Patent Law Obviousness Claim-Chart Exercise: Fill & Download for Free

[I do wish Quora would make questions immutable except for grammatical fixes, AND stop mucking about with removing details and making them comments. The opening of my answer derives from this, which is no longer explicitly displayed:“The SC has indicated that the 2A is not absolute, and govt has the right to regulate firearms.”]First off, because this is a pet peeve of mine, the government does NOT have the right to regulate firearms.It has the power to do so, with the consent of the people. People have rights; governments do not.For that matter, NO civil rights are absolute. The Supreme Court merely acknowledged that fact in the Heller decision - they weren’t making new law in doing so.That said, clearly, gun regulation is useless. Today in the US - with background checks, magazine capacity limits in some states, waiting periods in other states, firearms owner identification cards in yet others - we have a homicide rate that is the same as it was in the early 1960’s.Today, 4.9/100,000 - in a population of 320,000,000 people.1960, 5.1/100,000 - in a population of 180,000,000 people.Back then, you could buy a high powered rifle mail-order. You could buy a handgun down at the corner hardware store. The seller didn’t have to have an FFL license. You didn’t get a background check, you didn’t have to show ID, you just put your cash on the counter, and the transaction was done.The US has a very low homicide rate. What’s that you say? Everybody knows that’s not true?The only way you can suggest that the United States has a high homicide rate is if you pretend that we are identical culturally to a tiny slice of countries, carefully carved out from the rest of the world, euphemistically referred to as “Industrialized” nations, “OECD” nations, “Developed” countries, “Western” cultures. These are all nothing more than code words for “the wealthy elite countries that became so by plundering the riches of all the other countries in the world, while subjugating and destroying the local cultures”. But it sounds so much nicer to just say that we’re “Western”. The implication, likewise, is that the mass of humanity that doesn’t meet the standards of the wealthy elite are just unimportant human beings - if they murder each other, who gives a flying fuck? So what if Venezuela has a homicide rate of 90/100,000. They’re not real people, right? So why bother comparing ourselves with them? Need I mention that private ownership of firearms is completely banned in Venezuela? That went into place in 2012, when the homicide rate was “merely” 72/100,000. That worked out well.Let me be blunt, if I haven’t been blunt enough already: gun control is NOT crime control. It does NOT have that effect. Period. None of our western elite buddy buddy countries out there has seen any statistically significant reduction in violent crime and homicide rates due to imposition of whatever gun control they’ve gone for. Lots of deluded folks like to show graphs of how Australia’s or the UK’s homicide rate “went down” after their gun ban. Ignore that small, unimportant tautology that it was the GUN homicide rate that went down - not the overall rates. Oh - but they did go down a little - by the exact same amount the rates went down a bit over the last twenty-five years in all the other “western” countries - gun control or no gun control.With one exception - the US - where our homicide and violent crime rates were halved in those same years - with gun control playing no measurable role in the reduction.Sorry, I’m ranting. You also mentioned accidental and suicidal use of guns.Accidental gun deaths among our 320,000,000 citizens average about 600 per year. Nearly 40,000 people die from accidental poisoning every year. Total accidental deaths are more than 136,000 per year. There is unequivocally NOT a problem of accidental gun deaths in the US - at least not one that any policy imposition wouldn’t fail even the most outlandish cost-benefit analysis.Suicide? Not due to guns. There’s some 400 million guns amongst us 320 million citizens. With that insanely great number of guns, we should have a suicide rate that’s way off the charts compared to the gun free paradises of the UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc.Nope. Not even close. Check out South Korea in particular below. No guns, but they do a damned stunning job of offing themselves without them. If guns had anything to do with suicide rates, you should be able to swap South Korea and the US in this chart.There are almost no good arguments for more gun laws. They don’t accomplish what you think they accomplish.Gun control does not save lives. Controlling criminals saves lives.EDIT: Okay, okay - I didn’t really answer the question, I just bloviated for a coupla dozen paragraphs.Get rid of all the existing gun control laws and start from a blank slate? Well, that’s just way too easy. We apply precisely the same limit tests as most of our other rights carry:Are you a legal adult/have you reached majority? You may own a gun. If not, you may use one with the consent and supervision of your legal guardian or proxy.Are you of sound mind? You may own a gun. If not, you may be limited in your access to firearms, but only if you present a clear danger to yourself or your community. Seeing a psychiatrist because you suffer depression, or take medications that allow you to live without depression, are not conditions prohibitive to exercising the right. (I speak of myself; had I NOT seen a psychiatrist 25 years ago, and had NOT started taking anti-depressants, I would likely have killed myself long ago. So, taking affirmative steps to become whole should patently not preclude exercise of this essential right. I bring this up because it pisses me off to no end when “fellow gun nuts” go ranting about how various of the mass shooters were on prescription meds to treat psychiatric conditions, so ‘obviously’ it’s these drugs that are the cause. That’s about as nuanced an argument as the ‘Chicago has tons of gun control and lots of violent crime, therefore gun control doesn’t work’. