MUST READ EDITORIAL FOR ALL SCIENTISTS
Marc Andelman
Editorial on academic patenting
in Science May 1 1998 page 698
Titled "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in
Biomedical Research"
Science Magazine has had some incredible editorials a cut
far and above the run of the mill science journalism.
This particular editorial highlights how government encouraged
university patenting of taxpayer funded work is creating
intellectual property gridlock. Hoards of interlocking
nusciance patents governed by university bureaucrats will prevent
utlization of technology,and ultimately, destroy the private market
for science professionals by making R&D unprofitable. R&D will
be plain impossible due to this gridlock. Nothing but the
current wasteland of academic jobs will remain.
Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in the biotechnology
industry. We have been warning of this for years. It is nice to
finally see some lip service from the mainstream science press.
Any comments please post to sci.research.careers and remove cross posts
from thread. Thanx.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Editorial on academic patenting
> in Science May 1 1998 page 698
> Titled "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in
> Biomedical Research"
>
> Science Magazine has had some incredible editorials a cut
> far and above the run of the mill science journalism.
>
> This particular editorial highlights how government encouraged
> university patenting of taxpayer funded work is creating
> intellectual property gridlock. Hoards of interlocking
> nusciance patents governed by university bureaucrats will prevent
> utlization of technology,and ultimately, destroy the private market
> for science professionals by making R&D unprofitable. R&D will
> be plain impossible due to this gridlock. Nothing but the
> current wasteland of academic jobs will remain.
Then you'd best recognize that this trend originates with the government
'downsizing' programs implimented when the right-wing took over. Their
philosophy is that public universities will be privatized and can earn
their own way or go under. Universities are responding in the only way
they can - by becoming businesses instead of educational institutions.
You and a number of others haven't got the sense to realize that you
have a noose around your neck because you put it there, and it is only
being drawn tight because you're yanking on it with your right hand.
>
> Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in the biotechnology
> industry. We have been warning of this for years. It is nice to
> finally see some lip service from the mainstream science press.
>
Recruitment industries, like any other, look out only for their profit
margins. Anyone who takes industry babble as an insightful commentary
on national policy deserves what they get.
M.
Uncle Al
You are so right. I implicitly trust Washington to protect me and mine
from drugs, pornography, unfair foreign business practices,
environmental degradation, corruption... to anticipate the downfall of
the Soviet Union, the overturn of the Berlin Wall, massive Asian
financial collapse... to surveil triple nuclear blasts by India,
transport 700,000 soldiers and $220 billion to Arabia to win a war for
all time, to build and maintain Space Station freedom (the International
Space Station, White Elephant in Space)... to erect self-supporting
Social Security and Medicare programs... to stop spam.
Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. The private sector is the
difference between America swallowing the planet and Europe whining
Socialist spews. I have no problem with headhunters. "If our people
were any good they wouldn't work here." Right on!
In case you haven't been watching, Mr. Clueless, American patent law has
been whittled into nothing vis-a-vis the independent inventor. Case in
point: For the past three years my company has been fighting USPTO to
patent a non-toxic formulation and delivery system which,
1) Cleared roaches out of several Los Angeles carnecerias. One
application, ten months of surcease.
2) Cleared roaches out of a Tokyo apartment complex. One
application, five months of surcease so far.
3) Cleared roaches out of a Hawaiian food warehouse. One month into
the field evaluation.
"Obvious to one skilled in the art." The Feds must be correct in
asserting that
1) Roaches are not a problem worthy of notice or solution, and
2) I can walk into any supermarket and buy a product equivalent to
mine.
The next turn of the screw is to legislate immediate public release of a
filed patent application, just like in the EEC. File a patent
application, watch GE or duPont shove it right back up your butt.
Go to a good library. Walk over to the Federal Register. YOU WANT TO
PUT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE?
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://pw2.netcom.com/~uncleal0/uncleal.htm
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Brian G. Moore
In article <355A51...@ix.netcom.com>, <re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Then you'd best recognize that this trend originates with the government
>'downsizing' programs implimented when the right-wing took over. Their
>philosophy is that public universities will be privatized and can earn
>their own way or go under. Universities are responding in the only way
>they can - by becoming businesses instead of educational institutions.
>You and a number of others haven't got the sense to realize that you
>have a noose around your neck because you put it there, and it is only
>being drawn tight because you're yanking on it with your right hand.
>
While I disagree with the strident tone, I could not have
said it better....
--
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
bg...@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
Material Fellow
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Editorial on academic patenting
> in Science May 1 1998 page 698
> Titled "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in
> Biomedical Research"
>
> Science Magazine has had some incredible editorials a cut
> far and above the run of the mill science journalism.
>
> This particular editorial highlights how government encouraged
> university patenting of taxpayer funded work is creating
> intellectual property gridlock. Hoards of interlocking
> nusciance patents governed by university bureaucrats will prevent
> utlization of technology,and ultimately, destroy the private market
> for science professionals by making R&D unprofitable. R&D will
> be plain impossible due to this gridlock. Nothing but the
> current wasteland of academic jobs will remain.
>
> industry. We have been warning of this for years. It is nice to
> finally see some lip service from the mainstream science press.
>
> from thread. Thanx.
>
> Regards,
> Marc Andelman
Marc,
You're a likeable guy. We talked briefly about something in which I am
expert, and in which you weren't. It was clear that none of my words
connected with your brain cells.
Uncle Al, Brian Moore, and re...@ix.netcom.com said the basics.
If we knowledge workers can't get paid for what we know and create, then
there is no point in a knowledge based life.
Scientists don't want to follow the well tred path of schoolteachers - a
knowledge based life of low pay and low respect.
Universities aren't stupid. They know how to do cost accounting as well
as any business. The conversion of Universities to businesses was well
under way following the Hippie revolts (demand that students be treated
as customers) and the post Apollo moon landing technical depression.
Over one million jobs of a technical nature were wiped out in just a few
years and the Universities saw immense declines in student technical
enrollment. This marked the "Internationalization" of the technical
departments.... faculty and students alike. As one of my former
labmates, converted to a big 10 professor remarked in 1979, "We only
graduated one white American in the last 5 years... All the rest were
women, minorities and international students...)
The brain trust cannot exist as an entity that freely gives out ideas
unless somebody pays. Somebody has to PAY. ALWAYS.
The claim is that the business model will solve our major social
problems. The business model is "Health Maintainence Organization" and
"Managed Care" with now 40% of the population not affording medical
insurance.
The business model is also "Profit Center" for the University -- through
patents and technology so they will become self funding and the Federal
Government can eliminate the expense of dollars with the mere cost of
ink for legislation enabling the "business model" for the Universities.
History
Over 100 years ago we had the full "Business Model" running the economy
of the USA. Little Federal government, little regulation. WE had just
finished a war to end slavery. Child labor was rampant. Women and
children were commonly used as cheap labor to replace male household
heads as wage earners and keep the salaries low.
We had the era of the "Robber Barons" and the "Trusts" which accumulated
vast fortunes in the hands of just a few. The pure business model was
there and functioned well. It paid low and reawarded a few high. No
good health plans existed, few vacations were there for the working
class, children were ruthlessly exploited.
Coca Cola President Asa G Chandler (ca 1900) is often quoted as
" The most beautiful sight that we see is the child at labor;
as early as he may get at labor the more beautiful, the more
useful does his life get to be."
100 and 30 years after slavery, blacks still are not equal socially,
economically or healthwise. Slavery was a BUSINESS DEAL.
60 + years after women were allowed to vote, they are still not paid
equally. Low cost female labor was a BUSINESS DEAL.
Taking history into account, I cannot imagine business bearing leaders
such as Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington or Roosevelt (either one). I
imagine leaders such as Bill Gates, Carl Erskin (?), and others who have
made fortunes while paying low wages, destroying employee loyalty,
promoting illogic such as "Health care is too expensive for the
corporations, so the employees will have to carry the burden."
Mark, you need to do not only technical homework, but historical and
economic homework as well.
--
I use stealth Java in my sig file.
It's there, but no one can detect it.
Brian G. Moore
In article <3559E6...@pacbell.net>,
Material Fellow <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Marc,
>
>You're a likeable guy. We talked briefly about something in which I am
>expert, and in which you weren't. It was clear that none of my words
>connected with your brain cells.
>
>Uncle Al, Brian Moore, and re...@ix.netcom.com said the basics.
>
>If we knowledge workers can't get paid for what we know and create, then
>there is no point in a knowledge based life.
>
>Scientists don't want to follow the well tred path of schoolteachers - a
>knowledge based life of low pay and low respect.
I would not go that far. My dad is a shoolteacher--elementary school
and adult-ed at the community college. I'd be happy with his level
of compensation and job security. What bothers me is that I might
very well wind up much worse off than him as I enter my 50's, if
things break the wrong way.
Material Fellow
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Material Fellow wrote:
> My kind of guy. Now we need to go beyond talk. Plan, then act.
>
> M.
The first step of any plan is to develop a common understanding of the
enemy. Without that, unless you are highly charismatic, plans are
doomed.
The basic plan should encompass a re-reading of the US history from
about 1850 to 1930. It need not be real extensive. There are a few
simple books like "what you've forgotten about American History" (made
up) and the famous "Cartoon History of the United States" (pretty overly
simplified).
The "business model" crowd have their ideals founded, often, in this
period of history. They read the side of history that is devoted to how
much money could be made by businessmen and how easily it could be made
without government regulation.
They don't read or value the body of work on abuse of child labor,
slavery, women's labor issues, importing and abusing Chinese males to
build the cross country railroad, and Irish in the eastern part....union
busting, the corruption of Congress by major business
interests......(well, they read that part)....
Arguments of "Fairness" or "Honesty" or "Loyalty" or "duty" pale to
insignificance when they impact on the large piles of money that can be
made with just selective application of the principles.
Those who promote the "Business Model" are smart.... make no mistake
about that. In order to put up a good battle, the opponents must also
be armed with historical and economic facts.
All battle movements by the "Business Model" will be cloaked by concepts
such as "free trade", "globalization" and other high sounding names.
However, these are shallow excuses for the real battle, greed which is
tacitly understood as the most powerful weapon, but whose existance must
always be denied in some way.
A good diversion, as Newt Gingrich has found out, is to talk fondly,
glowingly and lovingly about the former charitable works of the churches
and local communities and ladies societies as alternatives to government
services, for example.
Marc Andelman
You are a likeable guy too. Can I prevail upon you to accept
that your arguments are illogical, or if not illogical, are
predicated upon belief that values arbitary control by a few
self annointed bureaucrats? Academic heaven to be sure!
Material Fellow wrote:
>
>
> If we knowledge workers can't get paid for what we know and create, then
> there is no point in a knowledge based life.
>
Fine, let them own patents. But why should anyone own patents
paid for at taxpayer expense. Do you advocate an arbitraty
system of elite mandarins?
> Universities aren't stupid. They know how to do cost accounting as well
> as any business. The conversion of Universities to businesses was well
> under way following the Hippie revolts (demand that students be treated
> as customers) and the post Apollo moon landing technical depression.
Fine, let them operate as a business. However, by the same token,
ordinary business in any legitimate sense does not use tax money
to fund ownership of intellectual property on a massive scale.
WHo elects academis to use the power of the state to put a gun
to everyon else's head, in order to fund their own business schemes?
Regards,
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow
Hi Marc --
Kind of wish you had not replied. Hate to do this to you.
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> You are a likeable guy too. Can I prevail upon you to accept
> that your arguments are illogical,....snip....
Absolutely not! It is foolish to ask in the way that you did.
> Academic heaven to be sure!
I am absolutely not an academic. You have no grounds to make that
accusation, and I expect an apology. I am a businessman.
> Fine, let them own patents. But why should anyone own patents
> paid for at taxpayer expense. Do you advocate an arbitraty
> system of elite mandarins?
Let them eat cake, someone else said. And paid a price. Lots of
businesses own patents paid for at taxpayer expense. See later in the
letter.
Your remarks on mandarins are insulting, uncalled for and out of line.
> Fine, let them operate as a business. However, by the same token,
> ordinary business in any legitimate sense does not use tax money
> to fund ownership of intellectual property on a massive scale.
False. When I was with The AXXXXXXX Corporation -- funded by taxpayer
money, as a FFCRC, it was not uncommon to take an idea developed on
federally funded contracts and "convert it" into an idea owned by the
corporation by "refunding it" with corporate dollars.
When I was with AYYYYYYY Corporation, similar hiding of technology was
commonly practiced. It was in essentially the same manner. It is
common and widespread wherever there are government contracts and clever
administrators.
You appear to be naive with respect to this. I was a participant,
unwilling, on more than one occasion. Just like the cigarette
companies, we at times destroyed documents that later we decided should
never have been written based on the fact that the work could have
commercial value.
This goes on a lot.
> WHo elects academis to use the power of the state to put a gun
> to everyon else's head, in order to fund their own business schemes?
Marc, by your posts here seeking free information, and what we discussed
with respect to patentable ideas, you are one of the biggest sponges of
information I have met in a long time. That can be taken as a
complement. However, you have appeared to me to be ready, willing and
able to extract information -- at no cost -- from good minds and turn it
into private personal profit with no shares given to others.
I have the impression that you wish to continue to sponge ideas from
"Academics" and freely attempt to make money or patent aspects of them
relatively selfishly.
This is as a result of both personal correspondence of over a year past
and simply following your postings in these materials groups. I, of
course, also looked at your patents as you recommended me to do. Those
who look, and read what you post, may similarly make the analogy of a
sponge, but they may decide that you are an undiscovered Edison.
Therefore:
1)try not to ask foolish concessions such as you began with. Shows lack
of reasoning skills.
2) don't accuse a businessman with being an ivory tower academic.
Especially if he posts from a business address....NB Research. Shows
basic lack of reading and reasoning skills.
3) if you are going to talk about patents, please get the facts
straight. There is a substantial industry devoted to converting good
ideas developed in the conduct of government funded work and by clever
accounting and outright lies, claiming that they were privately
developed. Businessmen and large companies have about the same
propensity for criminality as regular people. They(businessmen) are
better at avoiding going to jail.
4) don't throw ringers in the discussion, including leading questions
about Mandarins, that show emotionality rather than rationality.
There are many writers who have discussed that well over $300 Billion of
federal money ends up as tax preferences and subsidies to private
business each and every year. The belief that US business "Pays for
everything it gets" is generally accepted as absurd.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > Then you'd best recognize that this trend originates with the government
> > 'downsizing' programs implimented when the right-wing took over. Their
> > philosophy is that public universities will be privatized and can earn
> > their own way or go under. Universities are responding in the only way
> > they can - by becoming businesses instead of educational institutions.
> > You and a number of others haven't got the sense to realize that you
> > have a noose around your neck because you put it there, and it is only
> > being drawn tight because you're yanking on it with your right hand.
> >
> > >
> > > Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in the biotechnology
> > > industry. We have been warning of this for years. It is nice to
> > > finally see some lip service from the mainstream science press.
> > >
> >
> > Recruitment industries, like any other, look out only for their profit
> > margins. Anyone who takes industry babble as an insightful commentary
> > on national policy deserves what they get.
> >
> > M.
>
> You are so right.
And you are absolutely correct in this assessment.
> I implicitly trust Washington to protect me and mine
> from drugs, pornography, unfair foreign business practices,
> environmental degradation, corruption...
Then you're an idiot. Washington responds to the pressures it feels and
the opportunities it's given. Washington is in the hands of the same
business interests that are keeping salaries low and jobs in short
supply, boosting immigration quotas to make sure things stay this way.
>to anticipate the downfall of
> the Soviet Union,
Not an issue here, but 'The Soviet Union won't last another 10 years'
Zbignew Brszinski 1979. He was wrong about one thing, though. The
Republicans have introduced soviet methods of governing into the U.S.
government.
> the overturn of the Berlin Wall,
You may note that this and the above are the same thing.
> massive Asian
> financial collapse...
Stock interests don't want us to know about this. It was going on for a
year before it reached the news.
> to surveil triple nuclear blasts by India,
> transport 700,000 soldiers and $220 billion to Arabia to win a war for
> all time, to build and maintain Space Station freedom (the International
> Space Station, White Elephant in Space)... to erect self-supporting
> Social Security and Medicare programs... to stop spam.
These semi-issues are unrelated.
>
> Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
Yes, it does. I've become as greedy as the worst of them.
> The private sector is the
> difference between America swallowing the planet and Europe whining
> Socialist spews.
The private sector has become socialist, communist, and Nazi - taking
the worst of these philospohies. Those who support the current status
quo are criminals who deserve incarceration at least.
> I have no problem with headhunters.
Then you have no problem with me. Happy to hear it.
> "If our people
> were any good they wouldn't work here." Right on!
Non-sequitor.
