Indeed. A thing will ALWAYS correlate to itself. However, what he's suggesting is that, while people claim patents correlate to innovation, that in fact they correlate to nothing other than themselves. If patents only exist to glorify themselves, what good are they?
That is absolutely true. However, intentionally focusing on a minor point while completely disregarding/discounting the main point is a bit thoughtless.
Interesting tactic: make me seem like the bad guy for pointing out that you are focusing in on a topic that, as you admit, isn't the actual point of the statement. It's such an effective tactic, in fact, that it's the basis behind ALL magic tricks; it's called misdirection. What I would or would not "like" is also NOT the topic. Please stay on topic "Mr. Senator".
"If you decide to go the sue sue sue route, you pay a law firm"
and that's the problem with today's businesses. They'd rather PAY money on a shot that they MIGHT make more back, instead of use FREE advertising. This type of practice is NOT capitalistic it is imperialistic; they are NOT the same.
" when hats were worn by everyone, the accepted manners of the time were that they were removed when indoors"
I feel I must also point out, that at that time it was considered equally rude to go outside WITHOUT a hat.
Aside, these are still practiced by today's military. You don't go outside "uncovered", and you remove your "cover" when going inside. If your particular faith, creed, etc, requires a specific headdress at all times, it must be small enough to not be seen when "covered", such as a Yamilke.
Which makes the "well dressed guy" far more dangerous, because no one would be suspicious of him.
And if you were somehow injured, you would be inclined to dismiss the "menacing looking guy" when he told you he was a doctor.
While I disagree with Bart's assessment of today's society, each of us has an instinct about people we see out in public. It's commonly known as "first impression". Whether right or wrong, every one of us instantly assesses each and every person we encounter.
The moral: dress and act the way you want people to see you.
This is an unwritten offshoot of "The Golden Rule": treat others as you would have them treat you.
This string of arguments has departed from the issue.
1)There are people out there who are offended by something that you might do, and they have their reasons; get over it!
2)There are people out there who are doing things that you find offensive, and they have their reasons; get over it!
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tells Congress that there can be no law about this issue at all; not that whatever law exists cannot favor one side or the other, but that THERE CANNOT EVEN BE A LAW ABOUT IT!
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
--commonly attributed to Ben Franklin
To paraphrase:
Giving up freedom so you can be safe, means that you don't deserve to be free, and you don't deserve to be safe!
While most amusing, your argument is self-defeating: except for Emperor Palpatine, who kept his on to hide disfigurement, even the Sith remove their hoods indoors.
"I don't think we've actually objectively established that people should have been brought up to take off their headwear just because they walk underneath a ceiling."
Ummm, actually, you should alter that to read:
"We don't objectively establishe that people should have been brought up to take off their headwear just because they walk underneath a ceiling {ANYMORE}"
And to clarify, while not removing your hat indoors used to be considered bad manners -- and therefore rude -- it was never considered "offensive"; much the same as how it is still considered rude to cuss around kids.
On the post: Patents Create Incentives For More Patents, Not Innovation
Re: Patents have always been a dumb measure of inventiveness
What's a "productive innovation"? :P
On the post: Patents Create Incentives For More Patents, Not Innovation
Re: Re: Uh...what?
On the post: Patents Create Incentives For More Patents, Not Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Those who are afraid of China should rejoice...
But what about businesses that are "too big to fail"...?
On the post: Inflatable Gorilla Sues Google Over Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, again, we digress.
On the post: Inflatable Gorilla Sues Google Over Copyright?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Inflatable Gorilla Sues Google Over Copyright?
Re: Free publicity
Will they CAPITALIZE (i.e. capitalism) on it and make a profit?
Or will they try to TAKE money AWAY from another company? (i.e. imperialism)
On the post: Inflatable Gorilla Sues Google Over Copyright?
Re:
On the post: Inflatable Gorilla Sues Google Over Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: promo?
and that's the problem with today's businesses. They'd rather PAY money on a shot that they MIGHT make more back, instead of use FREE advertising. This type of practice is NOT capitalistic it is imperialistic; they are NOT the same.
On the post: Inflatable Gorilla Sues Google Over Copyright?
Re:
The point is "what exactly does Scherba believe it's 'lost' here, that it needs to sue Google?"
On the post: ACTA Negotiators 'Meeting' With Consumer Advocates Involved 'Negotiators Eating With Negotiators'
Hmmm
Cuz those notes aren't going to be biased at all; to say nothing of the agendas the news agencies are being paid to further (or squelch).
On the post: ACTA Negotiators 'Meeting' With Consumer Advocates Involved 'Negotiators Eating With Negotiators'
Re: Hey Rocky....
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Pushin' 100.
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel I must also point out, that at that time it was considered equally rude to go outside WITHOUT a hat.
Aside, these are still practiced by today's military. You don't go outside "uncovered", and you remove your "cover" when going inside. If your particular faith, creed, etc, requires a specific headdress at all times, it must be small enough to not be seen when "covered", such as a Yamilke.
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: Re: Re:
And if you were somehow injured, you would be inclined to dismiss the "menacing looking guy" when he told you he was a doctor.
While I disagree with Bart's assessment of today's society, each of us has an instinct about people we see out in public. It's commonly known as "first impression". Whether right or wrong, every one of us instantly assesses each and every person we encounter.
The moral: dress and act the way you want people to see you.
This is an unwritten offshoot of "The Golden Rule": treat others as you would have them treat you.
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1)There are people out there who are offended by something that you might do, and they have their reasons; get over it!
2)There are people out there who are doing things that you find offensive, and they have their reasons; get over it!
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tells Congress that there can be no law about this issue at all; not that whatever law exists cannot favor one side or the other, but that THERE CANNOT EVEN BE A LAW ABOUT IT!
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re:
--commonly attributed to Ben Franklin
To paraphrase:
Giving up freedom so you can be safe, means that you don't deserve to be free, and you don't deserve to be safe!
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: you really
And all of you thought Bush was bad for unwarranted phone call taps????!!!!!!!
Oh yeah and let's all just forget about THIS one:
http://dailycensored.com/2010/06/30/assassination-hit-list-in-america/
"Bush wire-taps were horrible, but MURDERING U.S. citizens is ok. BAAAA. BAAA."
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: Hijab
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: Re: Re: Its ok
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ummm, actually, you should alter that to read:
"We don't objectively establishe that people should have been brought up to take off their headwear just because they walk underneath a ceiling {ANYMORE}"
And to clarify, while not removing your hat indoors used to be considered bad manners -- and therefore rude -- it was never considered "offensive"; much the same as how it is still considered rude to cuss around kids.
Next >>