tadmjones

in #55 DonAthos said The action of building a piano -- which is both "intellectual" and "physical" -- is protected in the resultant property status of the piano. One piano built equals one piece of property. The "action" of designing a piano alone accomplishes nothing in terms of material values, which are ultimately what we need in order to survive, and there is thus nothing to be protected. The further action of "embodying" that design in a single piano creates: a single piano. One piece of property, just as before. The property of that entire package -- one piano and the design of same -- is one piano. This is an example of the line of reasonning I question when discussing the validity of IP in a rational division of labor society and why it seems that this line blanks out on integrating the idea of commerce. If simply designing a piano renders no material values, does this apply to 'design' as such? have architects hoodwinked us all? If you pay someone (give them material value, trade ) to design a building but all you receive is a value-less design haven't you been taken advantage of? Or is the mental effort of applying knowledge to a problem and creating a solution a recognizable 'thing'? If it is a 'thing' in this sense , then can we not apply principles such as rights in property to it? Or does the lack of physicality remove it from the realm of materail value, that no individuals could mutually decide on a monetary value in order to trade for a purely 'mental' product?

heh

holycrap

The divisibility of integers is in no way indicitive of the identity of subatomic particles.

On what basis do you designate an 'inside'?

This is the kind of thinking , that I think is too prevalent in some aspects of 'modern' physics. 'Numbers' or perhaps 'integers' can be halved what like infinately , but this reasoning doesn't exactly to the properties of enities, does it? Can one half a proton and be left with two halves of a proton? I doubt it. Mathematics deals with quantities, a highly abstract field. But that does not mean that just because one can express some ratio or relation between quantities says anything whatever about the identity of entities as such.

Should not one decide how to deal with people based on their stated ideologies?

holycrap

I would agree, as long as we stipulate that there are no 'points' in space, only entities. "Points" being strictly a concept that denotes precise mathematic constructs.

What is the proper response to sanctioners of 'militant' Islam?

If situation A were to apply to two individuals in isolation , how or why would it be moral for you to act to keep me from sustainance? How would my copying of your design and utilising it be an action on my part that hinders your 'natural' freedom to act and catch fish? Would stopping me from copying by force, be an action by which you would gain or keep value ? I would say in that specific example that in isolation any force you would use to stop me from fishing, even with your design that I purposefully copied, would be an initiation of force, if not, against what are you retaliating?

In a civilized society, when is violence ever the moral response(aside from emergency) to a rights violation? IP is based on the context of a civil society, IP is meaningless to a man in isolation, the context of a rational division of labor society is the only setting were IP 'makes any sense'. 'Ownership of ideas, ..or ideas as such..' most of the discussion stemming from these types of ideas seem to me to be more along the lines of floating abstractions as concerns property rights , because the idea of commerce constantly seems to be dropped.

So if others in the neighborhood responded to the cries for help, whether it was GZ or TM calling out, and stopped the altercation by restraining the apparent aggressor, it would have been acceptable for the victim of the aggression to end the life of the aggressor on the spot? This is an example of a rational, moral act ?

Um yeah, sometimes I should read and not post. Basically I doubt this case would receive the coverage it has, if Trevon was white. It was a local story until Sharpton and his ilk began his involvement and media attention. The attention is purely political. None of the evidence so far public, seems to me to indicate that the authorities acted incorrectly the night of the incident and assessing the situation as one of self defense.

I think if it weren't for current the cutural understanding as concerns race, this post would not be.

I meant that within the context of plenum, the idea of a point without extension is valid, as long as it (an extension-less enitity) is considered within the context of mathematics. A 'point' can be considered extensionless as long as the concept is confined to a concept of method. There can be no existential entity(entities) without extension or perhaps 'force' or 'charge', but those qualifiers are beyond my layman pervue.

Do you mean groups like The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and the like? I would consider those groups and their actions to be stealth jihad. Isn't Dearborn Michigan practically a muslim enclave? I think the city scholl districts have actually changed the practice schedule of its high school football teams to accomodate the observance of ramadon(sp?)

in #39 harrison said Tadmjones- I didn't quite catch that; would you be so kind as to phrase it as a syllogism? if you mean my comment as #32 Dude not sure, but you may have at least a minor case of orifice disassociativeness That was a slight, I was suggesting that your post 'sounded' like someone talking out of the their ass, I apoligize for the snarkiness, but of course not for the content that precipitated it as it was yours.

a point 'having' no extension is valid as long as the context of mathematics is recognized.

In #27 Strictly Logical said 2 I do not deny that perception and our perceptual apparatus are fundamental to obtaining information from reality. They are fundamental, in fact they are the ONLY tie a consciousness has to reality Does this not suggest a separation between self(consciousness) and 'reality'?

Dude not sure, but you may have at least a minor case of orifice disassociativeness

Which we in the West consider a civil right.

btw fyi i'm a new(old)generation guy, Throwback Pepsi is the best!

You say fraud here, so if I sell TadCoke as if it were Coke , that is fraud because I claimed to be selling Coke while in fact it was TadCoke, would Coke not have to be a recognised Real Thing in order for me to defraud the public by selling them TadCoke instead? So isn't Coke the Real THING?