>
> In case you haven't been watching, Mr. Clueless,
You're a stupid s*t, Al. Keep talking you two-bit brainless s.o.b.
bastard and see what it gets you, you mindless twit.
> American patent law has
> been whittled into nothing vis-a-vis the independent inventor.]
The Republicans who have been screwing around with business,
universities, and the national lab system if you've got a problem. You
can't even recognize the cause of the problem you complain about. Quit
mouthing off and open your eyes, idiot.
> Case in
> point: For the past three years my company has been fighting USPTO to
> patent a non-toxic formulation and delivery system which,
>
> 1) Cleared roaches out of several Los Angeles carnecerias. One
> application, ten months of surcease.
> 2) Cleared roaches out of a Tokyo apartment complex. One
> application, five months of surcease so far.
> 3) Cleared roaches out of a Hawaiian food warehouse. One month into
> the field evaluation.
So? Everyone makes similar claims.
>
> "Obvious to one skilled in the art." The Feds must be correct in
> asserting that
>
> 1) Roaches are not a problem worthy of notice or solution, and
> 2) I can walk into any supermarket and buy a product equivalent to
> mine.
Must be true. Your solution sounds really terrible. Judging from this
I'd say that your problem is that your product stinks and you don't know
how to market. Why whine to me?
>
> The next turn of the screw is to legislate immediate public release of a
> filed patent application, just like in the EEC.
Then dump the Republicans. It's your only hope.
> File a patent
> application, watch GE or duPont shove it right back up your butt.
>
Then you'd better work to get big business out of government. Letting
top business do what it wants is the Republican agenda.
> Go to a good library. Walk over to the Federal Register. YOU WANT TO
> PUT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE?
>
No, I want to put the public in charge. Powerful democratic government
is the only way to do it. There is no other way. You do truly seem to
be an idiot.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Material Fellow wrote:
>
>
> Marc,
>
> You're a likeable guy. We talked briefly about something in which I am
> expert, and in which you weren't. It was clear that none of my words
> connected with your brain cells.
....and so on..
re...@ix.netcom.com
Brian G. Moore wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I would not go that far. My dad is a shoolteacher--elementary school
> and adult-ed at the community college. I'd be happy with his level
> of compensation and job security. What bothers me is that I might
> very well wind up much worse off than him as I enter my 50's, if
> things break the wrong way.
>
Things have broken the wrong way. You need to be able to hold out until
they can be fixed.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> You are a likeable guy too. Can I prevail upon you to accept
> predicated upon belief that values arbitary control by a few
>
They are not illogical - the control of government by and for the
wealthy is nearly complete in practice. The entire right-wing is
mobilized against the middle class and working Americans. You're a fool
and an ass, Andelman, and I expect it's because you have no education.
>
> Fine, let them own patents. But why should anyone own patents
> paid for at taxpayer expense. Do you advocate an arbitraty
> system of elite mandarins?
Taxpayers who pay $20k per year in direct fees to send their kids to
university, or taxpayers who pay slightly higher income taxes to send
their kids for free? Which taxpayers are you talking about here? It's
the destruction of the class of elite mandarins, not it's support, that
is being discussed here. When you free the public universities from
needing to behave like businesses they won't be so concerned about
controlling intellectual property. THen you'll get your way. The
policy you're advocating is going to increase your competition from
universities.
> Fine, let them operate as a business.
Then quit griping and whining about it. You've lost the argument
already no matter which direction you approach it, because you can't get
what you want by going in the direction you're headed. You simply look
like a clown.
> However, by the same token,
> ordinary business in any legitimate sense does not use tax money
> to fund ownership of intellectual property on a massive scale.
The hell you say! Boeing has a mountain of patents obtained from U.S.
military contract work. IBM is a business built on the foundation
provided by government. The computer industry, the internet, and many
small businesses live or die on SBIR - you haven't the faintest idea
what you're talking about, Andelman. You may be the biggest idiot on
the net.
> WHo elects academis to use the power of the state to put a gun
> to everyon else's head, in order to fund their own business schemes?
>
You do! You give them the option of funding their own business schemes
or losing their jobs. It's you, Andelman. It's your fault. Your
responsibility. You forced the gun into their hands. You are the
problem. You are the culprit. It's you, Andleman. -> You <-.
M.
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> the net.
>
> > WHo elects academis to use the power of the state to put a gun
> > to everyon else's head, in order to fund their own business schemes?
> >
>
> You do! You give them the option of funding their own business schemes
> or losing their jobs. It's you, Andelman. It's your fault. Your
> responsibility. You forced the gun into their hands. You are the
> problem. You are the culprit. It's you, Andleman. -> You <-.
>
> M.
This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
Marc Andelman
Paul Kinsler
In sci.research.careers Marc Andelman <drgo...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > You do! You give them the option of funding their own business schemes
> > or losing their jobs. It's you, Andelman. It's your fault. Your
> > responsibility. You forced the gun into their hands. You are the
> > problem. You are the culprit. It's you, Andleman. -> You <-.
> This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
> so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
Social and economic deprivation is closely related to levels of
crime. What was your point, Marc? :-)
--
#Paul.
------------------------------+soluble fish+------------------------------
Inst Microwaves & Photonics, University of Leeds, UK. (ph) +44 113 2332089
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
X-No-Archive: yes
Marc Andelman
Paul Kinsler wrote:
>
>
> > This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
> > so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
>
> Social and economic deprivation is closely related to levels of
> crime. What was your point, Marc? :-)
>
True, but that should not be used to justify the Welfare state.
IMO, People need to accept responsiblity to uplift themselves.
React-X had the ludicrous idea that one should carry
the welfare idea further to support scientists as a
class of white-coats on welfare so that universities
do not need to steal tax payer funded patents in order to
institute a self annointed mandarin class .
Regards,
Marc
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> >
> > > WHo elects academis to use the power of the state to put a gun
> > > to everyon else's head, in order to fund their own business schemes?
> > >
> >
> > or losing their jobs. It's you, Andelman. It's your fault. Your
> > responsibility. You forced the gun into their hands. You are the
> > problem. You are the culprit. It's you, Andleman. -> You <-.
> >
>
> This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
> so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
>
You're going crazy, Andelman. You're knocking you head on the wall and
blaming the wall. You starve your dog then have him put to sleep 'cause
he gets in the garbage. You're shooting yourself in the foot and
blaming the gun. You get drunk and fall downstairs then blame the
stairs. It's you Andelman. You get hurt 'cause you jump out the window
then you blame the carpenter for building the house. You haven't got an
ounce of sense so you may as well quit pretending that you do. It's
your fault, Andelman. It's your responsibility. You're the culprit.
You put your neck in the noose and you are drawing the rope tight. It's
you, Andelman. You. ->You<-.
M.
P.S. It's you. Your fault. Your responsibility. You're to blame.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Paul Kinsler wrote:
>
> In sci.research.careers Marc Andelman <drgo...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > or losing their jobs. It's you, Andelman. It's your fault. Your
> > > responsibility. You forced the gun into their hands. You are the
> > > problem. You are the culprit. It's you, Andleman. -> You <-.
>
> > so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
>
> crime. What was your point, Marc? :-)
>
'Let them eat cake' said Marie Antoinette.
Not even the Russians wanted to rebel. They looked at the Tsar as their
Father. Then the Tsar's guards shot the demonstrators.
M
Mark Tarka
In article <355C54...@ix.netcom.com>, re...@ix.netcom.com writes:
|Marc Andelman wrote:
[Snip...]
|> This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
|> so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
|blaming the wall. You starve your dog then have him put to sleep 'cause
Hmmm.
I sense some sort of controversy, here.
Can anyone provide a concise synopsis that also identifies the
players?
Mark (Greed is good? Sloth is better, no EPA problems :-)
Paul Kinsler
> > > This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
> > > so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
> > crime. What was your point, Marc? :-)
Well, if spending some money helping others makes everybody
better off, why not? A "Welfare State" doesn't have to be
just unconditional handouts. Your point is presumably that you
dont think it worth _your_ money to help others.
Material Fellow
Mark Tarka wrote:
> I sense some sort of controversy, here.
>
> Can anyone provide a concise synopsis that also identifies the
> players?
>
> Mark (Greed is good? Sloth is better, no EPA problems :-)
Mr. Andleman can be found on Dejanews with 3000 posts, mostly in
sci.research.careers where he dialogs and markets his placement service,
I think Biotech.
He declined to go to graduate school in plant research, for reasons he
has posted in sci.research.careers. He is an advocate of self education
and small business and patenting ideas for the private sector, but the
university sector ideas should all be made public domain so as to
strengthen the patent sector.
He has expressed desire to do away with tenure in the university system,
has expressed some sentiments about the worthlesness of higher
education, except to further the faculty drone system.
He has rhetoric talents, not universally understood.....
..............................................
> > In article <34EDBB...@ultranet.com>, Marc Andelman
> > <drgo...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Has anyone else here gotten threatening
> > >notes from XXX YYYYY? I admit to
> > >a genius at irritating people, so maybe
> > >I deserve no sympathy.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Marc Andelman
> >
> >
> > Hi Marc
> >
> > Yes, you are an expert at irritating people online, and I have mastered the
> > art of iritating on a direct basis. We should "duke it out" outside of the
> > src arena, as Michael Young suggested the other day in a note to me. At
> > that time, I thought it was an annoying editorial comment, but now in
> > hindsite I see he was right. I'd prefer to see flames go across private
> > email, as opposed to the net.
> >
> > XXX YYYY
>
.....................................................................
The following is his own paragraph which he sent to me by e-mail and has
consented to have made public in total.
.............
> Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> >
> > I think I give a lot of valuable insight that can save decades
> > of wasted time. My major advice is to drop out of school and
> > start your own company, together with self education. I
> > support this very well with examples of real-life entrepreurs
> > that one would never ordinarlly learn about in the cloud of
> > current propaganda. I should give more technically, and have
> > in fact answered one or two technical questions, as well as
> > posting technical data on the net as my method of pubication.
> May I publically quote you in total of the above -- no snips or
> interjections?
>
I could care less. It is nothing I have not posted already.
Marc
.......................................................
Uncle Al is marvelous man, a crusty but kind hearted scholar... and so
far qualifies as the most widely educated scientific man I have ever
met. His basic background is chemistry, but he has wide ranging
interests.
It would be fair to say that a probable word association likely to be
found in his thought process is that "politician" and "scumbag" have
certain basic commonalities.
...........................................................
I'm just a worthless old man. According to some, I think all kinds of
semi-obscene thoughts and illogic which I have cleverly never stated,
but which are obvious to their superior intellects.....
The other gentlemen involved are former sparring partners of Marc from
other forums in the distant and recent past.
...............................................................
Horter
Marc Andelman wrote:
> Editorial on academic patenting
> in Science May 1 1998 page 698
> Titled "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in
> Biomedical Research"
>
> etc. ..............
Sorry for butting in on this discussion but I must comment on the thread.
I was one of those nasty Federal researchers that was destroying the
economy for 22 years. For those of you (such as Mr. Andelman) worried that
I am still receiving some sort of "welfare", do not be concerned - my
agency (Bureau of Mines) and my job was eliminated so I'm no longer
"stealing" money from any of you. Now that I've opened myself to
harassment, I'll proceed with my comment:
During my "bureaucratic" career I have learned a few truths about the
American business system. Admittedly these "truths" are extremely cynical
but they are based on personal experience. Part of the scientific method
is to refute a postulate by demonstrated example, please dispute these.
1. Everyone is on the take. No exceptions. Those with bigger sticks take
more from those with smaller or no sticks. "Education", "plight of the
elderly", "free trade", etc., are all sticks. There are very few who
actually give a damn about the "stick" they are wielding. The purpose, of
course, is to obtain money.
2. Money is money. Doesn't matter who provides it. The objective is to
use whatever means possible to get it and keep it. State run lotteries,
worthless products, asinine litigation, lobbying, health scares, taxes,
political sound bites - its a ponderous list. No matter how nonsensical,
unethical, or perverse there is always a means to justify the ends. That
is the bueaty of American capitalism, find a better competitive edge and
succeed. Subsidies destroy competition and weakens the economy.
3. Every business in the United States is subsidized by taxes. Barges,
trucks, freight aircraft, container ships - all use facilities constructed
with taxes. Utility right of way, satellite launches, transocean cables -
taxes again. The largest workforce of the Federal government (the US
Postal Service) provides low cost bulk mailing - tax subsidy. The
education system, paid for by taxes, churns out students trained in the
skills needed by business but avoids teaching how to compete with those
businesses. Law enforcement, patent protection, weather analysis,
demographics, and many more - all subsidizing businesses. Of course these
are "good" profitable subsidies. The "bad" subsidies address the human
condition, add to human knowledge, or generally provide some refuge from
the competitive battle.
Before our agency disbanded, we had a saying for current conditions in the
United States - "Welcome to the third world."
Mr. Andelman, if you can not compete, if you can not uplift yourself, if
you fall by the wayside, if you can not follow the economic rules you wish
to have -- there is no one left out here who cares. We are all carving
our sticks so we can beat each other to economic death.
Perhaps its a bad opinion but its mine.
Glenn Horter
Marc Andelman
Horter wrote:
>
> Mr. Andelman, if you can not compete, if you can not uplift yourself, if
> you fall by the wayside, if you can not follow the economic rules you wish
> to have -- there is no one left out here who cares. We are all carving
> our sticks so we can beat each other to economic death.
>
> Perhaps its a bad opinion but its mine.
>
> Glenn Horter
Small business has no problem competing, in spite of unfair
competition against the full weight of an intrustive government.
Large institutions greatest virtue is their collective stupidity.
What you are defending is called crony capitalsim, a crooked interconnection
of government, big business, and academia. Such a system is
bureaucrat run so does not allocate resources to where they can do
the most good. Hence I advocate a more "perfect capitalism" predicated
upon no holds barred free markets,
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION.
What you are defending is immoral and socially unstable, whether
pursued in the old Soviet system or in Indonesia, which last I heard,
has it's capital of Jakarta in flames.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow
Marc Andelman wrote:
> What you are defending is called crony capitalsim, a crooked interconnection
> of government, big business, and academia. Such a system is
> bureaucrat run so does not allocate resources to where they can do
> the most good. Hence I advocate a more "perfect capitalism" predicated
> upon no holds barred free markets,
> WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION.
>
> What you are defending is immoral and socially unstable, whether
> pursued in the old Soviet system or in Indonesia, which last I heard,
> has it's capital of Jakarta in flames.
>
> Regards,
> Marc Andelman
Marc Andelman goes on, elsewhere, to indirectly indicate how a small
business can thrive ---- for example by getting free heat which is
important in the cold NorthEast.
This concept may be patentable. It is generated by the juxtposition of
pieces of information already in the Public Domain. --- a theme
documented in several public postings of Marc--- where small business
can excell.
It appears as if, should it be patentable, Mr. Andelman can claim first
publication. Perhaps I can claim the right to franchise the business as
a means to reduce home heating bills.
........................................................................
Subject: How to heat your home cheap
From: Marc Andelman <drgo...@ultranet.com>
Date: 1998/05/08
Message-ID: <355385...@ultranet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to sci.research.careers]
Put out lots of ads for Ph.D scientists. Guaranteed that the
BTU's/cost of ad will be a low number.
Other good methods;
1. Buy pornographic material mail order.
2. Send letter to college admissions advertising oneself
as a "minority". You will be able to heat your house with
sollicitations.
3. Generally, get on as many junk mailing lists as you can.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
.............................. How to Run a PHD Recruiting Business
------------first lesson ------------Specific Recruit Casting
Southern CA location. Well funded company seeks computer guru,
expert in rational drug design based upon receptor interactions.
Interested people please E mail Marc Andelman
drgo...@biosource.ultranet.com or FAX 508 853 8772
Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in the biotech
industry. Unless specifically requested, please allow
me only to get back to you if in fact this is a dead
ringer for your experiences and interests.
Thanx
Marc Andelman
MF adds:
NOTE: Don't waste paper by sending replies to those who "fuel" your
business.
-------------------------second example - home based recruiting business
--------------- a wide area troll for applicants ------
Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in the biotech
industry and an employer paid fee service. We would
currently like to hear from people interested in
product manager to Director level jobs in marketing.
People must have industrial experience and marketing
background in therapeutics or diagnostics, most preferable
molecular biology orientated. Please understand
that I will only get back in touch if I have a position
that is a dead ringer for someone's experience / interests.
Thank you
Marc Andelman
MF added note: Saves paper and stamps by no reply "UNLESS there is a
special circumstance". Keep the burnables at home.
----------------------------------- Additional examples ------
president
Biosource
1 Parkton Ave
Worcester, MA 01605
Biosource is an employer paid fee service.
Our client, a Massachusetts company, is
seeking the following individual;
Biochemical engineer
hands on, creative individual with
knoweldge of membrane and filtration
processes. Small company in Massachusetts
that is processing a large MW
biomaterial from human tissue.
