Yeah, the defense kept highlighting evidence that was unrelated to whether Assange committed a crime, since that evidence was about details that occurred, you know, after the crime was committed. If I steal your car, and the next day, we go out for a beer, that doesn't suddenly make your car not-stolen. Maybe you decide to press charges, maybe you don't, but I've already committed every single element of the crime. Maybe, for example, you decide not to bring charges because we're buddies and I returned your car later... or maybe you later find that I also vomited in the back seat and smashed the quarter panel, and bring charges. Do I get to claim "but we had a beeeeeer!" as a defense? Of course not.

In this case, if the allegations are true (and they seem to be, since Assange has never claimed the acts never happened, merely that they weren't criminal), once Assange penetrated a sleeping woman knowing he didn't have her consent, he committed rape. Maybe she decides not to press charges if he has an STD test... Maybe he refuses to have the STD test, and she does go forward with charges - just like you and the vomit in your car. Point is, once the criminal act is performed, any subsequent acts are irrelevant. They don't go back in time and reverse reality.

And this is one of the reasons why he lost at the extradition hearing, and also lost on appeal.

Sorry, that's simply not true. Regardless of whether you believe Assange is innocent or guilty, he has been accused of: (i) forcefully holding down a woman and spreading her legs in order to penetrate her against her will; and (ii) non-consensual sex with a sleeping person who had explicitly told him no.

Now, you're free to disagree with both those allegations, free to accuse the entire justice department of Sweden of slander or whatnot, but you're not free to lie about what the accusations are or whether they're considered crimes.

In almost every dispute, both parties think they're right, and both may even have good and reasonable reasons for believing they're right. So, yeah, a lawyer could argue either side of that, because there may be good reasons on both sides. It may be a question of what the law really is (see the recent Myriad v. AMP patent case as to whether isolated genes are patentable), or may be a dispute over the facts (if a contract term means "A", then party A is correct; if it means "B", then party B is correct; and they both have legitimate reasons why it should be read the way they want), or other such reasonable disagreements. So, since a lawyer could argue either position, suddenly they're immoral or greedy in your eyes?

If every decision was so clear cut between good and evil, or just and unjust, then we wouldn't need lawyers in the first place.

I'll believe that hypothesis the second you find a triangular fan.

It's actually 60% larger than a 120mm fan. Don't forget about that r^2 term. And one larger fan draws more air per minute with lower power and, more importantly, significantly less noise than 4-8 fans.

Obligatory penis-sized jokes aside, a 6" fan is massive compared to the standard 80 or 120 mm fans in other cases.

Now that Apple.com is updated, you can find out why - it's a cylinder because the GPUs and CPU are mounted around a central cooling core made from a single piece of aluminum with a single massive fan on top.

When you say "most of this", are you going by the Slashdot summary, or the claims of the patent application? Because the former is going to be about as accurate a summary of the invention as you'd expect.

35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

If you come up with a super-efficient battery, the fact that "batteries" have been known for centuries doesn't mean that you can't get a patent - you get a patent on your improvement and it doesn't cover the original, old battery.

It's not... The change from first-to-invent to first-to-file only comes up when two people independent file for a patent application on the exact same invention. Previously, there would be a process called an Interference, kind of like a mini-trial, to determine which one of them truly conceived of the idea first. They tended to be around $100k in costs, per side, and take signifiant amounts of time, and one person ended up with nothing. With first-to-file, it's now just whichever one of them filed first wins.

This may seem like a huge change, but there were, on average, 20 interference proceedings per year. 20. Out of more than half a million patent applications.

You repeatedly argued that humans required hardware - namely, a pen and paper - to perform calculations, including "add[ing] two numbers, or calculat[ing] sums of angles". The quotes are there in black and white, and they're not strawmen, they're your words. Frankly, I think they're as idiotic as you now apparently admit they were.

I agree. I can't believe you're seriously and vehemently arguing that people cannot do math in their heads and that without paper or other tools, people could not perform calculations, in spite of the fact that many people do it publicly and sell books about it. You've repeatedly claimed people like this don't exist. And then you call me ignorant?

Frankly, I think most Slashdotters could perform simple sequences of mathematical algorithms in their heads, such as the square root, squares and addition steps required for determining the length of a hypotenuse given lengths of the sides. Frankly, I'm shocked anyone would doubt that this is possible without requiring paper.

Nope, if he was talking to me, then both he and you are wrong and falsely limiting the definition - specifically, under your definition, if a human performs a complex calculation mentally*, they are not a human computer. But, if that same human makes a mark on a piece of paper, then suddenly they are? The paper is a necessary requirement that differentiates a human from a human computer? I disagree, as would anyone who has ever performed a calculation in their head and verbally recited the answer. Paper, as with a slide rule, abacus, calculator, or computer, makes the process easier and faster, but it is not a necessary requirement to produce a calculation, as you incorrectly contend.

In fact, as even your own cited Wiki article states, a human computer is merely "one who computes" or a person performing mathematical calculations. Your article only uses the word "paper" once, merely discussing a format of input ("transcrib[ing] raw data from celluloid film and oscillograph paper"), and not as part of your false definition.

And finally, again as noted by your cited Wiki article, the term human computer is commonly applied to "individuals with prodigious powers of mental arithmetic, also known as mental calculators." As Wiki notes, mental arithmetic is "arithmetical calculations using only the human brain, with no help from calculators, computers, or pen and paper."

Quoth the immortal Bard: "Oh, snap!"

*and how complex? Your definition is built on a vague, subjective "I know it when I see it" standard of triviality, and is therefore invalid for that reason alone.

Thank you. Now, returning to your prior statement, you contended that the derived FSM is obvious if an isomorphic FSM existed previously. But, here, you defined the derived FSM as producing a different output from the same inputs. If that difference is non-trivial, then the derived FSM cannot be obvious, by definition.

I'm not sure what your point is - as the Federal Circuit noted, those patents are "fundamentally unlike the Bilski claim, since [they do] not claim a method of organizing human activity not involving manufactures, machines or the creation of compositions of matter" (emphasis added). Thus, there is evidence on the record that those patents are directed to an apparatus and an article of manufacture, respectively, contrary to your earlier assertion.

In both cases, they are articles of manufacture. The Federal Circuit was wrong in their characterization of the '818 patent, which never once uses the term "apparatus".

Of course, and why should it not? Why should patentability of a nonobvious, novel, and properly described invention depend upon the trivial question of whether it is claimed as implemented in fixed hardware vs. self-reconfiguring hardware, particularly when the hardware itself is not lending it any nonobvious features?

I think you meant to reply to his post, not mine? I'm the one saying that people can perform quite complicated math without requiring mechanical aids.