What's off-topic is that they advised the PTO to take specific action with respect to a specific applicant.

Yeah, I think what the EFF wants to say is something that needs to be said, and personally I don't care how they say it, but the PTO is part of the government, and they have processes that they follow. I'm not saying they are morally right, just that they are technically right.

I'm not a big fan of the USPTO, but I'm not convinced that they are out of line here. The EFF comment makes mention of a specific patent applicant who is known to be highly litigious, and specifically argues that the USPTO should be particularly skeptical of applications from that entity because of the enormous cost to others of patents being inappropriately granted to that specific entity.

This is an entirely reasonable thing to say, but the PTO's point is that it's not an appropriate thing to say in the context of a request for comments on something else. The request for comments was on a new set of guidelines the PTO had issued, not on a patent application from the entity to which the EFF referred.

So, you're going to sue the IRS?

Probably the best possible outcome.

A computer can break into a million houses in a few minutes. That's so what.

Request a transcript, like the author of the article did. However, bear in mind that if you register for an account, now all a fraudster needs to get into your irs.gov account is pwnership of your computer, which may be even easier to get than the personal information required to sign up.

The frustrating thing about this is that as soon as the method that the terrorists used to take over the planes in 9/11 was understood, the take-over-the-cockpit scenario became much harder, because now you have to defend yourself from all the passengers as well as the crew. There was no downside to adding the door security, but it was superfluous, and now we can see that it has a serious downside.

I think the problem here is thinking in terms of absolutes. What was needed to address the 9/11 scenario was a change to the balance of power, not a perfectly secure cockpit. Having a lockout that prevents crew from accessing the cockpit is too much security, because while it mitigates one risk, it creates another risk, and the second risk isn't particularly less likely than the first.

It's not a novelty.

As a general rule, it's preferable not to have continuous noise. I only ever spent a brief time in LA, but the helicopters were really disturbing. I wouldn't be surprised if the stress they cause increases violence and shortens lives. But the lives it shortens are civilian lives, so I guess it's okay.

Being able to flash the firmware is kind of cool, actually, particularly since it's open source, so you can hack it first.

Good advice. This is why I tend to buy the official Google labeled thing and not the third-party version. Works for Android too. I am indeed trolling the chromium os site to see if info on the new pixel will pop up. So far nothing.

We have a bunch of these--had to mail order them, since they aren't available at retail yet. They look very realistic, and produce a nice warm light. I wouldn't want them for my only lighting, but compared to the old fake edison bulbs, they are fantastic--no stupid excess of heat, and much more efficient.

No, that's too weak. You need to dilute it until it's a .0000000001st post.

We are here for you, brother or sister!

)