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, you numbskulls.)Are you a violent felon? You may not own a gun. Otherwise, legal issues not pertaining directly to violence should have no preclusive effect. You embezzled $10 million from your previous employer? You jerk. But that’s not a reason to preclude you from owning a gun once you’ve done your time.Gosh, I’m in rare form tonight. Time to shut up.[ A fair criticism was tendered that I didn’t provide any details to back up my claim that our homicide and violent crime rates were halved in the last 25 years. Here’s a link to a previous answer I posted on the matter:Paul Theodoropoulos's answer to What happened in 1993 that caused such a steep drop in gun violence in the USA?The actual rates are easily found online, one of the better sources that gathers all the data together is The Disaster Center , where you can deep dive into all the figures going back to the 1960’s. ][culled most recent edit - this is too long as it is. ]

I'm sincerely surprised none of the answers here mentioned astrology. Out of the several stupidest and preposterous ideas ever proposed by humankind, astrology by far inevitably takes the cake. It according to me, unmistakably fetches the trophy for - "The most ridiculous, patently absurd and incredulous original idea conceived by humankind."The notion, that somehow a study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects assist in divining information about futuristic human affairs and terrestrial events, is terribly flawed for myriad reasons.Astrology is a pseudo-scientific(a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific) field of "study" in which "professional" astrologers use horoscopes (a chart containing the bearings of massive interstellar rocks on specific dates of the year) which purportedly aim to explain certain aspects of a person's personality and predict significant events in that person's life. Astrology is a remarkably bizarre and baffling idea because no one seems to clearly explain and clarify how this prophesying process operates, yet thousands of unsuspecting human beings choose to buy into it.Let's analyse and assess this claim both intuitively and sensibly and figure out why a belief in the soothsaying powers of astrology isn't justified.Astrology according to most renowned skeptics is an utter lump of stinking fetid man-made nonsense because of the following reasons :-1. Astrology generates seemingly general and vague assertions about a person's personality based on the star sign the individual is associated with, this star sign association being based on the person's date of birth.But logically, the person you are on a genetic level is greatly derived from the mix of chromosomes(or the biological particles responsible for a child's traits inherited partly and equally from both parents) you acquire on the day of conception.(That is medically speaking the day a billions of sperms raced towards your Mum's ova with the goal to successfully fertilize it.). This process occurs several months before birth and it ends up fixing your gender and configuring the composition of your DNA. And isn't the date of birth kind of arbitrary ? So rationally speaking wouldn't the date of conception matter more than the date you exit the birth canal ? And by that line of logic, doesn't astrology bestow a certain kind of power to the parents, where the parents can choose to procreate on a given day and therefore prevent the child from being born in particular months of the year. Doesn't this somehow grant them the privilege to determine certain star sign personality traits their children wouldn't be enjoying?And who you are as a person psychologically is chiefly determined by the ambiance in which you've spent your formative years. Loaf around with a bunch of crackheads, substance abusers and weed inhalers, and there is a high chance you might end up like one of them. It's natural human behavior.Because if astrology were true, don't you think that people born under the same alignment of celestial objects on the same day and same time would have exactly the same personality and accordingly behave and think in the same fashion.2. The next time you notice a horoscope section in a newspaper, try covering up the names of signs and read the descriptions below it. Once you do that, try guessing which evaluation belonged to which sign. Notice how ambiguous and dubious the language is. Pretty generalized isn't it ? Odds are you'll match the star sign with it's description with a decent probability hovering around a mathematically obvious 1 out of 12 times. Notice the randomness now perhaps ?This randomness allows the Barnum effect(Forer Effect) to take place. In simple words, the Forer Effect is where an individual's mind tries to harmonize the vagueness of a given description of itself with itself. The mind tends to conclude that these supposedly "custom tailor-made" readings portray an excellent picture of itself.3. Perform another exercise to