They are seeking someone who can
scale up a naturual tissue purfication
procedure. This is a fairly small
scale process and does not need big
equipment. The need here is to
develop an economical manufacturing
process. This person must be independent
and creative. Education level may
be Ph.D, MS, or BS.
Interested people should contact
Marc Andelaman by E mail or fax
(508) 853 8772 or call (508) 853-8803
or write ;
Biosource
1 Parkton Ave.
Worcester, MA 01605
Unless specifically requested, please allow
me to only get back in touch if this or something
else is a dead ringer for a particular person's
interests. Thank you.
Hi. Biosource is an employer paid fee service. We currently have
a position with a ...... Unless specifically requested, I will
only get back in touch if this or some future
opening is a dead ringer for the applicant's career interests.
Thank you
Marc Andelman
--------------------------------------- end examples--------
Horter
Marc Andelman wrote:
> Small business has no problem competing, in spite of unfair
> competition against the full weight of an intrustive government.
> Large institutions greatest virtue is their collective stupidity.
>
> What you are defending is called crony capitalsim, a crooked interconnection
> of government, big business, and academia. Such a system is
> bureaucrat run so does not allocate resources to where they can do
> the most good. Hence I advocate a more "perfect capitalism" predicated
> upon no holds barred free markets,
> WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION.
>
> What you are defending is immoral and socially unstable, whether
> pursued in the old Soviet system or in Indonesia, which last I heard,
> has it's capital of Jakarta in flames.
>
> Regards,
> Marc Andelman
As I feared, you missed the point. I am not defending anything. I am stating
the fact that we ARE in a time of "no holds barred" free markets. Government is
a "cash cow" and not the great manipulator any longer. Government is
manipulated by different segments of the economy to milk money from the "cash
cow" or derive some other benefit. A lot of the "new" regulations you complain
about are lobbied into existance to maintain the position of someone in this "no
holds barred" free market.
Militarist wave the banner of national security and build un-needed bombers and
submarines. Educational institutions decry bad test scores and use the funds to
build monuments or patent bases. The medical industry shouts of cancer, aids,
smoking, etc. and the need for more grants. Environmentalists scare the public
with news of toxins and the end of the world to create jobs for counting fish.
These are all viable, healthy parts of todays economy. Everything is rosey
until the "cash cow" dies.
What I have heard from you is that you don't know how to milk the "cash cow".
You are not competing successfully and it is not fair. As I stated before, no
one is left to care. Get yourself a good lobbyist and learn to milk the
system. Do not waste your time here wishing for the way things used to be when
honorable men gave a damn about the country and acted in a spirit of
benevolance.
Your arguments are based on a nostalgic view of "the way things used to be".
Elected officials don't do anything except run for office. Congressmen have to
raise about $25k per day to be competitive. There is no time to do the terrible
things you think they do. Legislation is written by staffers and lobbyist -
usually working for some group or company trying to get money, get regulations
to beat down competition, or get a loosening of restrictions to increase market
standing. If this legislation provides funds or votes it is considered -
otherwise it dies. Think this is an exageration - I HAVE SEEN IT. Up close and
personal.
Please, do not quote the ode of the mindless bureaucrat, either. The government
consists of a President, a Vice President, 535 Congressmen, and 11 Justices of
the Supreme court. The 1.9 million "bureaucrats" on the civilian side of
government are bound by Federal law to do what the 537 elected members of
government tell them to do. The elected officials decide what the bureaucrats
should do based on that capitalist principle - "what profits me the most?"
As I stated earlier, everyone is on the take, trying to get a share of the
action. Lables like "liberal", "right-wing", "free trader", "pure capitalist",
even "Democrat" and "Republican" simply indicates what nonsensical set of sound
bites will be used. It is ALL foo foo dust.
It may be a bad opinion but it is mine.
Glenn Horter
Igor Fedchenia
..
mike
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <355D63...@ix.netcom.com>...
>And it's mine. Good for you, Glenn! We're getting the basis here of
>people who can create a political platform that's good for and can
>rebuild the middle class - people want to work for a living without
>being dominated by work.
Sign me up too, although I'm not too optimistic about the success of such an
endeavor.
Unfortunately, some people will never be satisfied with a comfortable life.
They need another unused room, another automotive showpiece,
another...insert useless piece of material crap here... They have a problem
with self-esteem and think possession of objects or power will make them
feel more important....give their lives some meaning. I fear that is a fact
of our species. Despite all the "divine creation" ballyhoo, we're just a
bunch of well-groomed chimps fighting for bananas. Given the opportunity,
some chimps will fight vigorously to obtain way more bananas than they can
possibly consume. Those with these "biggest sticks" will thrive and pass on
their genetic heritage for the oh-so-promising future of humanity. Some of
us will choose to be the last vestige of our own genetic information. It's
not pretty, it's nature.
mike
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow wrote:
>
> Marc Andelman goes on, elsewhere, to indirectly indicate how a small
> business can thrive ---- for example by getting free heat which is
> important in the cold NorthEast.
>
> This concept may be patentable. It is generated by the juxtposition of
> pieces of information already in the Public Domain. --- a theme
> documented in several public postings of Marc--- where small business
> can excell.
>
> It appears as if, should it be patentable, Mr. Andelman can claim first
> publication. Perhaps I can claim the right to franchise the business as
> a means to reduce home heating bills.
>
> ..
I already took out a patent on it.
Look, don't castigate me for posting the truth. This is not in my
best interest as someone who runs the oldest recruitment firm in
biotech. However, it is a public service. I think I know what I
am talking about, after all, on this matter.
Place an ad yourself and find out. Scientists know the score. We have
gigabytes of resumes that we have been unable to service. That does
not make me happy at all. I once placed a tiny ad for a chemist, which
is supposed to be a hot field, in the Boston Globe. Eastern European
Postdocs enslaved at a local university were knocking on my door, and
had been waiting for us to open up the next morning.
As a scientist, your job market is totally screwed up by massive
state fundinng of excess personnel. That is why job requirements
are so ridiculously specific and mintutely qualified. Ask Art Sowers
if this sort of post was misleading or a lie.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Why you keep babbling your nonsense is beyond me.
>
> M.
For the last time, quit babbling your nonsense off topic to
these other groups. The original post referred to a research
article in May 1 science about univeristy patents .
This will seriously impact the job market for scientists.
That is on topic to every newsgroup, but I asked for follow up
to be on s.r.c, where we could use new blood and more intelligent
people than you ( and myself for that matter).
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Paul Kinsler wrote:
> >
> >
> > > This is the blue haired old lady argument that says pay everyone welfare
> > > so they won't be forced to take a gun to murder and steal from us.
> >
> > Social and economic deprivation is closely related to levels of
> > crime. What was your point, Marc? :-)
> >
>
> True, but that should not be used to justify the Welfare state.
A welfare argument. Interesting transposition.
> React-X had the ludicrous idea that one should carry
> the welfare idea further to support scientists as a
> class of white-coats on welfare so that universities
> do not need to steal tax payer funded patents in order to
> institute a self annointed mandarin class .
>
F* you, Andelman. Your policies force academics in to the business
world. You live with it, assh* and quit trying to pass the blame to
others. If you can't compete, there's a charity food line waiting that
will keep you fed until you can find some useful employment. You can't
compete, Andelman, and you're passing the blame around as fast as you
can. But it's your own policies that forced you into competition that
you can't cope with. Get a life, Andelman! You're a whiner and a
complainer, and I've had enough of your type. Why don't you go out and
get a useful job, and quit your whining for Chrissake?
Whine, whine, whine - nothing but whining from you.
I don't know why you think the state should take care of you by beating
your competition for you. You can't stand on your own two feet so you
want to lean on the state. You just can't cut it, Andelman, but it's
your own fault you're in this situation. You're a loser, Andelman.
Isn't that what you're saying? That you're a whining loser who can't
cut competition?
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
>
> I am taking this thread off the other newsgroups.
>
I'm putting it back. The thread is over when you quit whining about it.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > It's your responsibility. You're the culprit.
> > You put your neck in the noose and you are drawing the rope tight. It's
> > you, Andelman. You. ->You<-.
> >
> > M.
> >
> > P.S. It's you. Your fault. Your responsibility. You're to blame.
> >
> > M.
>
>
Ha! Why not whine about it, and get the state to beat your competition
for you? I just put it back. If you want it off, go away!
re...@ix.netcom.com
Horter wrote:
>
>
> During my "bureaucratic" career I have learned a few truths about the
> American business system. Admittedly these "truths" are extremely cynical
> but they are based on personal experience. Part of the scientific method
> is to refute a postulate by demonstrated example, please dispute these.
>
> 1. Everyone is on the take. No exceptions. Those with bigger sticks take
> more from those with smaller or no sticks. "Education", "plight of the
> elderly", "free trade", etc., are all sticks. There are very few who
> actually give a damn about the "stick" they are wielding. The purpose, of
> course, is to obtain money.
>
No argument. A good friend of mine was job placement councilor for the
many technical personnel laid off with the NAWC and other closings in
Eastern Pennsylvania. There are a lot of them. Few are finding jobs.
Most just disappear.
> 2. Money is money. Doesn't matter who provides it. The objective is to
> use whatever means possible to get it and keep it. State run lotteries,
> worthless products, asinine litigation, lobbying, health scares, taxes,
> political sound bites - its a ponderous list. No matter how nonsensical,
> unethical, or perverse there is always a means to justify the ends. That
> is the bueaty of American capitalism, find a better competitive edge and
> succeed. Subsidies destroy competition and weakens the economy.
Figure though that what you are succeeding at is survival. The big
stick survives, and after a lifetime we are stick wielders - nothing
else. We are no longer a civilization.
>
> 3. Every business in the United States is subsidized by taxes. Barges,
> trucks, freight aircraft, container ships - all use facilities constructed
> with taxes. Utility right of way, satellite launches, transocean cables -
> taxes again. The largest workforce of the Federal government (the US
> Postal Service) provides low cost bulk mailing - tax subsidy. The
> education system, paid for by taxes, churns out students trained in the
> skills needed by business but avoids teaching how to compete with those
> businesses. Law enforcement, patent protection, weather analysis,
> demographics, and many more - all subsidizing businesses. Of course these
> are "good" profitable subsidies. The "bad" subsidies address the human
> condition, add to human knowledge, or generally provide some refuge from
> the competitive battle.
>
> Before our agency disbanded, we had a saying for current conditions in the
> United States - "Welcome to the third world."
Exactly! Anyone who looked could see it coming! I predicted Reagan
would put us in debt because that is how big money wanted to run
governments - screw them with big debt so people's taxes go into the
coffers of the lending institutions hence owners. They'd been doing it
all over South American hit California, then hit the U.S. government.
It's time for a change.
>
> Mr. Andelman, if you can not compete, if you can not uplift yourself, if
> you fall by the wayside, if you can not follow the economic rules you wish
> to have -- there is no one left out here who cares. We are all carving
> our sticks so we can beat each other to economic death.
>
> Perhaps its a bad opinion but its mine.
>
And it's mine. Good for you, Glenn! We're getting the basis here of
people who can create a political platform that's good for and can
rebuild the middle class - people want to work for a living without
being dominated by work.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Small business has no problem competing, in spite of unfair
> competition against the full weight of an intrustive government.
More whining! Small business has every advantage they could want -
except the damned right-wing took away the resources of the middle
class. Nothing can stop a sharp guy with resources. If you've been
stopped, blame yourself because of your policies.
> Large institutions greatest virtue is their collective stupidity.
Did you know that a large institution doesn't have intelligence?
Really! Only the individuals in it have intelligence. But I think that
IBM, INTEL, Microsoft, and so on and on, all large institutions, can
probably outdo you any day of the week.
>
> What you are defending is called crony capitalsim, a crooked interconnection
> of government, big business, and academia.
No, no, no. This is what Capitalism is all about. When you support the
right wing, this is what you support. You've created your own hell-hole
and you don't have what it takes to learn anything. That's why you left
academia - you don't have what it takes.
> Such a system is
> bureaucrat run so does not allocate resources to where they can do
> the most good.
Management is terrible. It's run by people with low and moderate
education - people who couldn't cut the mustard. Managers suck up the
resources at the top. It's called the 'trickle-down' economy. It's the
right-wing economy. You think it would go away with smaller government,
but it wouldn't. It would make matters worse.
> Hence I advocate a more "perfect capitalism" predicated
> upon no holds barred free markets,
> WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION.
No you don't. You'd get squashed like a bug, and you'd be screaming to
government to help you just like you are now when you demand that
government stop funding research and industry. Help me, Daddy! Jimmy's
being unfair! Your only hope is to vote for big government and against
the right wing. You don't realize this, but it's true.
>
> What you are defending is immoral and socially unstable, whether
> pursued in the old Soviet system or in Indonesia, which last I heard,
> has it's capital of Jakarta in flames.
>
It does. The Asian miracle is having problems. Why should this bother
you? It's all part of your policies which includes smaller government
(how big is the Indonesian government), your monetary policy (the stock
market was running the place and lost control).
The policies Glenn has observed - I didn't notice he defended them - are
those implemented and fed by the right wing - the 'small government'
people who forced universities to behave like businesses. You're
brain-dead, Andelman. It's your own fault, Andelman. Your fault, your
responsibility.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
There are some damned insightful people in the world, Horter, and you're
one of them. Problem definition to Action is the place everyone gets
hung up. A plan of action is essential.
M.
Horter
mike wrote:
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <355D63...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >And it's mine. Good for you, Glenn! We're getting the basis here of
> >people who can create a political platform that's good for and can
> >rebuild the middle class - people want to work for a living without
> >being dominated by work.
>
> Sign me up too, although I'm not too optimistic about the success of such an
> endeavor.
>
> Unfortunately, some people will never be satisfied with a comfortable life.
> They need another unused room, another automotive showpiece,
> another...insert useless piece of material crap here... They have a problem
> with self-esteem and think possession of objects or power will make them
> feel more important....give their lives some meaning. I fear that is a fact
> of our species. Despite all the "divine creation" ballyhoo, we're just a
> bunch of well-groomed chimps fighting for bananas. Given the opportunity,
> some chimps will fight vigorously to obtain way more bananas than they can
> possibly consume. Those with these "biggest sticks" will thrive and pass on
> their genetic heritage for the oh-so-promising future of humanity. Some of
> us will choose to be the last vestige of our own genetic information. It's
> not pretty, it's nature.
> mike
I agree there is a lot of chimp in us, I've been known to grab bananas, too.
Another important aspect is that we primates are tribal beasts. A lot of us are
seeking validation or a sense of community. Humans seem to have a greater need
to belong to something successful, to receive some sort of respect or acceptance
from the community. I think the so called "attack on the middle class" is
actually a shift in the middle class sense of community. We are constantly told
that the "in group" use specific types of products, engage in specific types of
activities, dress in a particular manner. So, we who do not have these things
want them - mainly to be part of the community. However, there are people on
this planet that have little more than a shirt and sharp stick and have achieved
this sense of community. Yes, extremely poor people can be happy, go figure.
Kind of deflates all politico-economic arguments.
Today's competitive economics appears to exacerbate loss of community. One is
either a loser, which is a community to NOT belong to, or one is still
competing. The only community we seem to have now is to be an economic winner
and we all want to belong. Unfortunately, we don't know the definition of
"winner". So, as I alluded in previous messages, we carve bigger sticks for
use in our economy and keep competing until we lose to infirmity, age, or
whatever. We beat each other to economic death. Even Bill Gates, who many see
as the biggest "winner", keeps swinging his sticks - so is he REALLY a "winner"?
I dunno.
So what's the point of all this metaphysical crapola? Its what my "old man"
tried to tell me when I was a snotty nosed kid but wouldn't listen. Find what
you enjoy to do and do it well because the only competition that really counts
is with yourself. Michael Faraday is attributed as saying " ... always strive
for success but never expect it" - which is essentially the same. Build your
own community by gracefully accepting the successes of others and humbly sharing
your own. ALWAYS respect others, no matter what transpires. Yep, sounds pretty
cornball, I thought so too. TRY IT. It will take all the personal discipline
and courage you can muster. I fail all the time but I keep trying. Maybe in
the end that is the difference between humans and chimps.
It may be a bad opinion but its mine.
Glenn Horter
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
........
>
> As a scientist, your job market is totally screwed up by massive
> state fundinng of excess personnel. That is why job requirements
> are so ridiculously specific and mintutely qualified. Ask Art Sowers
> if this sort of post was misleading or a lie.
>
It's screwed up by deliberate policy of the right wing to screw it up -
to create competition and low salaries on the worker level, to eliminate
competition and raise salaries on the executive and corporate level.
It's not state funding of excess personel - It's government downsizing,
immigration, the pressure to keep stock prices high, and mergers that
have screwed up the labor market. You haven't the faintest idea what
you're talking about. Why you keep babbling your nonsense is beyond me.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> > M.
