I saw the pilot, really liked it, and wanted more. Having said that, the whole “frog in bowl of boiling water” gambit is disappointing. I would have had no problem starting off in heaven post-Genesis escape, angels dealing with bureaucratic panic, and God completely bailing on the whole enterprise to save his own…

I saw the pilot, really liked it, and wanted more. Having said that, the whole “frog in bowl of boiling water” gambit is disappointing. I would have had no problem starting off in heaven post-Genesis escape, angels dealing with bureaucratic panic, and God completely bailing on the whole enterprise to save his own…

Got some cites for that? I understand that neckties evolved from the dress of Croatian mercenaries during the Thirty Years’ War; the opposite of what you’re asserting.

Maybe you should think about it some more...

Great thread! I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that these very vocal groups (anti-vax/gmo/climate change) appropriate the trappings of a particular party ideology or target the membership of particular parties to garner support (or perceived support) for their movement.

Questioning is fine. It becomes a problem though when you insist on an answer that specifically fit your preconceived notions despite that mountains of evidence and experts to the contrary. It harms the public good and it interrupts valuable research.

*high five*

Well if it states something that directly anticipates every element of an invention, then why wouldn’t it meet the standard for 102? The problem he has is that it’s essentially word salad being pulled together and is banking on the room-full-of-monkeys-writing-Shakespeare approach to getting a plausible prior art…

Unless you prosecuted those patents yourself, then yeah, not much.

yeah, if it’s just random word salad it likely wouldn’t pass the basic standards for patentability. Is he not vetting any of the output, I skimmed the article and assumed he was at least attempting to make legitimate prior art documents not just non-sense documents.

seriously, what is your experience with patents or intellectual property? You’re making assertions that make me think you have absolutely no idea what your are talking about.

“Most patents are granted for fairly minor twiddling with already patented stuff.” I’d be interested in stats that point to such. It may be considered minor twiddling by some, but at least the patent laws and examination process set a standard by which the twiddling can’t be so minor so as to be completely obvious to…

those are some cool patent drawings but they’ll never be Eddie Van Halen’s patented guitar support cool.

what he fails to understand is that there’s a mutual exchange that occurs in applying for the patent. In return for a Federally enforced, limited monopoly, the inventor discloses in complete detail how to make and use the invention. This is a good thing as it keeps someone from hoarding a technology and it creates a…

technically, almost anything published (known to the public) can be considered prior art. He wouldn’t have to apply for an application, he’s simply publishing the “inventions” under Creative Commons license to disclose them to the public. He’s essentially trying to squeeze out the proverbial toothpaste, you can’t put…

Also, I would immediately stop, drop, and roll away from anyone outraged by purchasing non-specific salmon

I guess it’s kinda like Morrison’s Joker from Batman RIP, kinda... if I squint... and if I make pretend I never saw Morrison’s Joker from Batman RIP.

I’ll throw out Uncle Val’s gin too. All sparkly lemons before you get the botanical kick http://www.astorwines.com/SearchResultsS…

+1 this. A solid and distinct gin. Also Churchill’s go to gin, if you’re a history buff.

Also, the irony here is that GMO technology would help you engineer foods that would lack the allergic potential your complaining about. For example, a modified wheat for celiac’s, or modified peanuts so that allergic kids don’t get hurt or feel like an outsider.