demystify astrology. Buy different brands of newspapers and view the horoscopes mentioned in each one of them. Don't you find it quite silly, that various newspapers offer distinct details about people born under one specific star sign ? And don't you think if it had been an actual science, maybe the results wouldn't have varied.4. And on what basis does a person decide which celestial bodies to use to forecast future events ? Why only the planets in our solar system ? Why not the planets lying beyond our solar system and possibly our milky way galaxy ? Why aren't huge comets, meteoroids involved in this complex methodology of event projection ? And cosmologically speaking, Pluto isn't even considered a planet anymore. Doesn't that effect astrology by one bit ?5. There is a reason most horoscopes are placed near the comic strip section in a newspaper. It's pure entertainment ! It's analogous to watching a scripted WWE match. Millions of people are aware of it being set up and staged, but they enjoy it nevertheless.6. If your horoscope suggests that your year ahead was going to be a financially favorable one, does it actually mean your own personal actions and decisions would have no impact on your finances. If that is the case, why don't you go ahead and place all of your hard earned money in a Russian Roulette game in a posh casino and leave it up to the laws of probability to aid in multiplying your riches ?7. Why can't astrologers(using Tarot Card readings, Crystal Ball assistance and Palm readings) predict what experience you'll undergo within the next hour or few days ? And even if they attempt to do so, why are their predictions so pitifully obscure and fuzzy ?Try fixing an appointment with a bunch of astrologers and notice how strangely and amusingly each of their individual responses about your future life vary.8. There is no statistical trend backed by concrete scientific research and data analysis to support astrological claims. There is enough proof for astrology as there is for the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, basilisks, superstitions and alien abductions. So if you hastily brush aside and dismiss fanciful and far-fetched claims about the existence of mermaids, why would you continue believing in the claims of astrology ?9. By the definitions laid down by astrology, wouldn't all twins have a perfectly identical personality and disposition ?10. Lastly, most people on the planet don't give a flying shit about your existence and carry on with their daily boring mundane lives, let alone the planets and the Sun in our solar system, all of which mechanically and obediently adhere to the scientific laws of the universe by orbiting the black hole at the center of our milky way galaxy. Harboring any other notion would be indulging in intellectually dishonesty of the highest order. The celestial objects don't give a fuck about your existence. Shed off this irrelevant self-important facade of yours. It doesn't alter reality by one bit.That being said, if people still choose to place their convictions on astrology, they then participate in the mass cultural delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to the arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of their birth somehow affects their personality. Astrology is beyond doubt a sham, a swindle, a deceit, a fraud, a trick and a ploy that aims to successfully exploit an ill-informed individual's gullibility and ignorance, and extract a fast buck in lieu of nebulous advice and caution. It's a sheer insult to the human intellect.P.S. - Astrology is vastly different from Astronomy. Astronomy is an actual field of science which provides us with mathematically sound and accurate results. It enabled us to understand the origins of the universe and allowed us to march on the lunar surface. Astrology on the other hand is struggling to fend off its own extinction thanks to an unprecedented surge in education, literacy and skepticism.Do check out the destruction of the myth of Astrology offered by renowned skeptic Hemant Mehta and the Science Guy Bill Nye below.This other rant is by Matt Dillahunty, an eminent rational and free thinker.I also found this insightful link in an answer written by Deepak Mehta (दीपक मेहता) on Is astrology true? Should we believe in it or not? with regard to experiments conducted by famous myth debunker James Randi to disprove pretentious Astrological claims.Misconceptions: AstrologyMy friend and master skeptic James Randi performs a wonderful demo of how easily people are fooled by astrology. He went into a classroom, posing as an astrologer, and cast horoscopes for all the students. He had them read and rate the accuracy, and they almost overwhelmingly rated the horoscopes as accurate. The kicker? He had them pass around the horoscopes, and the students saw that every horoscope was exactly the same. It was worded vaguely enough that nearly everyone in the room thought they were being well-described. The horoscopes were so vague they matched nearly everyone, and so their predictive power was meaningless. It was all in the students' heads.Here is a wiki link which elaborates in great lengths about astrology and science.Astrology and science