>
> these other groups.
Don't give me hte 'for the last time' crap you two-bit idiot. I don't
give a damn how many groups it goes to. If you don't like it - quit
posting.
>The original post referred to a research
> article in May 1 science about univeristy patents .
> This will seriously impact the job market for scientists.
> That is on topic to every newsgroup, but I asked for follow up
> to be on s.r.c, where we could use new blood and more intelligent
> people than you ( and myself for that matter).
>
I don't give a damn what your plans are. Getting more intelligent
people than you is easy. Getting dumber people than you is where the
problem arises.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
mike wrote:
>
>
> Sign me up too, although I'm not too optimistic about the success of such an
> endeavor.
>
Have you ever read book 2 of Goerte's Dr. Faustus? Most people haven't
apparently, and it isn't included in some of the great books series.
Point I.
One thing, though - extra charges, paperwork, effort, and so on need to
be passed up the chain, not down. If I need a doctor I don't want to
have to chose from a list of accepted HMO doctors. I want to go and
have the insurance company pay for it without a lot of backtalk. If
there is a problem with overcharging let the doctor and the insurance
company fight it out. I want nothing to do with their spats.
Point II.
Mandatory auto insurance can take a long hike. I shouldn't have to
insure you, as I do now, but only myself. The costs of acts of God
shouldn't be reflected in my insurance premiums, nor should the costs of
other bad drivers.
Point III.
Immigration has to stop until we can regain a strong and healthy middle
class. Trained citizens should not have trouble finding employment,
period.
Just for starters. But remember that competent people make a system
work. The system needs to be set up to remove temptation.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Horter wrote:
>
....
>
> I agree there is a lot of chimp in us, I've been known to grab bananas, too.
> Another important aspect is that we primates are tribal beasts. A lot of us are
> seeking validation or a sense of community. Humans seem to have a greater need
> to belong to something successful, to receive some sort of respect or acceptance
> from the community. I think the so called "attack on the middle class" is
> actually a shift in the middle class sense of community. We are constantly told
> that the "in group" use specific types of products, engage in specific types of
> activities, dress in a particular manner. So, we who do not have these things
> want them - mainly to be part of the community. However, there are people on
> this planet that have little more than a shirt and sharp stick and have achieved
> this sense of community. Yes, extremely poor people can be happy, go figure.
> Kind of deflates all politico-economic arguments.
>
> Today's competitive economics appears to exacerbate loss of community. One is
> either a loser, which is a community to NOT belong to, or one is still
> competing. The only community we seem to have now is to be an economic winner
> and we all want to belong.
Yes - otherwise you lose your house and can't buy food.
> Unfortunately, we don't know the definition of
> "winner".
The concept of what constitutes a winner has changed, but it's
definition is clear. The most money is top dog. Gates is top dog. No
money is the epitome of loser.
> So, as I alluded in previous messages, we carve bigger sticks for
> use in our economy and keep competing until we lose to infirmity, age, or
> whatever. We beat each other to economic death. Even Bill Gates, who many see
> as the biggest "winner", keeps swinging his sticks - so is he REALLY a "winner"?
> I dunno.
Yep. There are no other winners. Gates is 'the' winner and the
prototype for what the economic powers that be expect the remainder of
us to worship.
>
> So what's the point of all this metaphysical crapola? Its what my "old man"
> tried to tell me when I was a snotty nosed kid but wouldn't listen. Find what
> you enjoy to do and do it well because the only competition that really counts
> is with yourself. Michael Faraday is attributed as saying " ... always strive
> for success but never expect it" - which is essentially the same.
Our economic and political environment has made this very difficult to
do. Try being a theoretical physicist without a job in academia.
> Build your
> own community by gracefully accepting the successes of others and humbly sharing
> your own. ALWAYS respect others, no matter what transpires. Yep, sounds pretty
> cornball, I thought so too. TRY IT. It will take all the personal discipline
> and courage you can muster. I fail all the time but I keep trying. Maybe in
> the end that is the difference between humans and chimps.
>
Nope. It takes all the character you can muster because you'll be
pitched out on the street and looking starvation in the face every time
you turn around. It will take all the character you can muster because
when you do quality work and people don't like what you have to say, you
make enemies and get fired during the next round of downsizing. It
doesn't matter whether you're right or not, or how good your work was.
It doesn't matter whether you respect others. It doesn't matter whether
you 'share' or 'gracefully accept' success.
And the difference between man and chimp? A matter of degree more than
anything.
M.
Ted Mooney
Horter wrote:
>... Part of the scientific method
> is to refute a postulate by demonstrated example, please dispute these.
>
> 1. Everyone is on the take. No exceptions.
Okay, demonstrated example: Mother Theresa.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Good - but she's not part of the economy And she's dead. You need
someone who's alive.
M
Teel Adams
Ted Mooney wrote:
> Horter wrote:
> >... Part of the scientific method
> > is to refute a postulate by demonstrated example, please dispute these.
> >
> > 1. Everyone is on the take. No exceptions.
>
> Okay, demonstrated example: Mother Theresa.
I really worry about you all. I truly do. Have you never seen people
that are happy, people that know that the true glory in life is in basic
things. Do you live in the world of killer chimps? Have you never seen a
man or woman at peace with their god, and realized that is more important all
the bananas in the world?
Do you want to be Bill Gates? To you want to live your life as an insecure
whiney little nerd? Who wrets and fumes over when all the grownups complain
about his poor play ground behavior?
No, if you want to be that, then you've not analysed the system right, you
are trying to optimize the wrong system variables
Material Fellow
Goodwin's law of internet newsgroups postulates that the longer a thread
runs the closer to unity the probability becomes that someone will
reduce the argument to term of "Hitler" or "Nazi"
When that happens, Goodwin's law states that the person to introduce the
term be declared to be the loser.
React -- It is my sad duty to inform you that you have lost. Please
cease further contributions to this thread. You are inhibiting
successful progress of your viewpoint by further expounding upon it.
Thank you for your insights.
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
>
> Yes, it does. I've become as greedy as the worst of them.
>
> > The private sector is the
> > difference between America swallowing the planet and Europe whining
> > Socialist spews.
>
> The private sector has become socialist, communist, and Nazi - taking
> the worst of these philospohies. Those who support the current status
> quo are criminals who deserve incarceration at least.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Material Fellow wrote:
>
> Goodwin's law of internet newsgroups postulates that the longer a thread
> runs the closer to unity the probability becomes that someone will
> reduce the argument to term of "Hitler" or "Nazi"
>
> When that happens, Goodwin's law states that the person to introduce the
> term be declared to be the loser.
>
> React -- It is my sad duty to inform you that you have lost. Please
> cease further contributions to this thread. You are inhibiting
> successful progress of your viewpoint by further expounding upon it.
>
> Thank you for your insights.
>
React's Law says if a kettle is black you call it black, political
correctness aside. React's Law says that you are not the ultimate God
of NG newsgroups, and that your opinion is worth about as much as anyone
else's. If you're frightened to use the terms 'Nazi' or 'Communist' or
'Soviet' or 'Nigger', or any others, then you have become part of the
problem. The solution - the solution for you - is to decide if the
label is appropriate in the contect in which it occurred. If you can do
this, and if you can use the terms when they are appropriate, then
'Nigger', 'Nazi', and other buzz-terms no longer control your thinking
processes. As it is, you're trapped. You are mind controlled. I'm
sincerely sorry that this has happened to you, but you won't pressure me
into failing the same way you have.
I'll continue expressing my viewpoint in the way I see fit without
asking your opinion. Thanks anyway.
M
mike
Material Fellow wrote in message <355DD6...@pacbell.net>...
>Goodwin's law of internet newsgroups postulates that the longer a thread
>runs the closer to unity the probability becomes that someone will
>reduce the argument to term of "Hitler" or "Nazi"
>
>When that happens, Goodwin's law states that the person to introduce the
>term be declared to be the loser.
>
>React -- It is my sad duty to inform you that you have lost. Please
>cease further contributions to this thread. You are inhibiting
>successful progress of your viewpoint by further expounding upon it.
>
>Thank you for your insights.
Nazi refers to a particular historical group and is thus misused in this
thread. If "react" replaces Nazi with fascist can he continue? I'm
enjoying the banter.
BTW: Are you suggesting that no discussion could ever exist where a
comparison to Nazis or Hitler is accurate and therefore appropriate? What
about comparisons to Whigs or maybe Caesar? Just curious about the "rules".
mike
Material Fellow
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Material Fellow wrote:
> >
> > Goodwin's law of internet newsgroups postulates that the longer a thread
> > runs the closer to unity the probability becomes that someone will
> > reduce the argument to term of "Hitler" or "Nazi"
> >
> > When that happens, Goodwin's law states that the person to introduce the
> > term be declared to be the loser.
> >
> > React -- It is my sad duty to inform you that you have lost. Please
> > cease further contributions to this thread. You are inhibiting
> > successful progress of your viewpoint by further expounding upon it.
> >
> > Thank you for your insights.
> >
>
> correctness aside.
> React's Law says that you are not the ultimate God
> of NG newsgroups, and that your opinion is worth about as much as anyone
> else's.
For how long have you thought that someone else was or claimed to be the
Ultimate God of newsgroups?
If you're frightened to use the terms 'Nazi' or 'Communist' or
> 'Soviet' or 'Nigger', or any others, then you have become part of the
> problem.
Avoiding the regular and proficient use of these emotinally charged
terms is part of the old fashioned way of having social graces. It has
been found unnecessary to call upon them in ordinary intelligent
conversation. If you are offended by being compared to ordinary
standards of intelligent conversation, perhaps you should be talking to
a different newsgroup.
>The solution - the solution for you - is to decide if the
> label is appropriate in the contect in which it occurred. If you can do
^
x spelling is also still useful
> this, and if you can use the terms when they are appropriate, then
> 'Nigger', 'Nazi', and other buzz-terms no longer control your thinking
> processes.
This appears to be a clever use of low taste to justify itself. Look at
the wonderful way in which you have turned this into a derogatory
accusation. Then you top this by a logic process which claims that use
of such words suggests superiority! Raw talent you do have!
>
> I'll continue expressing my viewpoint in the way I see fit without
> asking your opinion. Thanks anyway.
There is no doubt that you will continue expressing your viewpoint in
the way you see fit, but being taken seriously or having an effect on
your listeners is something else entirely.
I had previously thought of you as a thinker, but somewhat crude.
Now you have been revealed as the related "stinker", your words become
offal as a deliberate means of expression, or as a lack of vocabulary,
and perhaps concepts. The frequency with which you use the F*** and
S*** words speaks volumes. You can't fully hide from yourself forever.
Please use grown up language when discussing grown up topics in groups
populated by grownups.
How can you be so taken in by the old horse joke of Goodwin's Law that
you react this way? I felt that even you had some semblance of
sophistication and worldliness.
You were right, I overestimated you. My deep aplogies for previously
treating you with respect.
.................................................
(this space intentionally left BLANK)
Material Fellow
> >runs the closer to unity the probability becomes that someone will
> >reduce the argument to term of "Hitler" or "Nazi"
> >
> >When that happens, Goodwin's law states that the person to introduce the
> >term be declared to be the loser.
> Nazi refers to a particular historical group and is thus misused in this
> thread. If "react" replaces Nazi with fascist can he continue? I'm
> enjoying the banter.
..........................................................
Looks as if two were fooled. Goodwin's law is just a shrewd observation
from the early days of the newsgroups. While they are a forum of useful
exchange of ideas, they can become a forum of spread of mere propaganda
and wordsmanship.
The way it is usually employed is to call a bit of a break in a tense
situation, and everyone usually knows that it is a humerous but well
proven method to call for some verbal cool-down.
Well, except for perhaps yourself and our now infamous "React", who
obviously reacted and over reacted. Kind of flipped out. Really
astounded me at first, but it revealed the lack of depth.
The book "Cheap Psychological Tricks" advocates watching a talk show
when you feel depressed. The reason it works is because after a few
minutes, most people will conclude that there really are other people to
whom they may feel superior -- those on the talk show.
Jerry Springer (and National Inquirer) represent media filled with
degrading information and or behavior that are guaranteed to "give you a
boost" of superiority.
React certainly fills the newsgroup need for this form of excitement.
I have no control of this newsgroup at all, so asking me if React uses
one term or another so he can go on has no meaning. Kind of sorry to
catch a lurker with this ploy, because you only read and enjoyed, till
now.
>
> BTW: Are you suggesting that no discussion could ever exist where a
> comparison to Nazis or Hitler is accurate and therefore appropriate? What
> about comparisons to Whigs or maybe Caesar? Just curious about the "rules".
> mike
This kind of confirms that you were taken in again. Sorry. Rules are
those generally accepted as "Netiquitte", and they are basically good
taste. We have no real "good taste" cops, except for usually self
respect.
If you like the "Jerry Springer" newsgroup show, why don't you grab a
chair and hit somebody? That makes you feel better than just lurking.
Bill Ward
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Uncle Al wrote:
<snip>
>> The private sector is the
>> difference between America swallowing the planet and Europe whining
>> Socialist spews.
[react responded:]
>The private sector has become socialist, communist, and Nazi - taking
>the worst of these philospohies. Those who support the current status
>quo are criminals who deserve incarceration at least.
How can the private sector be any of those? The difference between
the private sector and the public sector is persuasion versus
coercion. Collectivism of any denomination requires force. The
private sector cannot use force - that is reserved for the public
and criminal sectors.
<snip>
[UA continued:]
>> American patent law has
>> been whittled into nothing vis-a-vis the independent inventor.]
>The Republicans who have been screwing around with business,
>universities, and the national lab system if you've got a problem. You
>can't even recognize the cause of the problem you complain about. Quit
>mouthing off and open your eyes, idiot.
> > Case in
>> point: For the past three years my company has been fighting USPTO to
>> patent a non-toxic formulation and delivery system which,
>>
>> 1) Cleared roaches out of several Los Angeles carnecerias. One
>> application, ten months of surcease.
>> 2) Cleared roaches out of a Tokyo apartment complex. One
>> application, five months of surcease so far.
>> 3) Cleared roaches out of a Hawaiian food warehouse. One month into
>> the field evaluation.
>So? Everyone makes similar claims.
Could it be because he's right?
<snip>
>> Go to a good library. Walk over to the Federal Register. YOU WANT TO
>> PUT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE?
>>
>No, I want to put the public in charge. Powerful democratic government
>is the only way to do it. There is no other way. You do truly seem to
>be an idiot.
Fortunately, our Constitution prevents you from having your way by
force. If you recall, we're not a democracy, but a republic,
protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Please call me an idiot too -- coming from the likes of you I
consider it a high compliment.
Bill Ward
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote the following, defending state manipulation
of the economoy;
> Let's start with one easy point for you to not get. The state is not
> competing with most private individuals. It is providing most private
> individuals with opportunities to make a living both directly and
> indirectly.
>
In another thread, he wrote the following, criticizing a "magic circle"
that excludes free entreprise.
ea...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> William R. Penrose wrote:
>
> > The other name for this is "free enterprise".
>
> Not exactly. Free enterprise requires a degree of freedom. When
> enterprise is controlled and manipulated for the good of a small segment
> of society it is no longer free. It becomes, in fact, very expensive
> for those outside the magic circle.
>
So how is government supposed to make a fair playing field by excercising
state power to chose who gets hired,funded, or benefits from communal
largess? My original post was about an interesting editorial,or rather, an
actual research article in May 1 Science that makes a very good case
why academic patents will totally screw up the industrial job market for
scientists by making industrial R&D unprofitable. Yet all I hear is
ravings of a looney. I think everyone should be extremely concerned
about this issue, yet the only response is from some burnout who is not
firing on all cylinders.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
mike
Material Fellow wrote in message <355DF2...@pacbell.net>...
>Looks as if two were fooled.
Fooled is a strong word here. You made a whimsical post to which I
responded with another whimsical post. I'm much too cynical to be concerned
with anybody else's "rules"; unless I happen to agree with them in which
case the "rules" would be unnecessary.
I like React's posts because they show some intestinal fortitude and, imo,
many of them articulate an accurate depiction of our society.
>The way it is usually employed is to call a bit of a break in a tense
>situation, and everyone usually knows that it is a humerous but well
>proven method to call for some verbal cool-down.
Understood, I use the same tactic in "real life". Sometimes it works,
sometimes it gets me a sore nose :-).
>If you like the "Jerry Springer" newsgroup show, why don't you grab a
>chair and hit somebody?
That would be below me :-). Besides, it's too damned time consuming.
Entertaining yes, but not very productive. That's a problem I have with
usenet. It can be fun and productive but it's easy to get sucked into these
ideological marathons that accomplish squat. Now back to that paper I've
procrastinated writing.
