Climate Change

[xilman]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Of course.

FYI, Redcoat is a slang term for an English soldier, made popular sometime around 1776.

Thank you, Yank. However, I was well aware of that fact many years ago. You will find that "redcoat" was a popular term long before 1776. It may even have been in the North American colonies; it certainly was elsewhere in the Empire.

Paul

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by xilman

Thank you, Yank. However, I was well aware of that fact many years ago. You will find that "redcoat" was a popular term long before 1776. It may even have been in the North American colonies; it certainly was elsewhere in the Empire.

Maybe I should have formulated it as:

"It's Mr. Uneducated-in-intellectual-property-law to you, Mr Redcoat."

If I had written:

"It's Mr. Uneducated-in-intellectual-property-law to you, Monsieur Redcoat.",

would you have understood it as an insult? Most Englishmen I know aren't too thrilled when I ask them:

"You're from England? The island off the coast of France, with the lousy food and the crappy weather?"

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

A law that regulates the ownership of ideas or concepts is absurd.

Quite the contrary - Anyone who has spent significant time and-or money developing, patenting and marketing an idea will tell you there's very good reason for the concept of Intellectual Property. Simply because you decree it "absurd" is not a legal remedy. By your above argument, if you spent years researching and writing a PhD thesis, it would be perfectly OK for me to copy it, affix my name and claim it as my own.

HRB, your tireless promotion of anarchy makes me wonder whether you have ever lived in a genuine state of such.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Quite the contrary - Anyone who has spent significant time and-or money developing, patenting and marketing an idea will tell you there's very good reason for the concept of Intellectual Property.

What kind of argument is that?

Anyone who has spent significant time and-or money learning how to hurt people and wreck stuff will tell you that there is a very good reason to start a war.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Simply because you decree it "absurd" is not a legal remedy. By your above argument, if you spent years researching and writing a PhD thesis, it would be perfectly OK for me to copy it, affix my name and claim it as my own.

If my thesis isn't published, you'd have to steal the physical medium from me (regular property rights cover that), and if I had it published, I'll have to make sure that everybody knows that you are a liar, which means that I'll get extra publicity, because most PhD theses are not worth claiming as one's own. It's a funny thing that intellectual pollution isn't plagiarized.

Also, if you think that just because something is legal, that this means it's OK to do it, then it is interesting to know that, if it were legal for you to marry your dog, cut off its head and have sex with its esophagus, you would.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

HRB, your tireless promotion of anarchy makes me wonder whether you have ever lived in a genuine state of such.

Everything appears yellow to the jaundiced eye. Minimum regulation does not necessarily mean zero regulation.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Minimum regulation does not necessarily mean zero regulation.

Yes it does. No regulation is possible, and negative regulation is impossible. Hence zero regulation is the minimum level of regulation.

I'm sure you had a different meaning in mind, but it isn't clear what that is. My best guess is "the ideal level of regulation is low but nonzero".

[ewmayer]

__HRB__, thanks for sharing your "In the springtime, the young sociopath's thoughts turn to romance..." fantasies with us. But sorry to say, your extremist form of forum conversing isn't particularly shocking nor interesting - it just makes any attempt to engage you in meaningful discourse futile.

Welcome to iggyland - you'll have to try harder to score the outright ban you seek, but I'm confident you'll get there eventually.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Yes it does. No regulation is possible, and negative regulation is impossible. Hence zero regulation is the minimum level of regulation.

I'm sure you had a different meaning in mind, but it isn't clear what that is. My best guess is "the ideal level of regulation is low but nonzero".

The minimum requirement is regulation to ensure that there is a minimum of regulation. Think of the liar's paradox.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Welcome to iggyland - you'll have to try harder to score the outright ban you seek, but I'm confident you'll get there eventually.

What? I don't even get the drink-the-hemlock option for corrupting the youth and disbelieving in your gods? Bummer.

[MooooMoo]

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I'm sure you had a different meaning in mind, but it isn't clear what that is. My best guess is "the ideal level of regulation is low but nonzero".

How about: "The ideal level of regulation is lower".

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

"It's Mr. Uneducated-in-intellectual-property-law to you, Monsieur Redcoat."

Young Albert, stop poking Wallace with your stick!