Oh My God: I never knew this fact, India is developing and PAKISTAN is already a Developed country. Out of curiosity, I searched this on Internet and I was blown away by my ignorance towards Pakistan’s resurgence on all important indicators which clearly reflects that PAKISTAN has already become a first world country and India has lot of catching to do.Here is what I found to substantially prove this claim:·GDP worm: India’s (PPP) GDP is four times that of Pakistan’s. NOMINAL and PPP is just for academic exercise and is nothing more than just Bull Shi*t. Pakistanis are deep rooted people and that’s why their GDP over the years is much closer to ground (read lower Y axis)compared to that of India, which are so called high flying people.·Being among the elite: because of the expected size of Pakistan’s enormous economy, the maximum value on Y-Axis of the below graph could not able to handled it. We could not plot Pakistan on the graph below because then histogram of remaining countries would be minuscule and not visible.·Per Capita GDP: of India is higher than that of Pakistan. This is rigged data as we have not included the War and Terrorism economy of Pakistan. Also, in this data the wealthy state of Kashmir is considered in India which has increased the per Capita GDP of India by atleast 50% more. Include Kashmir in Pakistan and tables will be turned·GDP Growth rate: The below chart is compared illogically. Hindu growth rate will always be higher than Muslim growth rate . Its falsely inflated.·Pakistan has to produce more (read babies) because they constantly need army to fight terrorist from India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.·The below data has not taken in account the atrocities committed by Indians and Indian army on Kashmiris, Naxals, NE insurgents etc. Pakistan is such a peaceful state for its citizens·Net Migration rate: Pakistan has better skilled workers , which they are exporting to different war torn areas in world to rebuild their social fabric and structure: Syria, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.·Infant Mortality Rate: Pakistan weed out physically challenged infants at the time of birth. They want healthy citizens , whom they can export to world (see above). That’s why Male IMR is higher than that of Females·Education parameters: The below three data points is nothing but cheating. You ave not included the people who have got world level learning from Ivy League certified Madrassas·Maternal Mortality Rate: Obviously, this rate will be high in Pakistan. When one man has multiple wives then more women will be giving birth: So everyone will not able to get same level of treatment. Also, its law of large number. More births so more chances of maternal mortality( who cares about RATE)·Healthcare sector: We dont need bed. We, in Pakistan believe in going to Jannat by following Jihad . Who the fuck needs hospital (beds) when trigger of Bomb/gun or pin of Grenade can send them to the utmost comfort of Jannat (directly).·Contraceptive Prevalence rate: Who the hell needs it. We believe in “ Allah ki Dain” . We marry four times to produce as many Kids ( read Terrorist) as possible. If at all we need it then we manufacture our own 100% natural contraceptive made of of world famous Pakistani Cotton·Agriculture based economy: Pakistan is food basket of world and this is evident in the below data. Whole world is surviving on the food grains exported by PAKISTAN.·Export: Enough is enough: The below data does not include the value of Terrorist, Terrorism and Nuclear proliferation that PAKISTAN has been exporting for decades. Include those numbers and Pakistan will be biggest exporter in the world·Forex and Gold reserve: Pakistan do not believe in hoarding or acquiring currency of other countries: especially US dollars after US has disowned Pakistans. Pakistani Rupiya is most sought after, most traded and most important currency in the world then why Pakistan has to maintain large Forex reserves. Indians are fools.·Infrastructure: Again, Pakistani analyst will point out that below data does not contain CEPC project. Pakistan is doing a big favour to China by allowing them to have direct access to Gwadar port.·Merchant Marine: Pakistan is self sufficient whereas India is totally dependent on imports for its survival so they need such a large fleet of ships. Pakistan can grow, produce or manufacture everything on its soil.·HDI: One more example of wrong data. People are so happy in POK, Balochistan, NWFP and other parts of Pakistan and still India is successful in manipulating the data on internet.·High Technology exports: If you dont include technological advance Guns, Arms and Nuclear technology in HT exports then of-course India will be having such a high figure compared to Pakistan.·Tourism : Did you took into account the terrorists which are visiting Pakistan for getting trained? Are they not Tourists? Pakistan does include them and count them as tourists and the below number for Pakistan becomes much higher compared to lowly India.·Electricity consumption and Patent applications: Pakistan consumes less power because they dont use it in night. In night some of the tourists (terrorists)are involved in night training and some Pakistani males are busy trying to infiltrate in India so no consumption of electricity in night.·Pakistan does not believe in filing for patents and they freely allow the commercial exploits of of their innovations for peaceful activities: IEDs, Terrorist tactics, Nuclear technology·New Business Registered: Did we included the Gun businesses in tribal area (like Peshawar )? Did we included the Marijuana and its allied businesses in Pakistan? That’s why the below number is skewed in the favor of India.The above parameters does indicate that Pakistan is truly a developed country and India is trying to chase it. poor India.Sources:India vs Pakistan: Economy Facts and Stats