Peace,
mike
Material Fellow
Nice chat mike, good writing with that paper.
When you take a break, head for the Goodwin's Law homepage at
http://member.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/index.html
Cheers.
mike wrote:
> Entertaining yes, but not very productive. That's a problem I have with
> usenet. It can be fun and productive but it's easy to get sucked into these
> ideological marathons that accomplish squat. Now back to that paper I've
> procrastinated writing.
> Peace,
> mike
--
Material Fellow
Marc Andelman wrote:
? My original post was about an interesting editorial,or rather, an
> actual research article in May 1 Science that makes a very good case
> why academic patents will totally screw up the industrial job market for
> about this issue, ..
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc Andelman
Actually, you are quite right about the issue of how focused interest in
Patents, and over patenting, can muck up the progress in a field.
The issue of patents in software raised the same issues -- how trivial
patents (sometimes "invented after the fact") raised issues of grave
concern.
I don't know the issues, but the parallels might be of interest.
It isn't just the patenting inventors involved, it is the overhead
represented by the administrators and legal staff that add complexity.
Since the software patent craze may have began a few years ahead of the
biotech phase, perhaps there are some clues there as to what will happen
-- it might die a semi-natural death -- and how to develop work-arounds.
There are other fields that have faced issues of patents and explosions
of information that could also have vital background that relates. I
don't think that it is a totally _new_ issue, but a variation on what
has happened before.
Marc Andelman
What is very new and quite unprecidented is that the government,
through academic proxies is funding trivial nusciance patents
on an unprecidented, massive scale, most notable in
biotech, but also in every field of science.
Broad fields of science are being patented and cut off at the
root from econmic development, held hostage by nit wit university
adminsitrators and univerisity licence departments who work
for institutions that will suffer no loss if such "inventions"
are not commercialized. Therefore, these are the most
arrogant, stupid, and least worthwhile people to negotiate with.
Ergo, almost no one will bother and industrial R&D capital
will go somewhere else, to fund government paper or whatever.
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow
Nice chat mike, good writing with that paper.
When you take a break, head for the Goodwin's Law homepage at
http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/index.html or
http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html
Cheers.
mike wrote:
> Entertaining yes, but not very productive. That's a problem I have with
> usenet. It can be fun and productive but it's easy to get sucked into these
> ideological marathons that accomplish squat. Now back to that paper I've
> procrastinated writing.
> Peace,
> mike
mike wrote:
> Besides, it's too damned time consuming.
> Entertaining yes, but not very productive. That's a problem I have with
> usenet. It can be fun and productive but it's easy to get sucked into these
> ideological marathons that accomplish squat. Now back to that paper I've
> procrastinated writing.
> Peace,
> mike
--
Material Fellow
Marc Andelman wrote:
> What is very new and quite unprecidented is that the government,
> through academic proxies is funding trivial nusciance patents
> on an unprecedented, massive scale, most notable in
> biotech, but also in every field of science.
>
This is a logical straightforward fact / opinion which isn't
controversial, but sets a nice tone.
> Broad fields of science are being patented and cut off at the
> root from econmic development, held hostage by nit wit university
> adminsitrators and univerisity licence departments who work
> for institutions that will suffer no loss if such "inventions"
> are not commercialized.
Putting the words "nit wit" in here detracted from your otherwise good
sentence. It can outrage me to see you _ruin_ a perfectly good thought
by overdoing it. It is like what I tried to tell React -- you can
either use words to hammer your message home or to hammer your
"opponent", but not usually both because it sets off a non-receptive
tone in almomst all third parties. Try to be better than React.
>Therefore, these are the most
> arrogant, stupid, and least worthwhile people to negotiate with.
> Ergo, almost no one will bother and industrial R&D capital
> will go somewhere else, to fund government paper or whatever.
>
Your emotions and feelings just overran your thought process here.
Arrogant, stupid, least worthwhile....not great communications, but
heavy emotional expressions. They ruined the logic you could have
developed.
Actually, this may mark the end of University / Industry collaboration.
On the one hand, if there is real money in it, Industry may go after it
on their own. The semiconductor industry did it pretty much that way
until Sematech was created about 14 years ago.
My logic is simple. If I partner with somebody in research that makes
money, I get some. Some could have various meanings, but it is
absolutely clear that I get some. By the same token, if someone helps
me, they get something when I make money. Something.
Marc,......See if you can keep the possible dislike of University Profs
and Administrators from being sprinkled throughout your paragraphs as
"seasoning". Not everybody likes hot pepper, and some will throw up on
you if you give them hot pepper. That way, everybody loses, nobody
wins.
Astalavista
Teel Adams
> Sorry, I've been in a position where my ability to pay the rent was
> questionable. All the true glory in the world doesn't help. Tolerance
> is a virtue of the naive, or those who are in a position to afford it.
No, all the paying the rent in the world does not matter when you have no virtue.
> > Do you want to be Bill Gates? To you want to live your life as an insecure
> > whiney little nerd?
> > Who wrets and fumes over when all the grownups complain
> > about his poor play ground behavior?
>
> He's a successful business man - is that why you don't like him?
>
No, I don't like him cause he is a whiney little nerd. Arn't you paying attention.
> > No, if you want to be that, then you've not analysed the system right, you
> > are trying to optimize the wrong system variables
>
> Unfortuantely we've only been left with one two-state variable: play or
> starve. Ethics are for those who can afford ethics, not for those with
> responsibility for the welfare of others.
You have not looked at the system parameters, you have miss place priorities.
Rarely is the choice between starvation and sin. Mainly the choice is how much
more material possesion can I get versus how many others I have to hurt.
Been there, done that. Left it and found my soul.
re...@ix.netcom.com
> > your competition for you. You can't stand on your own two feet so you
> > want to lean on the state. You just can't cut it, Andelman, but it's
> > your own fault you're in this situation. You're a loser, Andelman.
> > Isn't that what you're saying? That you're a whining loser who can't
> > cut competition?
> >
> > M.
>
> I don't get your point.
That's plain.
> All I am saying is, why should private
> individuals have to pay taxes to support state funded entreprises
> that compete with same private individuals.
Let's start with one easy point for you to not get. The state is not
competing with most private individuals. It is providing most private
individuals with opportunities to make a living both directly and
indirectly.
> Do you advocate
> state control of private entreprise?
You had better rephrase that question. It can't be answered 'yes' or
'no', but anything more complicated would lose you before the end of the
first sentence.
> Do you mean to imply
> I owe university scientists a living?
Oh, no. Good question, though. You can understand the answer.
> If enough people think
> like you, which is a scary possiblity, the only option is to
> drop out of the system and form an underground economy.
You're either a fool because you don't know better even after all this
time, or you're a liar because you do know better but you're posting
lies. Fool or liar, Andelman. Which is it going to be?
> No other
> sane choice will remain once it comes to paying your dead wood salary
> or feeding one's family.
You're too incompetent to say what is deadwood and what isn't. As an
example, you don't even know what I do for a living. As far as you know
I'm part of a venture capitalist outfit looking for the right guy to
support with a $5M payroll. You are the intellectual deadwood here.
Whether I am or not, well, you're in no position to say.
>
> This is good, as everyone will see that
> the South was right, and the damn union with all it's scalawag
> rats like yourself will go down the toilet.
>
Tell you what - list the major civilizations that have been
confederations, or have not had strong central governments. Egypt,
perhaps? No, that doesn't work. I'll give you some help....no, on
second thought, I won't.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Teel Adams wrote:
>
>
> I really worry about you all. I truly do. Have you never seen people
> that are happy, people that know that the true glory in life is in basic
> things. Do you live in the world of killer chimps? Have you never seen a
> man or woman at peace with their god, and realized that is more important all
> the bananas in the world?
Sorry, I've been in a position where my ability to pay the rent was
questionable. All the true glory in the world doesn't help. Tolerance
is a virtue of the naive, or those who are in a position to afford it.
>
> Do you want to be Bill Gates? To you want to live your life as an insecure
> whiney little nerd?
That's not nice. Do you resent Gates because of his wealth? Aren't
there poor, whiney little nerds for you to pick on?
> Who wrets and fumes over when all the grownups complain
> about his poor play ground behavior?
He's a successful business man - is that why you don't like him?
>
> No, if you want to be that, then you've not analysed the system right, you
> are trying to optimize the wrong system variables
Unfortuantely we've only been left with one two-state variable: play or
starve. Ethics are for those who can afford ethics, not for those with
responsibility for the welfare of others.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Material Fellow wrote:
>
> Looks as if two were fooled.
Yep. Missed your humor. My apologies.
> Well, except for perhaps yourself and our now infamous "React", who
> obviously reacted and over reacted. Kind of flipped out. Really
> astounded me at first, but it revealed the lack of depth.
>
Yes, well, I have had this pulled on me a number of times before.
Typically the reply is
'Bzzztt! You mentioned NAZI. You lose!'
in all seriousness.
> The book "Cheap Psychological Tricks" advocates watching a talk show
> when you feel depressed. The reason it works is because after a few
> minutes, most people will conclude that there really are other people to
> whom they may feel superior -- those on the talk show.
>
> Jerry Springer (and National Inquirer) represent media filled with
> degrading information and or behavior that are guaranteed to "give you a
> boost" of superiority.
>
> React certainly fills the newsgroup need for this form of excitement.
I'm surprised. I'm actually giving people an opportunity to show their
maturity, and their depth, precisely by provoking them to behave
otherwise, yet at the same time presenting a cogent argument. Most
people do seem to try to find some way to be 'superior', not through
cogent argument, but precisely through cheap psychological tricks. In
other words, use of these tricks promotes their use by others.
Andelman, although I certainly believe he is wrong, has shown the
greatest resistance to this and therefore he does have my respect.
>
> I have no control of this newsgroup at all, so asking me if React uses
> one term or another so he can go on has no meaning. Kind of sorry to
> catch a lurker with this ploy, because you only read and enjoyed, till
> now.
>
Well, of course I would go on anyway. It comes with the territory that
if you dish it out, you take whatever is dished to you. It's only fair,
right?
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
mike wrote:
>
> Fooled is a strong word here. You made a whimsical post to which I
> responded with another whimsical post. I'm much too cynical to be concerned
> with anybody else's "rules"; unless I happen to agree with them in which
> case the "rules" would be unnecessary.
> I like React's posts because they show some intestinal fortitude and, imo,
> many of them articulate an accurate depiction of our society.
Thank you. I try to be accurate, and I don't lie - which means I don't
write statements that I know are false.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Material Fellow wrote:
>
>
> For how long have you thought that someone else was or claimed to be the
> Ultimate God of newsgroups?
>
Please overlook my response. It is perfectly apropos in light of
numerous other similar claims about any reference to Nazism which were
made entirely seriously. Your humor escaped me, because it was outside
my experience.
>
> Avoiding the regular and proficient use of these emotinally charged
> terms is part of the old fashioned way of having social graces. It has
> been found unnecessary to call upon them in ordinary intelligent
> conversation. If you are offended by being compared to ordinary
> standards of intelligent conversation, perhaps you should be talking to
> a different newsgroup.
No, neither of your assertions are correct or reasonable. I, alas for
your sensibilities, typically use terms as I see fit in order to express
as exactly as possible the meaning of my response. If you are offended
by the term Nazi, naturally decorum requires that I apologize.
Yet...would it not be a greater insult to avoid the term where
appropriate, assuming that your level of maturity is insufficient to
enable such straightforward and honest expressino to be appreciated?
Undeniably affirmative! I could not insult you so, hence in deferrence
I used the most appropriate term.
>
> >The solution - the solution for you - is to decide if the
> > label is appropriate in the contect in which it occurred. If you can do
> ^
> x spelling is also still useful
Note also that reference to typographical error is a no-no in the
decorum department. Alas, I wish to maintian the flow of my thought,
and I do so knowingly at the cost of the occasional typo. Please,
understand - and fergive!
> > this, and if you can use the terms when they are appropriate, then
> > 'Nigger', 'Nazi', and other buzz-terms no longer control your thinking
> > processes.
>
> This appears to be a clever use of low taste to justify itself.
I beg to differ! Oversensitiviy to certain terms is part and parcel of
political correctness. Language is the servant of the user. Insofar as
meaning remains clear, one is not the servant of language. As
intelligent adults, we naturally wish to express meaning in as clear and
concise a manner as possible knowing full well that the unenlightened
will look ascanse at the use of certain forms which are outlawed by
'common' consent.
Look at
> the wonderful way in which you have turned this into a derogatory
> accusation. Then you top this by a logic process which claims that use
> of such words suggests superiority! Raw talent you do have!
>
And I thank you for this compliment. Surely, newsgroup discussions of
the type being carried on here are a matter of emotional sparring -
action and reaction - as much as an attempt to communicate. Although I
considered the above a minor acheivement, I do thank you for noticing
and commenting.
> There is no doubt that you will continue expressing your viewpoint in
> the way you see fit, but being taken seriously or having an effect on
> your listeners is something else entirely.
Yet, although you imply otherwise, I am taken quite seriously - very,
very seriously in fact - and the effect it has on readers (not
listeners, but I often make this descriptive error as well and I do not
think the less of you for your slip) is apparently marked. Readers have
gone so far as to threaten ostracism, and moderating the newsgroup.
Pray, will you not reconsider your admonition? It appears to me to be,
though I hesitiate to be critical, unfounded.
>
> I had previously thought of you as a thinker, but somewhat crude.
>
> Now you have been revealed as the related "stinker", your words become
> offal as a deliberate means of expression, or as a lack of vocabulary,
> and perhaps concepts. The frequency with which you use the F*** and
> S*** words speaks volumes. You can't fully hide from yourself forever.
I beg your pardon! Such admonition is highly offensive, and I beg to
suggest that your willingness to repeat such terms may undermine the
apparent sincerity of your admonition.
>
> Please use grown up language when discussing grown up topics in groups
> populated by grownups.
>
Ala, although I understand and sympathize with your complaint, you are
in error here when you attempt to disassociate...adults...from language
of this type. I refer you to your television, and to the many popular
novels available at any booksellers. May I also suggest that the
language used by many, if not most, of our most highly respected
business and social leaders is in fact no better than that which I have
used here? Why, then, your ire? Do you expect that we, lowly denizens
of a less successful clase, should not emulate our betters? Should we
not, in fact, endeavor honestly to become more in allignment with that
culture which guides and succours us in our daily struggles? Pray, why
do you believe we should do otherwise?
> How can you be so taken in by the old horse joke of Goodwin's Law that
> you react this way? I felt that even you had some semblance of
> sophistication and worldliness.
As I have explained this before, I will not weary your ears with
repetition. I suggest, however, that you be aware that not all
experiences are your experiences. I do protest. My interpretation,
wholly justifiable in the context under which such interpretation was
made, should not be regarded as 'unworldly' by you simply because you
have not fought my battles. Alas that such misunderstanding should
bring us to this pass! Cannot we mend this rent in the garment of
mutual respect? Cannot we offer once again the hand of sincere
appreciation of each other's struggles?
>
> You were right, I overestimated you. My deep aplogies for previously
> treating you with respect.
>
Alas you have hurt me to the quick. When you look upon the face of a
man, can you in truth say that you have looked upon his soul? Does the
small scar remaining years after on the skin indeed show the depth to
which the flesh was gouged? I can only say that you judge me harshly
and unfairly.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Bill Ward wrote:
>
> [react responded:]
> >The private sector has become socialist, communist, and Nazi - taking
> >the worst of these philospohies. Those who support the current status
> >quo are criminals who deserve incarceration at least.
>
> How can the private sector be any of those?
How indeed! Here is how the public is consistently fooled, because they
do not understand what the nature of these institutions was - and is.
> The difference between
> the private sector and the public sector is persuasion versus
> coercion.
No. The private sector is coercive, using the power of the public
sector to be so. The public sector is persuasive and must be, as is
clearly illustrated by any political discussion.
> Collectivism of any denomination requires force.
And you claim that the workplace - surely the most private of private
sectors - is not coercive? And you claim that the election process,
surely the most public of public sectors, is not persuasive? Surely
you're joking.
> The
> private sector cannot use force - that is reserved for the public
> and criminal sectors.
Ask those who are laid off whether they were persuaded to leave or were
coerced into leaving. A simple test of the power of the private sector
to coerce.
>
> >So? Everyone makes similar claims.
>
> Could it be because he's right?
>
> Could it be because he's right?
Does it matter? I don't think so, hence I dismissed the claim.
M:
> >No, I want to put the public in charge. Powerful democratic government
> >is the only way to do it. There is no other way. You do truly seem to
> >be an idiot.
> Fortunately, our Constitution prevents you from having your way by
> force. If you recall, we're not a democracy, but a republic,
> protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Yet we call ourselves a democracy and practice democratic principles.
Do you deny this? Do you deny that the public can legally - and
protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - replace any of
the executive and legislative branches of government at any election, or
at any time under sufficient provocation?
