren't consistent, which is often traceable to its historic roots. For example let's take the word steak, it's a loanword from Old Norse steik which is why the "ea" in steak is different from that in peak, leak, beak, weak or freak. Of course every language has a few foreign words that don't follow the normal rules but English has it dialed up to 11.

It's a photo/video camera that might have been on, not even stupid crooks would leave that potential evidence behind.