Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Does not make sense (Score 1) 625

by wienerschnizzel (#47228131) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability
Either you obesity causes you to have some real disabling condition like joint damage or breathing problems in which case you don't need a special 'obesity disability' to be considered disabled, or it doesn't cause you any disabling conditions and again, you don't need to be considered 'disabled.

It's like saying everybody that has been in a car crash should be defined as disabled.

Comment: Re:Patents are Legitimate Personal Assets YOU own (Score 1) 139

by wienerschnizzel (#47228039) Attached to: Why United States Patent Reform Has Stalled

A better solution would be to eliminate patents entirely.

This is not really the best solution. There are still legitimate businesses using patent laws in legitimate ways to protect themselves - pretty much all industry involved in chemistry, biotechnology and material science. It takes a lot of initial resources to develop a new material or a new drug even though the eventual manufacture of them might be cheap. It would just not make any sense to invest in these things if the minute you get the new drug out of the door a dozen other companies would start selling it for half the price because they didn't have to cover the research and testing costs.

A much more elegant solution would be to pay for the patent protection. It could work like this:
- you choose the $ amount others have to pay you to use your technology (covered in the patent)
- others can just pay you that amount and use it (you cannot decline)
- you have to pay 1% of that amount per year to the authorities or lose your patent

That's the basic idea. You could maybe extend it with things like changing the amount, or limiting the timespan during which the people can use your patent after they pay etc.

It wouldn't harm the honest users - the big pharma could easily pay a couple hundred thousand per patent, the small inventor could easily pay 100 bucks per year and get some money back (because under current laws it's practically impossible for an individual to enforce his patent). And the trolls that have tens of thousands of trash patents on their portfolios would fold.

Unfortunately there would probably be much less litigation going on so the lawyers will lob aggressively against any attempt to introduce such a system.

Comment: TLDR (Score 5, Interesting) 139

by wienerschnizzel (#47222505) Attached to: Why United States Patent Reform Has Stalled
Here's the meat part:

"This was entirely done by the pharmaceutical industry and the trial lawyers."

...

Pharmaceutical and biotech firms are often plaintiffs in patent disputes and haven't been hit hard by troll lawsuits.

...

Many law firms working in traditional plaintiffs' areas like personal injury or securities class actions have added patent work as other sources have dried up.

Fucking. Lawyers.

Comment: Re:Business class is a misnomer (Score 5, Insightful) 146

by wienerschnizzel (#46756469) Attached to: How Amazon Keeps Cutting AWS Prices: Cheapskate Culture

You're stil going to get to the same place at the same time as the other passengers.

Not in the same shape though.

It might not impact you much if you are going to one conference, but if you fly to multiple destinations within a week, it will build up. Your back/joint pain, stress level, lack of sleep will show. It might mean that you will save 5k on the boarding passes of your exec but then pay millions for the bad decision she makes.

Comment: Re:I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent i (Score 1) 408

by wienerschnizzel (#46691741) Attached to: Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?

And just as you show someone is guilty by showing that they committed each and every element of a crime

You went overboard with this statement.

You don't show each and every element of a crime to get a conviction. There's means, motive and opportunity. Often proving just two of those can get a guilty verdict.

Comment: Re:correlation does not prove causation (Score 1) 137

by wienerschnizzel (#46659023) Attached to: Study: Exposure To Morning Sunlight Helps Managing Weight
No. If they measured correlation between exposure to light and *reduction* of BMI, I wouldn't mind, but as it is, interpreting that statement that way is some snake oil salesman level of dishonesty (why not say "Weight can influence the amount of exposure to the sunlight people get"?).

Comment: Re:correlation does not prove causation (Score 1) 137

by wienerschnizzel (#46658861) Attached to: Study: Exposure To Morning Sunlight Helps Managing Weight

You are wrong in this case. If they just wanted to determine the correlation, they shouldn't have put the following statement in their abstract:

Exposure to moderate levels of light at biologically appropriate times can influence weight, independent of sleep timing and duration.

That's way beyond saying 'there's a correlation'

Comment: Re:Im all for human rights... (Score 1) 1482

by wienerschnizzel (#46636957) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

And other can voice their objection on the objection. And in this case there are several good reasons to object to OKCupid's objection even if you completely disagree with Eich:

1. Pragmatism: Living together in a democracy requires people to work together even if they have strong disagreements in their religious or political beliefs. For this reason objections should primarily be aimed directly at the belief itself and not at the persons holding them. This enables working together even with disagreements.

How does this even make sense within the topic of gay relationships? Can you criticize homosexuality without aiming at the homosexuals? Because that's what Eich is doing. And it's way past just 'raising an objection', it's about coming up with a law that directly affects the lives of the target group Eich disagrees with. So the pragmatic thing is to retaliate with the same - aim at the people doing this and affect *their* lives as well.

2. Fairness: Even if you disagree with someone you should still not misrepresent his stance. OKCupid claims gay relationships would illegal if Mr. Eich got his way on gay marriage. But Gay relationships would still be legal, even when gay marriage are banned. So you can not claim Eich wants gay relationships to be illegal, just because he supported California's Prop 8.

Let's not pretend Proposition 8 is harmless for the gays. The fact is that homosexuality is fairly common in populations (not just human ones). The proponents of Prop. 8 say it's unnatural and that's why they want gay marriage banned. As long as the society puts this stigma on the gays and even institutionalizes it, they will have a harder life. Where's the fairness in that?

3. Proportionality: Brendan Eich donated $1000 for Prop 8. A rather small sum of money for a high profile engineer such as Eich. This clearly not the most important topic for Eich. He is not a major spokesperson against gay marriage, he is best known for his Javascript work and not for his opposition to gay marriage. The response should have a reasonable proportion to the thing that is being criticized. Brendan Eich's $1000 are now 100x more visible than the $1,000,000 by Alan Ashton.

Are you suggesting that OKCupid should ask its users not to use WordPerfect? That would be laughable at best. OKCupid just picks a fight in their domain, where it makes sense. Plus, the message should be that any support for Prop. 8 is despicable.

Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. Space is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen to you.

Working...