> Please call me an idiot too -- coming from the likes of you I
> consider it a high compliment.
>
Then I'm afraid you must consider yourself complimented, for in fact
your arguments are...unconvincing.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote the following, defending state manipulation
> of the economoy;
Unfair! Attempting to prejudice the jury without argument. You claim a
disparity between these two statements:
A) The state is not
> > competing with most private individuals. It is providing most private
> > individuals with opportunities to make a living both directly and
> > indirectly.
> >
>
B) Free enterprise requires a degree of freedom. When
> > enterprise is controlled and manipulated for the good of a small segment
> > of society it is no longer free. It becomes, in fact, very expensive
> > for those outside the magic circle.
Let's first examine the error which is easiest to see. You presume that
an economy manipulated for the good of a comparatively small number of
individuals does not provide the opportunity to earn a living to the
majority others. These two functions are not in conflict. In fact, one
may say that the latter in particular is necessary or the status quo
will become unstable.
Is there an error on another level? Yes, in fact. When a state which
supported opportunity for the majority is taken over by a faction which
wishes the state to work only for a few, it cannot be done overnight,
and especially if the state is a large bureaucracy. Thus the state may
exercise those elements of both philosophies so long as they are not
mutually exclusive. A state which funnels most wealth to a few and a
state which provides the opportunity to the majority to earn a living
are not mutually exclusive.
There are other examples as well - more complex however - to show that
you have not succeeded in discrediting either of my arguments.
> So how is government supposed to make a fair playing field by excercising
> state power to chose who gets hired,funded, or benefits from communal
> largess?
I beg your pardon? State power to do what? Where does this enter the
argument? There is a difference between 'presenting opportunity' the
power to chose specifically who will benefit from that opportunity.
> My original post was about an interesting editorial,or rather, an
> actual research article in May 1 Science that makes a very good case
> why academic patents will totally screw up the industrial job market for
> scientists by making industrial R&D unprofitable.
What I'm saying is that you have mis-identified the source of the
problem. The problem is that universities have been forced to behave
more like private businesses as government funding has diminished. You
claim that you don't want them behaving like private businesses, and
your answer is to cut more government funding. Don't you agree that
there is a logical conflict in your position?
> Yet all I hear is
> ravings of a looney.
My dear Sir! You offend me deeply! But tell me - what is one to do in
the face of your insistent irrationality?
> I think everyone should be extremely concerned
> about this issue, yet the only response is from some burnout who is not
> firing on all cylinders.
>
Tch. I'm embarassed for you. Such slander!
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
>
> What is very new and quite unprecidented is that the government,
> through academic proxies is funding trivial nusciance patents
> on an unprecidented, massive scale, most notable in
> biotech, but also in every field of science.
The government, of course, provides money for research and does not
exclude patenting as a legitimate use of these funds. Am I correct, or
does the government provide funding explicitely allocated to patent
generation?
>
> Broad fields of science are being patented and cut off at the
> root from econmic development, held hostage by nit wit university
> adminsitrators and univerisity licence departments who work
> for institutions that will suffer no loss if such "inventions"
> are not commercialized. Therefore, these are the most
> arrogant, stupid, and least worthwhile people to negotiate with.
> Ergo, almost no one will bother and industrial R&D capital
> will go somewhere else, to fund government paper or whatever.
>
A highly unlikely scenario. More likely is that the academic
institution and industrial interests will forge an agreement regarding
how to split patent and licensing interests. In fact, the free market
within which these institutions act almost guarantees such agreement.
Nuisance patent filing, by the way, is a common strategy employed by
nearly every patenting organization.
M.
re...@ix.netcom.com
Material Fellow wrote:
>
>
> > Broad fields of science are being patented and cut off at the
> > root from econmic development, held hostage by nit wit university
> > adminsitrators and univerisity licence departments who work
> > for institutions that will suffer no loss if such "inventions"
> > are not commercialized.
>
> Putting the words "nit wit" in here detracted from your otherwise good
> sentence. It can outrage me to see you _ruin_ a perfectly good thought
> by overdoing it. It is like what I tried to tell React -- you can
> either use words to hammer your message home or to hammer your
> "opponent", but not usually both because it sets off a non-receptive
> tone in almomst all third parties. Try to be better than React.
I'm hurt - gratuitous derogatory comments. What are we coming to? But,
do I detect opposition to the 'free market' here? An institution which
is forced to behave as a business protects its patents...and you
complain?
....
>
> Actually, this may mark the end of University / Industry collaboration.
Perhaps if competition between these two entities is further forced and
remains unrestricted. Other scenarios are the melding of industries and
educational institutions - a terrifying thought in my opinion, or the
complete elimination of public education due to the institutions lack of
public funding, and laws that prevent them from making money as business
institutions. This latter is, I believe, the objective of many
university critics, against whom I am unalterably opposed.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Teel Adams wrote:
>
>
> No, all the paying the rent in the world does not matter when you have no virtue.
You can have your way thanks. My way is a virtue of its own.
>
> No, I don't like him cause he is a whiney little nerd. Arn't you paying attention.
Yes, I'm paying attention. I just don't like people who spout virtue
out of one side of their mouths, and then show pettiness out the other.
>
> You have not looked at the system parameters, you have miss place priorities.
Au contraire - it is you who does not understand the rules of the game.
> Rarely is the choice between starvation and sin.
The choice is always starvation or sin.
> Mainly the choice is how much
> more material possesion can I get versus how many others I have to hurt.
You are a cynic. I am a realist. We won't agree.
>
> Been there, done that. Left it and found my soul.
I've heard this from a lot of people. I never use the phrase myself,
because everyone leaves off the last part... , 'learned nothing'.
Thanks for your opinion. Hope you and your soul have a good time
together.
M
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow wrote:
>
>
> Putting the words "nit wit" in here detracted from your otherwise good
> sentence. It can outrage me to see you _ruin_ a perfectly good thought
> by overdoing it.
>
> and Administrators from being sprinkled throughout your paragraphs as
> "seasoning". Not everybody likes hot pepper, and some will throw up on
> you if you give them hot pepper. That way, everybody loses, nobody
> wins.
>
> Astalavista
You know, you are absolutely right. As Mephistopheles in Faust advised
the young academic, trust to words, because you cannot detract one
iota from them. Of course, being the devil, who is liar, there
is a double truth to that, which is, verbage is meaningless unless
you have something succint to say. As Faust himeself said,
if I do not both the German too badly
"Ist notig worten nachzujagen, wenn mann hat nichts zu sagen"?
I did however have something to say so ruined it by succumbing
to my desire to bash academics, however despicable they may be.
This issue of academic patents is possibly the most vital
technology issue of our time . Besides your helpful
remaks, the lack of interst or comment other than React's,
who is a couple cents short of a dollar, is appalling.
Everyone please read the May 1 Sience article.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
>
> You know, you are absolutely right. As Mephistopheles in Faust advised
> the young academic, trust to words, because you cannot detract one
> iota from them. Of course, being the devil, who is liar, there
> is a double truth to that, which is, verbage is meaningless unless
> you have something succint to say. As Faust himeself said,
> if I do not both the German too badly
Mephistopheles (to student):
It's useless to roam about scientifically,
Each man learns only what he can
But the man who grasps the opportunity---
There is the real man.
I forget the line and page, but it is Book I. I'd be careful quoting
Goerte to prove a point. Satan's worldly truth is truth none-the-less,
and to benefit from the wisdom of denying Satan requires that you
believe in Goerte's God.
>
> "Ist notig worten nachzujagen, wenn mann hat nichts zu sagen"?
>
> I did however have something to say so ruined it by succumbing
> to my desire to bash academics, however despicable they may be.
>
It's a pity you feel that way. Such dislike surely is a sign of
jealousy, isn't it?
> This issue of academic patents is possibly the most vital
> technology issue of our time.
Hardly. It is only one small part of the trouble caused by the
imposition of right-wing monetarism that the country is suffering from.
As an aside - here are some more observations that may interest you.
Grove and one of his chief EOs recently resigned from Intel and cashed
their stock options. The recent stock market surge resulted from
investors escaping the Asian slump by moving to the American market.
The price of gold has risen about $30 in the last two months. This fall
the first major fallout from the Asian collapse is supposed to hit the
U.S. in the form of declining prices for Asian goods, although at least
one report says that the Japanese agreed not to lower prices. My
suggestion is that Grove and his EO looked at their stock predictions
and decided it was time to cash out - that the market had peaked. What
this could mean for scientific research jobs and technical
entrepreneurs?
> Besides your helpful
> remaks, the lack of interst or comment other than React's,
> who is a couple cents short of a dollar, is appalling.
Please, don't blame the consumer if your goods fall short on quality -
that's a very non-entrepreneurial and unbusinesslike attitude, and I
must admonish you for it. If your judgement is poor, your best approach
is to recognize it, then team with someone who has good judgement.
M
Material Fellow
Material wrote:
Marc,
This may be the same editorial or article, and saves some the
embarrasment of admitting that they don't have Science magazine (fresh)
delivered regularly.
Marc, if the reference below misses any key data, can you fill it in for
the readers? Thanks.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/story.asp?filename=980506080521
......................................................................
> This issue of academic patents is possibly the most vital
> technology issue of our time . Besides your helpful
> remaks, the lack of interst or comment ......, is appalling.
> Everyone please read the May 1 Sience article.
.................................................
Had an interesting E-Mail from Karen Heaton in the UK who denies that
this issue has anything to do with microbiology.....
> This is
> supposed to be a MICROBIOLOGY discussion group - the subject you are
> discussing is completely unrelated.
Since we both know that microbiology is one of the areas prominently
involved, perhaps your concerns of indifference are valid. However
Karen is in the UK and over there, they don't yet have "Business Model"
driving government as we do here. Perhaps we could send them some of
our Congressmen.
Sincerely, knowing your heart is in the right place.
Jim
>
> Regards,
> Marc Andelman
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow wrote:
>
> Material wrote:
> Marc,
>
> This may be the same editorial or article, and saves some the
> embarrasment of admitting that they don't have Science magazine (fresh)
> delivered regularly.
>
> Marc, if the reference below misses any key data, can you fill it in for
> the readers? Thanks.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/story.asp?filename=980506080521
> ......................................................................
Netscape crashes every time I try to load that. I get Science, but
it is buried on my desk. Look up the May 1 issue . The article
had a title "Anticommons in Biomedical Research" or some such.
Anticommons is an uncommon Keyword, so finding it should be cake.
Please everyone read this.
Marc
Marc Andelman
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> It's useless to roam about scientifically,
> Each man learns only what he can
> But the man who grasps the opportunity---
> There is the real man.
>
> I forget the line and page, but it is Book I. I'd be careful quoting
> Goerte to prove a point. Satan's worldly truth is truth none-the-less,
> and to benefit from the wisdom of denying Satan requires that you
And for the best anti-academic quotes of all time
"Zwar weiss ich veil, aber mocht ich alles wissen"
Wagner, Book I, Faust
"Nondum cum Pindar et Lyrici Novi Homericus versibus canere timerunt,
umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat"
Petronius - Satyricon
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's useless to roam about scientifically,
> > Each man learns only what he can
> > But the man who grasps the opportunity---
> > There is the real man.
> >
> > I forget the line and page, but it is Book I. I'd be careful quoting
> > Goerte to prove a point. Satan's worldly truth is truth none-the-less,
> > and to benefit from the wisdom of denying Satan requires that you
>
> And for the best anti-academic quotes of all time
>
> "Zwar weiss ich veil,
....as thinks anyone who replaces reason with quotes. You hate academics
so much, yet you practice their worst traits. I'm sure that what you
are exhibiting here is jealousy that you won't admit to, and I don't
understand why you don't try to grow out of it.
But it's hardly an anti-academic quote, even in context. It's Faustus'
subsequent commentary that is anti-academic, yet Faustus was abandoning
science. Goerthe was rather a lousy scientist as well, and I expect
that Faustus dissatisfaction mirrors his own. Truly great books require
truly great readers to appreciate them, yet you, while extolling
Goerthe, want to grovel in your mire of pettiness. Stand up and be a
man!
M
Jonathan Guyer
> Marc Andelman wrote:
> >
> > re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
:
:
> > "Zwar weiss ich veil,
>
> ....as thinks anyone who replaces reason with quotes.
:
:
> Goerthe was rather a lousy scientist as well,
:
:
Who the hell is Goerthe?!?
--
Jonathan E. Guyer
Join LMESOTENPAMSNFZ
("Let's make everything south of the 89th parallel
a Microsoft no-fly-zone" AKA "Give Bill the Pole!")
Material Fellow
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Nuisance patent filing, by the way, is a common strategy employed by
> nearly every patenting organization.
>
>
In fact, I remember reading articles that the Japanese are masters at
this. They will file patents around any outside original idea, and try
to dilute and wear down the will of the outsider. This is, of course,
on their home ground.
See:
http://www.jef.or.jp/news/primary/intro.html
for a discussion relating to:
> Japan will also exercise its responsibility in working to bring into effect the agreement that established the
> World Trade Organization on January 1.
> Specifically, the government will promote international coordination of its intellectual property system
> through such actions as ecactment of revised Patent Law and Trade Mark Law (for example, having
> uniform patent durations, and allowing patent applications in their original languages), and it will quickly
> provide the domestic structure needed to promote fair trade. As for the relationship between Japan and the
> United States, the government will endeavor with nultilateral rules to bring the frmework talks to a
> conclusion as soon as possible and to extablish broad cooperation.
Another site worth looking at on the patent problem is:
http://www.trudelgroup.com/status.htm
Which discusses privitization and similarities to the Japanese system.
Others are:
http://www.law.washington.edu/~wlr/Abstracts/v70/dinwiddie.html
http://www.iijnet.or.jp/shimiz/english/index.html (has lots of
international links too)
http://www.nb-pacifica.com/headline/japanspatentchiefplan_741.shtml
(about japan sending Director of patent office to China to complain
of intellectual piracy.... kind of getting back what they give?)
http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/txt/081794.txt (stuff on Japan treaty
and on the problems / processing of software patents.)
http://www.fplc.edu/ipmall/ (Franklin Pierce Law Center - Intellectual
Property Mall, #1 rated Intellectual Property law school )
http://www.trudelgroup.com/bookr3.htm (kind of fun)
http://itri.loyola.edu/ep/c3s2.htm (a different view of technology /
management / patent purposes)
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/foreignp/dfait/policy~1/94_16_e/s9.html
Complaints against Japan include: the yen was kept artificially low
until 1985; there are numerous
import and investment barriers; the patent application process is
complex and lengthy, allowing domestic
firms to develop similar technologies before foreign firms' patents have
been approved; patent coverage is
defined too narrowly; the government uses subsidies and legal
concessions to encourage certain domestic
firms to merge, form cartels, or engage in other cooperative
arrangements;
http://schooner.cs.arizona.edu:5605/japan/kahaner.reports/sta-mfg.92
(an Office of Naval Research report)
http://www.derwent.com/news/01110003rns00001.htm (about
counterproductive patenting around public domain research)
http://www.cba.unige.it/VL/bleicher.html (biotech links)
http://www.library.ubc.ca/patscan/patbio.html
UBC researchers spend $36 million per year in medical/health based
research. The university encourages
faculty and staff to disclose all possible inventions. The
Industry/Liaison Office then licenses the resulting
biotechnology patents to companies with pockets sufficiently deep to
cover development costs.
http://the-tech.mit.edu/V115/N67/biotech.67n.html
(MIT tops list of Universities with faculty, students forming major
biotech drug companies)
http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/1997/970929/fst7.html
(By early 1996, Celgene held the exclusive patents from Rockefeller for
thalidomide's use in leprosy and wasting.)
http://www.rafi.ca/genotypes/970702dire.html
(Biotech Patents Distort and Discourage
Innovation and Increase Costs for Dubious Drugs)
http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/biz/112797/biz16_23976_noframes.html
(The European Union moved closer to resolving an emotional debate over
genetic engineering Thursday when ministers agreed on rules governing
patents for biotechnology inventions.)
http://inventors.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa980114.htm
(Bio Patents: The Controversy )
http://www.raccoon.com/~zarley/pages/nebelarticle.htm
the fruits of biotechnological research are legally protected from
appropriation by others by the law of intellectual property. It can
provide monopoly protection to individual researchers who discover
scientific advances and was initially met with great controversy,
particularly when government funding (which supports over 90% of all
research nationwide) was used to develop the advances. Slowly but
surely,
however, as researchers saw their colleagues benefiting from the results
of licensing their technology, the scientific credo became not "publish
or perish", but "patent or perish". The field of intellectual property
comprises Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets all of
which are intended to protect the intellectual endeavors of those whose
creative or scientific talents can benefit us all....
http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/intprop.htm
( The Conceptual Structure of an Intellectual Land-Grab )
Milton R. Beychok
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Marc Andelman wrote:
> >
> > re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It's useless to roam about scientifically,
> > > Each man learns only what he can
> > > But the man who grasps the opportunity---
> > > There is the real man.
