I've never liked first to file, mainly because it makes patents into a race, and you get half-done ideas. It wouldn't be a problem if the USPTO actually did their job, but they don't. Stats prove they're little more than a rubber stamp, and that means first to file makes patents even worse than usual in an effort to "scoop" the competition. It's like a bad thread where a dozen people race to post "FIRST!".
What do you mean, NOT DANGEROUS? They could get hemorrhoids and varicose veins from all the sitting they would be required to do! They need legislation mandating a 2 hour work day to prevent severe and irreversible damage!
Easy compared to other issues, like keeping the crew sane after a year in close quarters. :)
Actually, the one thing that really keeps a Mars mission from being reality, reactionless drive, looks like it might be closer than ever. Get one of those and you can just use a nuclear reactor to power both the drive and the SC shielding. At that point, fuel isn't an issue, so you can devote carrying capacity to stocks instead.
Of course, instead of a nuclear reactor, you could maybe use a LARGE solar panel array. Since you're only going to Mars, solar power should still be good enough. Not like going to Neptune or Pluto. In fact, rather than a mirror in front of the HTSC shield, put the solar panels in front of it. Instead of blocking or reflecting that heat-generating light, put it to use powering the shield.
No, that's easy, too. Long term flights will use tiles of high-temp superconductors for shielding. Current "high" temps may be too low for use on Earth (outside a lab), but are plenty high enough for space use if you also block direct exposure to the sun. So your Mars craft will have a light aluminum mirror over top a tile patchwork of HTSC angled to be between the sun and the craft. Easy peasy.
They meant RFID in general, not vehicle tracking. There's been pushes to add RFID to any number of things in the US and elsewhere that wound up not going anywhere because it represented an invasion of privacy.
This is nothing new. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" has been a staple of education for as long as there has been education. The thing is that we expect BETTER these days, not the same-old, same-old.
It's not confusing at all, it's the usual double-standard. Rich people want anything critical of them to go away, hence the RTBF, while they want to know who is criticizing them, hence the desire for a non-anonymous net.
So what should happen is that EVERY time a claim is made that fails, they have to go to copyright school before they can make another claim. No bans, no fines, just another round of school before they can make more claims. If they make 100 bad claims, 100 times in copyright school.
No, they could have proved it if he HAD altered the videos. That's simple to do. That saying "you can't prove a negative" only applies to certain things, not everything. "Prove that's not water!" Okay, do a little chemistry and you can easily prove a negative... or disprove it if it happens to be water.