longpath

zimmie said:

longpath said:

In short, because they can’t persuade to voluntarily accept their ideas, they prove the lack of values of their ideas by using the legislative approach. Good ideas don’t require force.

This is fallacious at best. Plenty of good (even necessary) ideas are unprofitable, therefore a low-regulation, profit-focused market will never provide them. For example, there's a reason the US federal government had to step in and make the interstate freeway system. Private roads can only be profitable enough to justify the investment at small scale or with very few vehicles (e.g., train routes).

Government exists to use force to compel people to do things which they otherwise would not, such as paying taxes. Democratic government exists to use this power in furtherance of the public interest, such as by providing public schooling. Arguing about what is in the public's interest is important.

Ironically you accuse me of engaging in logical fallacy while engaging in begging the question fallacy. That is, assume the validity of your argument as support for your argument. You also engaged in circular reasoning, and in so doing utterly fail to establish your attempted refutation of my premise that good ideas don’t require force. That force is used in a lazy effort to establish a positive end is not a proof for the necessity of force. At best, it establishes evidence of either ethical failure, lazy thinking, or both. Roads are not evidence of the need for taxation any more than procreation is a justification for sexual assault.

In short, because they can’t persuade to voluntarily accept their ideas, they prove the lack of values of their ideas by using the legislative approach. Good ideas don’t require force.

Anilu_777 said:

Owning patents for nothing but legal suits should be unlawful. 

One could well make the argument that since the portions of the Constitution authorizing the government the power to grant patents was ratified before Amendment 1, and that since Amendment 1 was therefore ratified after said portions, that Amendment 1 supersedes said portions. Since IP law in the US is entirely derived from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, & one could easily argue that IP law abridges freedom of speech, that Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, and all laws derived thereof, is null and void. I understand that Apple would never touch such an argument because of the vast trove of their own patents and copyrights that would be scuttled; but I find it surprising that I can’t find any indication of any entity attempting to use this argument to defend from patent trolls.

On the one hand, I’m grateful to have ceased using Facebook products, and on the other, I have to wonder how far back in time this data cache covers. I’d love to to know how I can check if my data or that if my kin was compromised.

AppleMac@76 said:

Just wear a Solar Powered G-Shock watch and be done with the whole having to plug in your watch at night or at any point during the day because the battery life sucks.

How much data does the Solar powered G-shock give the wearer? The trend in sports watches, as amply demonstrated with the Garmin Fenix series, is collecting data to improve training and performance. I say this as someone who owns and has been scuba diving with an Oceanus (Casio's former high end division) with solar power and it's titanium case is plenty robust for sports use; but it doesn't tell me a thing about what my body is doing, so it's utility ends at telling time (although I fully admit that's helpful when timing decompression stops, if you're not using a dive computer).