> > >
> > > I forget the line and page, but it is Book I. I'd be careful quoting
> > > Goerte to prove a point. Satan's worldly truth is truth none-the-less,
> > > and to benefit from the wisdom of denying Satan requires that you
> >
> > And for the best anti-academic quotes of all time
> >
> > "Zwar weiss ich veil,
>
> ....as thinks anyone who replaces reason with quotes. You hate academics
> so much, yet you practice their worst traits. I'm sure that what you
> are exhibiting here is jealousy that you won't admit to, and I don't
> understand why you don't try to grow out of it.
>
> But it's hardly an anti-academic quote, even in context. It's Faustus'
> subsequent commentary that is anti-academic, yet Faustus was abandoning
> science. Goerthe was rather a lousy scientist as well, and I expect
> that Faustus dissatisfaction mirrors his own. Truly great books require
> truly great readers to appreciate them, yet you, while extolling
> Goerthe, want to grovel in your mire of pettiness. Stand up and be a
> man!
>
> M
ENOUGH already! Thus far, during yesterday and today, you've cross-posted 22
messages in 7 different news-groups and none of them have been the least bit
relevant to the subject matter of any of those news-groups. Please take your
puerile socio-political philosophy elsewhere!
Cross-posting to 7 news-groups is, in itself, a display of poor taste.
Milton R. Beychok
Teel Adams
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Bill Ward wrote pretty much what I wanted to say:
The Good Ol Soviet Union, used to have a favorite trick for squelching the
opposition. If you fell out of favor, if you requested a visa, well, no
physical harm befell you, but you could no longer work.
Money is power, much the same that a gun is. I can defend myself against a
gun
Teel Adams
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> The government, of course, provides money for research and does not
> exclude patenting as a legitimate use of these funds. Am I correct, or
> does the government provide funding explicitely allocated to patent
> generation?
I am of the opinion, that you are seeing an overcompensation from
government agencies and the Congress. In the Republican's frenzy to cut
funding, most agencies have taken a more "user pays" strategy.
Publications, software, even data, are now sellable and sources of
income.
Rather silly, really. I prefer the old days when all government research
and innovation was free to all. Of course, many incredibly useful
government inventions were taken over by the private sector, patented,
and used to make huge amounts of money. Bioremediation is a glaring
example.
I would think, the compromise would be to have enlightened congressmen
that fund research accordingly, and then make the research free and
available, but also unpatentable.
I do know, that some of my A.I algorythms that I designed for detecting
Medical fraud, were latter used on commercial systems, and I don't get
squat in royalties. Not even a Christmas card.
Bill Ward
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> The difference between
>> the private sector and the public sector is persuasion versus
>> coercion.
[react responded:]
>No. The private sector is coercive, using the power of the public
>sector to be so.
Thank you for making my point. The private sector is not coercive,
so those wishing to force others to submit to their will must
involve the public sector, or become part of the criminal sector.
>The public sector is persuasive and must be, as is
>clearly illustrated by any political discussion.
Try refusing to pay taxes and see just how "persuasive" the public
sector is. Continue, and you will face the use of force against
you. It is coercive.
>> Collectivism of any denomination requires force.
>And you claim that the workplace - surely the most private of private
>sectors - is not coercive?
Yes, I do. In the private sector, if I don't like one job, I am
free to quit and get another. If I want to sell something, I need
only find a willing buyer. If force is required, it is a sure sign
that the public or criminal sector is involved.
>And you claim that the election process,
>surely the most public of public sectors, is not persuasive? Surely
>you're joking.
No, the election process is the method of choosing those who are
allowed to exercize the power of coercion assigned to the public
sector. Our Constitution does not guarantee we get good government,
but it does ensure we get the government we deserve.
>> The
>> private sector cannot use force - that is reserved for the public
>> and criminal sectors.
>Ask those who are laid off whether they were persuaded to leave or were
>coerced into leaving. A simple test of the power of the private sector
>to coerce.
You are using a strange new meaning of "coerce". If an employer is
required by the public sector to retain an employee against the
employer's wishes, that is coercion. If an employee is required to
stay working at a job against his wishes, that is coercion
(slavery). When both employer and employee are satisfied, coercion
is not required. Coercion is physical force. Economics is
persuasion.
<snip>
>> Please call me an idiot too -- coming from the likes of you I
>> consider it a high compliment.
>Then I'm afraid you must consider yourself complimented, for in fact
>your arguments are...unconvincing.
Thank you, I am indeed honored.
Bill Ward
Marc Andelman
Material Fellow wrote:
>
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Nuisance patent filing, by the way, is a common strategy employed by
> > nearly every patenting organization.
> >
> >
> In fact, I remember reading articles that the Japanese are masters at
> this. They will file patents around any outside original idea, and try
> to dilute and wear down the will of the outsider. This is, of course,
> on their home ground.
>
Thank you for all your links ( which I deleted). These are terrific.
I want to add that in the Japanese system , there is forced cross
licencing. Therefore, nusciance patents are less of a nusciance
in Japan.
I hope we do not come to that, however. Abuse of the patent system
by MIT's fraud and patent nusciance Lemmel has already forced changes in
patent law that hurt entrepreneurs. CIP's can no longer be strung
indefinitely. This was abused by Lemmel's submarine patent strategy,
so the law was changed. The new law hurt real entrepreneurs.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
Jeffrey Haber
mike wrote:
> Unfortunately, some people will never be satisfied with a comfortable life.
> They need another unused room, another automotive showpiece,
> another...insert useless piece of material crap here... They have a problem
> with self-esteem and think possession of objects or power will make them
> feel more important....give their lives some meaning.
Is it possible to selfishly, unappologetically enjoy having material
possessions and to have self esteem at the same time? I certainly think
so. Why do you think that two are mutually exclusive?
> I fear that is a fact
> of our species.
It is a good thing, that man's nature is to want to be happy, to desire
to live in material comfort and to enjoy life.
> Despite all the "divine creation" ballyhoo, we're just a
> bunch of well-groomed chimps fighting for bananas.
If you have done introspection and think that you are not radically
different from a chimpanzee, that is your own admission, please speak
for yourself and not for men. As for me, I proclaim my proper status as
a rational, conceptual being whose purpose in life is the achievement of
his own moral happiness.
> Given the opportunity,
> some chimps will fight vigorously to obtain way more bananas than they can
> possibly consume.
> Those with these "biggest sticks" will thrive and pass on
> their genetic heritage for the oh-so-promising future of humanity.
What you describe applies to animals, not humans. One of the great
things about being a rational being is that humans do not have to
compete for limited resources, but use their minds to create new
resources; that is, almost all wealth has to be created before it can be
consumed, and the sacrifice of no one is required.
If humans were just chimpanzees, they would still be living in the trees
competing for bananas, not engaging in agriculture, trading,
manufacturing, inventing, and building comfortable dwellings.
How could you possibly, without being intellectually dishonest, equate
human beings to chimpanzees? Perhaps you're just a victim of modern
university intellectuals.
What you may have observed in your lifetime is the result of what
happens when some individuals try to obtain value dishonestly, by the
use of force. You can observe these attrocities under socialist regimes
and mixed economies where the government tries to regulate, by force
(implicit in the combination of regulation and government), the
production and distribution of wealth. In an attempt to get back from
the government as much as possible or more than what the government has
stolen, people will group into collective pressure groups in an attempt
to steal more from other groups than is being stolen from their group
(racial, gender, ethnic, professional, etc.). The solution, of course,
is for the government to outlaw the use of phsyical force and to
retaliate against those who initiate its use, protecting free, voluntary
trade.
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
re...@ix.netcom.com
Jonathan Guyer wrote:
>
>
> Who the hell is Goerthe?!?
>
> --
Oh, rats! Goethe. Happy now?
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Milton R. Beychok wrote:
>
>
> ENOUGH already! Thus far, during yesterday and today, you've cross-posted 22
> messages in 7 different news-groups and none of them have been the least bit
> relevant to the subject matter of any of those news-groups. Please take your
> puerile socio-political philosophy elsewhere!
>
> Cross-posting to 7 news-groups is, in itself, a display of poor taste.
>
Tough.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Material Fellow wrote:
>
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Nuisance patent filing, by the way, is a common strategy employed by
> > nearly every patenting organization.
> >
> >
> In fact, I remember reading articles that the Japanese are masters at
> this. They will file patents around any outside original idea, and try
> to dilute and wear down the will of the outsider. This is, of course,
> on their home ground.
>
Thanks for the resources. The term I typically hear is 'defensive
patents', i.e. have so much garbage to wade through before getting to
the important patents that would-be patent crooks give up and go home.
It's the other side of the coin.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Did I say that? Hm!
>
> The Good Ol Soviet Union, used to have a favorite trick for squelching the
> opposition. If you fell out of favor, if you requested a visa, well, no
> physical harm befell you, but you could no longer work.
>
> Money is power, much the same that a gun is. I can defend myself against a
> gun
Are you saying that you can't defend yourself agains money?
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Teel Adams wrote:
>
>
> I am of the opinion, that you are seeing an overcompensation from
> government agencies and the Congress. In the Republican's frenzy to cut
> funding, most agencies have taken a more "user pays" strategy.
> Publications, software, even data, are now sellable and sources of
> income.
Yes, I think that you are right. That this is part of the
'privatization' trend is clear. Be careful of your attributions please.
>
> Rather silly, really. I prefer the old days when all government research
> and innovation was free to all. Of course, many incredibly useful
> government inventions were taken over by the private sector, patented,
> and used to make huge amounts of money. Bioremediation is a glaring
> example.
Yes, Xerox, the internet - examples aren't in short supply. I am with
you on this. Government research has a useful place to develop core
technologies which are too expensive or with too great a delay until
payoff for private industry to consider. I think a return to (or
creation of) this use of the lab system should be part of a platform
carried by a major political party.
>
> I would think, the compromise would be to have enlightened congressmen
> that fund research accordingly, and then make the research free and
> available, but also unpatentable.
That's an interesting alternative. However, if there is one lesson that
we should attend to it is that enlightened Congressmen are a rare and
underpowered breed. Greater change might be necessary to the system in
order to ensure that such creatures predominate. If you can think of a
way to do this, I would like to hear it.
>
> I do know, that some of my A.I algorythms that I designed for detecting
> Medical fraud, were latter used on commercial systems, and I don't get
> squat in royalties. Not even a Christmas card.
Sorry to hear it, but that doesn't surprise me at all after working with
some university research departments. Graduate students in particular
often don't get any credit at all. I was fortunate in that my advisor
did not insist on primary authorship of my publications, and also that
the work I was doing was in the nature of basic research without
immediate patent potential. I did discuss this with a student at
Harvard who asked me for a formula to describe the curve of a fixed-edge
elastic circular membrane when a volume fluid with a known viscosity and
pressure was injected between it and the substrate. He was completely
unaware that the work was leading to a patentable technology and he,
from the sound of it, would see none of the royalty. I initially
irritated him rather badly (as I tend to do) by asking him to pay me for
the information. While explaining why I had done so, it became apparent
to him what was going on.
If it's any consolation, ideas tend to be stolen around government labs
and industrial research institutions as well.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Bill Ward wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for making my point. The private sector is not coercive,
> so those wishing to force others to submit to their will must
> involve the public sector, or become part of the criminal sector.
Yes, I see what you are driving at: the public sector retains some of
the power to coerce industry. Yet it must still persuade the public.
However, you should consider that the private sector must be persuasive
only in those areas where it is forbidden by the public sector from
being coercive.
I should restate that you are still completely wrong in this sense: The
private sector is inherently coercive and is held in check by the public
sector. The public sector is inherently persuasive, and only as a
result of successful persuasion does it have the power to coerce.
> >The public sector is persuasive and must be, as is
> >clearly illustrated by any political discussion.
>
> Try refusing to pay taxes and see just how "persuasive" the public
> sector is. Continue, and you will face the use of force against
> you. It is coercive.
As I said, it is inherently persuasive, and can coerce only as the
result of successful persuasion.
>
> >> Collectivism of any denomination requires force.
>
> >And you claim that the workplace - surely the most private of private
> >sectors - is not coercive?
>
> Yes, I do. In the private sector, if I don't like one job, I am
> free to quit and get another.
You seem to be confusing haiving the Russion Choice with the need to be
persuaded. Only freedom from debt and a sufficient level of resources
makes persuasion necessary, but that is true in all dealings with
business. When your resources are restricted industry becomes
increasingly coercive. It is one reason industry uses the public sector
to adopt national policy which allows the industry to coerce. It is the
nature of the private sector to coerce, and it tends to follow its
nature.
> If I want to sell something, I need
> only find a willing buyer. If force is required, it is a sure sign
> that the public or criminal sector is involved.
Quite the contrary: if the public sector does not prevent you from
monopolizing you coerce people to buy your product at your price. Crime
is only crime if it is illegal, and the public sector determines
legality.
>
> >And you claim that the election process,
> >surely the most public of public sectors, is not persuasive? Surely
> >you're joking.
>
> No, the election process is the method of choosing those who are
> allowed to exercize the power of coercion assigned to the public
> sector. Our Constitution does not guarantee we get good government,
> but it does ensure we get the government we deserve.
>
> >> The
> >> private sector cannot use force - that is reserved for the public
> >> and criminal sectors.
>
>
> You are using a strange new meaning of "coerce". If an employer is
> required by the public sector to retain an employee against the
> employer's wishes, that is coercion.
I think in this case coercion may apply to both, but there is nothing
but the ordinary definition used by me. Certainly industry may be
coerced, in fact only when there is a free market and competition for
products does the persuasive nature of public input affect industry.
But clearly layoffs are dictated to employees, and you can't escape the
unwillingness of many employees to leave. The more so in a tight job
market. You may note that many employees are physically ushered off the
premises, and that during the massive layoffs in the early nineties
security became a major issue. Security is not a device of persuasion.
> If an employee is required to
> stay working at a job against his wishes, that is coercion
> (slavery).
One example.
> When both employer and employee are satisfied, coercion
> is not required.
Of course, but that sidesteps the issue.
> Coercion is physical force.
Forced starvation and homelessness, then, are physical force. Forced
use of a product, then, is physical force.
> Economics is
> persuasion.
Economics employs both persuasion and coercion.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Please call me an idiot too -- coming from the likes of you I
> >> consider it a high compliment.
>
> >Then I'm afraid you must consider yourself complimented, for in fact
> >your arguments are...unconvincing.
>
> Thank you, I am indeed honored.
>
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Thank you for all your links ( which I deleted). These are terrific.
>
> I want to add that in the Japanese system , there is forced cross
> licencing. Therefore, nusciance patents are less of a nusciance
> in Japan.
>
> I hope we do not come to that, however. Abuse of the patent system
> by MIT's fraud and patent nusciance Lemmel has already forced changes in
> patent law that hurt entrepreneurs. CIP's can no longer be strung
> indefinitely. This was abused by Lemmel's submarine patent strategy,
> so the law was changed. The new law hurt real entrepreneurs.
>
Not surprising. Tough competitors, with solid backing both inside and
outside government. There is another trick used by the powers: if
someone forces you to change a law that you don't want changed, hurt
them badly enough that they'll think carefully about it next time.
M
Teel Adams
> Milton R. Beychok wrote:
> > Cross-posting to 7 news-groups is, in itself, a display of poor taste.
>
Yes, and I have insulted you, good people of sci.engr.chem, with my over reaction
to an idiot. This groups is reserved for actual questions and answers, and I will
not make the same mistake again.Unless it's Uncle Al, that loud mouth chemist
drives me up the wall.
> >
> re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Tough.
Damn, he is a rude little whiteyes, isn't he.
Bill Ward
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thank you for making my point. The private sector is not coercive,
>> so those wishing to force others to submit to their will must
>> involve the public sector, or become part of the criminal sector.
>Yes, I see what you are driving at: the public sector retains some of
>the power to coerce industry. Yet it must still persuade the public.
>However, you should consider that the private sector must be persuasive
>only in those areas where it is forbidden by the public sector from
>being coercive.
>I should restate that you are still completely wrong in this sense: The
>private sector is inherently coercive and is held in check by the public
>sector. The public sector is inherently persuasive, and only as a
>result of successful persuasion does it have the power to coerce.
<snip>
One last time, slowly and carefully:
As a civilized society, we collectively agree to set rules (laws)
whereby we can live together without personally engaging in armed
conflict to protect ourselves. Those who do not agree and comply
with those laws are the "criminal sector". We establish a "public
sector" and give it the monopoly on enFORCEing those laws. The
remaining citizens comprise the "private sector", working and paying
taxes for the protection service. The private sector is allowed to
use force only for immediate defense, not directly to enforce laws.
