[Mongoose]

George Washington warned against the development of political parties in general, actually...and as it turned out, he was the first and last president to not belong to one.  As I've said before, I'd love to see what sort of ass he'd kick and gum he'd chew were he to wake up in the modern-day city that bears his name and see what's been going on.

As for why the US has almost always been a strictly two-party system...that's a very good question, actually, and probably one I may have heard answered in a past history or political science class, though I don't remember it if it was.  I do know that the original two opposing political parties arose from two diametrically-opposed general viewpoints about the American system of government, most notably represented by the political philosophies of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson; in fact, the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson wound up evolving into the modern-day Democratic Party, even though its original views were far more in line with what we call "conservatism" today.  The main opposition parties in each era of American government were primarily opposition parties to the Democrats, so I suspect that that philosophy simply gained momentum to the point that we have today's incredibly-well-established two-party system.  Interestingly enough, the Republican Party started out as something of a "third party" itself, so it isn't as though there isn't precedent for that sort of thing in American politics; except for maybe someone like Ross Perot, though, third parties seem to have had significantly more impact in the past than they have over the past several decades.  I'm no political history expert, though, so don't take any of that as gospel.

[Kosh]

George Washington warned against the development of political parties in general, actually...and as it turned out, he was the first and last president to not belong to one.

And he was dead on. For example, even after 8 years of Bush so many people still voted for McCain whose campaign platform was basically he would do what Bush was doing. Why? Because he had an "R" to the right of his name instead of a "D". 

[perihelion]

I propose we clone TR and bring him back to be the next president.  We need some of his tough love on some big business around here. 

 

That, my friend, would be amazing.

Thirded.  And while you are at it, resurrect the Bull Moose party.     

[Mongoose]

Call it the GAR Party instead.

[Tomo]

In theory, to get a patent you need to prove that the invention is new, useful, and non-obvious, and they often get shot down in court if the definitions are too vague.

That's the European system, not the US system.

The US system doesn't have a requirement for it to be either useful or non-obvious.

In fact, the US system barely requires it to be new, because they define 'new' as being "Not on the market in the US before", rather than "Not made before".
It also relies on litigation to determine whether or not a given patent is for something "new", as almost every application is granted.

For example:
In 1997, Color Kinetics (now owned by Philips) applied for a US patent on the idea of Pulse-Width-Modulation dimming of LEDs for colour mixing (US patent number 6,016,038, filed in August 1997 and granted in January 2000). If PWM and using two different coloured lights is not incredibly obvious, I don't know what is.

In terms of prior art, I was doing that in school before they filed the patent - but I never sold a product in the US (on account of being in secondary school and living in a different country), so under their rules it doesn't count.

[Rian]

Er, no. I'm taking a class on this, remember? And an actual US patent examiner came and talked to us?

From the US Patent and Trademark Office website:

"The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent."

"...an invention cannot be patented if: '(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,' or '(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .'"

"If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained."

"Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious."

New, useful, nonobvious. It's right there, as is the provision for a product that is already known or patented internationally. Check your facts.

Now, it's often unclear where the boundaries lie, so a given examiner may err on the side of granting the patent.  It's not a perfect system, to be sure. But in that case, the patent can be challenged in court and shot down if it fails to meet these standards.

[Tomo]

So how do so many US patents that are entirely obvious get granted? For example, the one above!
There is also a US patent for "Using more than four different colour LEDs" to make a colour mixing light. (Devices with 2, 3, and 4 different colour LEDs already existed, and are even referenced in that patent)

The list of patents that are extremely obvious purely in my field of expertise is incredibly long.

In IT, there's a patent on parsing XML that Microsoft is currently fighting. It even mentions SGML in the patent.

So the only possible reason would be that the patent examiners themselves are totally incompetent.

The way the US patent system appears to work in practice is "Grant everything and let the lawyers sort it out".
- Thus the guys with the most money win in almost every case.

[iamzack]

gene patents.

[redsniper]

GAR Party

This is what we need.

[StarSlayer]

GAR Party

This is what we need.

Statesmen capable of delivering two hour speeches after being shot need apply.

[Ghostavo]

Roosevelt?

[Rian]

So how do so many US patents that are entirely obvious get granted? For example, the one above!
...
The way the US patent system appears to work in practice is "Grant everything and let the lawyers sort it out".
- Thus the guys with the most money win in almost every case.

I already addressed this.

...I think you could certainly argue for stricter standards of novelty and obviousness, and perhaps for shortened patent life, depending on how much incentive people actually need.
...
The challenge is to create a system that dissuades this kind of exploit while providing adequate protection to those who are actually making a meaningful contribution.

There's room for improvement, to be sure. But it's demonstrably false to claim that the requirements aren't there at all. The problem is insufficiently stringent standards, not the lack of them.

[mxlm]

The Depression would have happened with or without Hitler, so you probably just get a different guy to takeover. Mussolini would have still come to power too. Your other alternative is basically a different war against the USSR starting the same way when Poland gets screwed over again. (In which case I suppose said words actually would be frightening, coming from a Stalinist as they would have.)

I'm not entirely sure what the last sentence here means, but that aside; maybe. Maybe. Maybe someone else takes power. Maybe you get a world war with the USSR in place of the Third Reich, and hell, maybe it's worse than the actual war was. I don't see that as a given by any means.

Bull****. Somebody was going to shatter Japanese isolation. Imperial Japan was an inevitable consequence of that.

Depends on how they go about shattering it, no? If you, say, emulate the British approach to China there won't be an Imperial Japan because there won't be any opportunity for them to develop a strong industrial base and military. Certainly not in time to sink the Russian fleet or annex Korea or invade Manchuria or attack the US and its holdings. At a minimum you push that sort of thing back several decades.

Not that I think the British approach to China should have been emulated, but that's just one fairly obvious example of how you don't get Imperial Japan, or at least not until much later than was actually the case.

Yes, I'm sure. That's why they'd mostly stopped fighting them except for the Moros.

In my judgment Spain's empire wasn't going to last much longer regardless, and while a somewhat lengthier Spanish occupation wouldn't have been desirable, it strikes me as preferable to the losses resulting from the American occupation and pacification. For that matter, it's not as though the Philippines has been wonderfully stable since the pacification.

[TrashMan]

No. The primary difference is the area that they meddle in that causes the most ire from the other side. The democrats like big social projects. The Republicans like curtailing personal freedoms. Personally I'd far rather have the former. You simply prefer the Republicans because for all your talk about wanting small government you actually want those personal freedoms curtailed.

Oh, please

That's such a load of bull****. You're description of the two parties is just as accurate as this one:
"Democrats like to sell fog to the people . The Republicans like moral values."
OR
"Democrats like chaos. The republican like order."

I can write a dozen differen variations and so can you. The thing is - those are pretty much only valid for you (or me). They are not facts or truth, but how you see and label things. The same actions can be interpreted differntly by different people.

[iamzack]

Except that kara's assertions can be backed up by evidence.

Dems like big social projects --> health insurance reform, public option, etc

Repubs like curtailing personal freedoms --> gay marriage, war on drugs, etc

[Ford Prefect]

It's too late; TrashMan has already retreated into his shroud of epistemological anarchy. At this point it's like trying to track the mouse after it's escaped into the wall.

[Ghostavo]

I wonder what D&D alignment the two parties have.

[redsniper]

Both are Lawful Evil.

[iamzack]

Republicans are more lawful having-sex-with-young-boys.

[Liberator]

Oh yes, let's equate a political party to Paedophiles....