Yes, your.

My outrage only applies to people richer than me.

Yep but why start rejecting based on obviousness *now* ? I can't recall details (exercise for the reader) but over the years there have been countless obvious patents which weren't rejected - rounded corners? hello?

If you believe in a patent system at all (which is a separate argument), an original implementation for a relatively obvious concept can still be patentable. Most patents I've seen start out by claiming something fairly obvious (a wheel) and have several progressively less obvious claims before getting to the core invention (a specific axle mounting design, etc.) and then maybe some variations. Most articles about patent abuse focus on the more obvious claims being obvious; that's separate from whether the more abusive actual cases are somebody getting a patent for the less obvious parts and then suing people for violating the much more obvious claims.

Since Uber's lost about 10 previous attempts, they may very well be trying to patent something obvious (charging more when it's busy), or may be trying to patent more specific things about their implementation (but maybe still obvious to the patent examiners, who've actually taken taxis before, even if they haven't written compilers or optimized databases.)

Ten applications were initially rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “obviousness”

It seems pretty suspiciuos that the USPO only now has started to do their jobs - just when UBER's patent-applications crossed their desks.

I assure you, there is a profit motive to the development. The plasma donor is the one with no profit motive.

It's still good to see an approach that has yielded success built upon.

What a strange world you must live in where jumbo jets land on Apple WiFi products in an emergency!

A simple spanking is not "physical violence".

No, it's aversive physical dominance. Any more hairs you would like to split, or are we done now?

Aversive: the recipient is not pleased about it.

Physical: there's a smacking sound.

Dominance: the recipient's preference in the moment doesn't count for shit.

Maybe he or she will thank you later with a greater understanding of the situation. Or maybe not.

To my mind your story could be an argument for more effective barriers. If you're going to make a barrier to enforce safety, go big or go home. Otherwise you're just conducting a first lesson in Jr Steeplechase.

I would suggest that a cannon should go under the seat.

You are clearly doing your best to mis-interpret literally everything I typed. Helpful tips:

Trimming one's fingernails does not generally mean with a lawn mower nor does it involve amputation above the elbow. Filling the car with gas doesn't mean farting nor does it involve fuel in the passenger compartment. By 'gas', the writer probably does NOT mean sulfur hexaflouride.

Come on now: The appropriate followup for that is "Open mailbox." It is far too bright to be eaten by a grue.

You yourself talked about "until they reach 18 years of age"; abortion is clearly but one aspect of this, and arguably not the biggest one by far (there are far more children who are born, but have their rights limited until they are of age, than aborted fetuses).

I didn't want to touch on abortion for the simple reason that it's vastly more complicated - there's the issue of when you start considering a fetus a person (it is obvious to any rational person that a fertilized egg or an embryo is not a person in any meaningful way, while a pre-birth fetus is; but where do you draw the line in between?). There's also the sticking issue of the fetus, regarding of any rights it may have as a person, potentially infringing on its mother's rights to her body. Reconciling those two rights is not obvious.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with this particular case.

I don't get the presumption that people with well-behaved children have that people who do use more harsh discipline for their children haven't tried other methods. I absolutely hate punishing my difficult child. I hate it more the more restrictive and severe that I have to be with him. I most certainly use empathy and consequences whenever possible for discipline. Those methods are effective for long term discipline and work flawlessly with my other children (so far), but for him are not always effective for short term compliance. I'm not even particularly harsh with discipline being effective for short term compliance if his behavior isn't hazardous.

This is not true, actually. The hardline conservatives are into cop worship, but libertarians are pretty strong in pro-gun movement as well, and they are generally not a fans of police militarization and excessive use of force.

Assuming that you're referring to actual babies that have been born, then they still have human rights that their parents or legal guardians can't deny them. For example, you can't lock up your kid in a cage, even though other more reasonable limits on the freedom of movement are allowed. Generally speaking, it's okay so long as it's in their interest. Similarly, in this story, they're not letting the orangutan go where it wants, but admitting that the current arrangement is definitely not in its interest.