That much is pretty universal, the difference here in the US is that
the Constitution determines how we select our public sector. In
some areas of the world, it's the warlord with the biggest army.
In my opinion, the role of the US public sector has suffered mission
creep. Instead of simply protecting us from crime and invasion, we
have allowed it to protect us from everything from communicable
diseases (arguably appropriate), down to protection from buying
undersized plums. The cost has escalated to the point many would
like protection from the public sector's "protection". The solution
has become the problem.
There are two reasons for this (IMO):
1. Many ignorant but well-meaning and likeable people believe they
know how to spend your money better than you do. They are willing
to use force against you, but only for your own good, of course. To
do that, they become involved with the public sector. They are the
most dangerous, because they feel righteous about their actions.
2. Some of the criminal sector find it much easier and safer to
become involved in the public sector to take your money for their
own benefit. They are somewhat less dangerous, because they know
they are doing wrong, and may even have the decency to feel guilty
about it.
So: The public sector has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The private sector cannot use force except for immediate defense.
The criminal sector uses force whenever it wants. but pays a price
when caught.
If you haven't got it by now, you won't ever get it.
Go troll in some other pond, this has nothing to do with chemistry,
and I'm going back to quietly lurking and learning.
Bill Ward
re...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Haber wrote:
>
>
> Is it possible to selfishly, unappologetically enjoy having material
> possessions and to have self esteem at the same time? I certainly think
> so. Why do you think that two are mutually exclusive?
>
It is a very common, and useful, misconception IMO. Common because it
is an principal part of the teachings of the Christian church. Useful,
because it allows us to bear, condone, and excuse, poverty and
suffering.
>
> It is a good thing, that man's nature is to want to be happy, to desire
> to live in material comfort and to enjoy life.
>
> If you have done introspection and think that you are not radically
> different from a chimpanzee, that is your own admission, please speak
> for yourself and not for men. As for me, I proclaim my proper status as
> a rational, conceptual being whose purpose in life is the achievement of
> his own moral happiness.
>
.....
>
> What you describe applies to animals, not humans. One of the great
> things about being a rational being is that humans do not have to
> compete for limited resources, but * use their minds to create new
> resources; that is, almost all wealth has to be created before it can be
> consumed, and the sacrifice of no one is required.
I think you should amend this slightly by inserting the word 'can' at
the asterisk. That parts of our society intentionally adopt policy
harmful to other parts of society I think is beyond question. But
achievement of the conceptual objective of comfortable wealth if an
individual desires it, seems very difficult in practice.
>
> If humans were just chimpanzees, they would still be living in the trees
> competing for bananas, not engaging in agriculture, trading,
> manufacturing, inventing, and building comfortable dwellings.
>
> How could you possibly, without being intellectually dishonest, equate
> human beings to chimpanzees? Perhaps you're just a victim of modern
> university intellectuals.
Unfortunately, there are many parallels.
>
> What you may have observed in your lifetime is the result of what
> happens when some individuals try to obtain value dishonestly, by the
> use of force.
Chimpanzees also use force.
> You can observe these attrocities under socialist regimes
> and mixed economies where the government tries to regulate, by force
> (implicit in the combination of regulation and government), the
> production and distribution of wealth.
You can see them under Capitalist economies where corporations, by the
use of force (implicit in the combination of regulation and government),
attempt to control the production and distribution of wealth.
> In an attempt to get back from
> the government as much as possible or more than what the government has
> stolen, people will group into collective pressure groups in an attempt
> to steal more from other groups than is being stolen from their group
> (racial, gender, ethnic, professional, etc.).
This is actually the underlying cause of government failures, and again
connects us with the chimps. Democracy coupled with the Bill of Rights
is an attempt to even out the influences of small, but powerful,
collective pressure groups. Unfortunately, it has been unable to
prevent the pressure group consisting of exceptionally wealthy
individuals from unduly influencing the government, hence CEO salaries
have skyrocketed while worker salaries have fallen, and etc.
> The solution, of course,
> is for the government to outlaw the use of phsyical force and to
> retaliate against those who initiate its use, protecting free, voluntary
> trade.
>
I don't think that this is the solution by itself, because I think you
have mis-stated the problem.
M
re...@ix.netcom.com
Bill Ward wrote:
>
>
> >I should restate that you are still completely wrong in this sense: The
> >private sector is inherently coercive and is held in check by the public
> >sector. The public sector is inherently persuasive, and only as a
> >result of successful persuasion does it have the power to coerce.
>
> <snip>
>
> One last time, slowly and carefully:
The speed and care of explanation is important, of course. It allows
correction and discussion in both directions, hence you must also be
prepared to be corrected. Agreed?
> As a civilized society, we collectively agree to set rules (laws)
> whereby we can live together without personally engaging in armed
> conflict to protect ourselves.
I can accept this, with the caveat that it is a generalization, although
the law has other purpose as well, and civilization requires more than
enforced non-violence.
> Those who do not agree and comply
> with those laws are the "criminal sector".
This, unfortunately or otherwise, depends upon the nature of the law. I
realize some may argue that the law defines criminal behavior, yet in
that case the founding fathers were criminals, and we must accept
criminal behavior as being at times a positive force in society. I
prefer to let society, rather than the law, define criminal behavior,
hence my first statement.
> We establish a "public
> sector" and give it the monopoly on enFORCEing those laws.
The public sector consists of three branches: the legislative which in
brief makes the laws and hence falls outside your definition, the
executive which impliments these laws hence also falls outside your
definition, and the judicial which enforces the laws. You are only
speaking of the judicial.
> The
> remaining citizens comprise the "private sector", working and paying
> taxes for the protection service.
Well, you have missed some important points above, and here I also beg
to differ. The private sector is not properly characterized by your
definition. The public sector you refer to above is an institution - a
group of representatives and others whose functions are to carry out the
purpose of government. When you refer to the 'private sector' you have
defined a group, by exclusion, but have identified no purpose for them.
But there are other points of contention as well. All citizens are, in
collective referred to generally as the 'public' for very good reason,
and are in fact the very foundation of the 'public sector'. The
institution of government is not basically a 'protection' service - it
is a vehicle for implementing the collective will of the public, which
may and IMO should extend far beyond simply enforcing non-violence. You
have also ignored the true private sector - those non-government
institutions whose purpose is to generate goods and services. Although
both the public and private sectors exist for the good of the public -
citizens - the government is the only institution which exists for the
good of the public as a whole. The private sector is comprised of
institutions, sometimes striving against each other, each representing
only a comparatively small portion of the public. They are incapable of
considering the welfare of the general public and at times work actively
against it. Thus a function of government becomes clear: to prevent the
private sector, taken as a collective, from acting contrary to the good
of the public sector. The public sector has deemed this a worthwhile
objective and has granted the government power to carry out this
function.
> The private sector is allowed to
> use force only for immediate defense, not directly to enforce laws.
Some uses of force by the private sector are restricted by government.
The private sector is presumably forbidden from those duties which are
the proper venue of government. 'Defense', and 'immediate defense',
however, are nowhere pertinent in the defintion of the rights of the
private sector. Individuals, who are by the nature of our society
typically and simultaneously members of both sectors, may use violence
to defend themselves subject to the review of the public represented by
the courts. Corporations are treated, to some degree, as individuals
under the law, but their use of violence to 'defend' themselves has
never, to my knowledge, been specifically addressed.
>
> That much is pretty universal, the difference here in the US is that
> the Constitution determines how we select our public sector. In
> some areas of the world, it's the warlord with the biggest army.
Yes, the difference between Democracy and other forms of government is
primarily that, in Democracy, we ideally choose our government
representatives, hence we choose those who we feel best represent our
interests. Other forms of government certainly exist: theocracies,
oligarchies, monarchies, tyrannies - one may argue, however, that
without public representation there is no 'public sector' per se hence a
warlord is not the 'public sector, although there is still government.
>
> In my opinion, the role of the US public sector has suffered mission
> creep. Instead of simply protecting us from crime and invasion, we
> have allowed it to protect us from everything from communicable
> diseases (arguably appropriate), down to protection from buying
> undersized plums. The cost has escalated to the point many would
> like protection from the public sector's "protection". The solution
> has become the problem.
A number of people seem to feel this way. In fact, I would probably
agree with you in general, if you replace 'the' problem with 'a'
problem. But again the role of the government is to represent the
public, not simply protect us from crime and invasion. If the public
wants government to protect it from communicable diseases, then it
becomes part of the government's purpose to do so. If the public deems
the cost is too great, then it tells the government to stop doing so.
That there will always be dissatisfied subsectors of the public is an
indication that we are not a homogeneous mass of common interests - in
fact if we were government may be unnecessary. Considering the number
of repsonsibilities of government, however, and the diversity of public
and private interests, it is inevitable that few of us will get our way
in everything, unless we are all dead.
>
> There are two reasons for this (IMO):
>
> 1. Many ignorant but well-meaning and likeable people believe they
> know how to spend your money better than you do. They are willing
> to use force against you, but only for your own good, of course. To
> do that, they become involved with the public sector. They are the
> most dangerous, because they feel righteous about their actions.
These people would be...? Certainly not the IRS. That is a legitimate
and necessary part of any government. Governments will never exist by
voluntary contribution, yet government is a desirable and necessary
entity.
>
> 2. Some of the criminal sector find it much easier and safer to
> become involved in the public sector to take your money for their
> own benefit. They are somewhat less dangerous, because they know
> they are doing wrong, and may even have the decency to feel guilty
> about it.
Criminals exist in all segments of society. One of the purposes of
government is to keep them from being legitimized, i.e. making their
criminal activities legal. Again, I reject the argument that the law
defines criminal behavior, and I do so for the reason discussed earlier.
>
> So: The public sector has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
No part of your argument above leads to this conclusion.
> The private sector cannot use force except for immediate defense.
Your agrument again does not lead to this conclusion. You have not
defined 'force', but however you define it, force may be used by the
private sector for other purposes than defense.
> The criminal sector uses force whenever it wants. but pays a price
> when caught.
This hopefully occurs. In real life, of course, we are faced with the
difficulty of defining criminal behavior, and we are faced with the
difficulties of bringing the wealthy specifically to justice. An
interesting recent example is Simpson. If he is guilty of murder he
should be in jail. If he is innocent of murder he should not have lost
the civil suit. Another case is Millikin. Although he presumably spent
time in jail and paid fines, he also apparently retained a significant
amount of money. There are many examples like this.
>
> If you haven't got it by now, you won't ever get it.
>
I think that I haven't 'got it' as you say, because there is nothing to
get. Your arguments are faulty, your conclusions unsupported, your
definitions fuzzy.
> Go troll in some other pond, this has nothing to do with chemistry,
> and I'm going back to quietly lurking and learning.
Never. You have no control over me whatsoever and I will never give you
any.
M
Jeffrey Haber
> > Is it possible to selfishly, unappologetically enjoy having material
> > possessions and to have self esteem at the same time? I certainly think
> > so. Why do you think that two are mutually exclusive?
> >
>
> It is a very common, and useful, misconception IMO. Common because it
> is an principal part of the teachings of the Christian church. Useful,
> because it allows us to bear, condone, and excuse, poverty and
> suffering.
Why are you responsible for another person's poverty unless you've
advocated that someone be forcibly prevented from earning a living? In
a free society, if you wanted to help someone who was impoverished, you
would not be stopped.
> > What you describe applies to animals, not humans. One of the great
> > things about being a rational being is that humans do not have to
> > compete for limited resources, but * use their minds to create new
> > resources; that is, almost all wealth has to be created before it can be
> > consumed, and the sacrifice of no one is required.
>
> I think you should amend this slightly by inserting the word 'can' at
> the asterisk. That parts of our society intentionally adopt policy
> harmful to other parts of society I think is beyond question. But
> achievement of the conceptual objective of comfortable wealth if an
> individual desires it, seems very difficult in practice.
When I say "rational animal" I use it in the context that man has the
capability to act rationally if he chooses; I use it to denote the
possession of a conceptual level consciousness, not to mean that men
will choose to use it or to act rationally.
> > You can observe these attrocities under socialist regimes
> > and mixed economies where the government tries to regulate, by force
> > (implicit in the combination of regulation and government), the
> > production and distribution of wealth.
>
> You can see them under Capitalist economies where corporations, by the
> use of force (implicit in the combination of regulation and government),
> attempt to control the production and distribution of wealth.
The kinds of economies you are referring to are not capitalist
economies, but mixed economies--mixtures of capitalist and socialist
elements, freedom and controls. Under capitalaism the government's only
function is to protect individual rights, not to regulate the exchange
of value; there would be a separation of economy and state in the same
way and for the same reasons as a separation of church and state.
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
David Allsopp
[Newsgroups trimmed]
In article <355F51...@sb.fsu.edu>, Jeffrey Haber <ha...@sb.fsu.edu> wrote:
>mike wrote:
>
>Is it possible to selfishly, unappologetically enjoy having material
>possessions and to have self esteem at the same time? I certainly think
>so. Why do you think that two are mutually exclusive?
The poster did not claim that they were mutually exclusive, nor that all people
act this way.
>It is a good thing, that man's nature is to want to be happy, to desire
>to live in material comfort and to enjoy life.
But it is a bad thing when people seek to gain material possessions not to
enjoy them for their own sake but to compete with others and to make them
appear inferior, out of insecurity. Psychologists have argued that this
insecurity is a natural state for humans which takes a lot of conscious effort
to overcome, hence the universality of the 'Mine is better than yours' game
amongst children, (and 'Keeping up with the Joneses' amongst adults).
>If you have done introspection and think that you are not radically
>different from a chimpanzee, that is your own admission, please speak
>for yourself and not for men.
As you probably know, humans are genetically very similar (98.4 percent IIRC)
to chimps, and show much of the same social behaviour. Chimps are even prone to
some of the darker human behaviours such as deliberate murder and genocide.
[See 'The Third Chimpanzee' by Jared Diamond for instance]
>As for me, I proclaim my proper status as
>a rational, conceptual being whose purpose in life is the achievement of
>his own moral happiness.
Humans are not really rational - we have a lot of genetic and
behavioural baggage that influences what we do, with a thin veneer of
rationality over the top. We make a lot of decisions from gut
feeling, then justify them with 'rational' reasons afterwards.
Witness the number of so called 'rational men' of learning who have
justified the prejudices of the day; slavery etc. Even scientists
have been shown to be creatures of fashion and prejudice in their
working and ideas, rather than truly following the scientific method.
>What you describe applies to animals, not humans.
Humans are animals, unless you claim to be vegetable or mineral. 8-)
>One of the great
>things about being a rational being is that humans do not have to
>compete for limited resources,
Then why do they do so all the time?
>but use their minds to create new
>resources; that is, almost all wealth has to be created before it can be
>consumed, and the sacrifice of no one is required.
Except the poor, the undereducated, the exploited...the world is full of
rich people who 'created' their wealth from the losses of others.
>If humans were just chimpanzees, they would still be living in the trees
>competing for bananas, not engaging in agriculture, trading,
>manufacturing, inventing, and building comfortable dwellings.
So now they compete for dollars rather than bananas.
>How could you possibly, without being intellectually dishonest, equate
>human beings to chimpanzees? Perhaps you're just a victim of modern
>university intellectuals.
I don't think the poster _equated_ humans and chimps, rather pointed out the
many similarities and few major differences.
>What you may have observed in your lifetime is the result of what
>happens when some individuals try to obtain value dishonestly, by the
>use of force. You can observe these attrocities under socialist regimes
>and mixed economies
I'm afraid this sounds rather politically naive - dishonesty is rife in all
types of economy and government. It may take more subtle forms in modern
market economies...
David.
--
"It doesn't matter how fast your modem is if you're being shelled by
ethnic seperatists." - William Gibson
re...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Haber wrote:
>
>
> Why are you responsible for another person's poverty unless you've
> advocated that someone be forcibly prevented from earning a living? In
> a free society, if you wanted to help someone who was impoverished, you
> would not be stopped.
Your response may be a misinterpretation of my statement insofar as
'excuse' means an insufficient argument used to justify an action. I
had no intent of implying responsibility. Now that the issue has been
raise, however, what do you mean by 'forcibly'? If you advocate,and
through a political procedure impliment, policy which is detrimental to
others, are you 'responsible' for the detrimental effects? Since your
policy in such a case is implemented by law, are you 'forcibly' enacting
this policy?
My opinion, with perhaps a few reservations, is yes to both questions if
we presume to live in a civilized society.
>
> When I say "rational animal" I use it in the context that man has the
> capability to act rationally if he chooses; I use it to denote the
> possession of a conceptual level consciousness, not to mean that men
> will choose to use it or to act rationally.
Then I agree.
> > You can see them under Capitalist economies where corporations, by the
> > use of force (implicit in the combination of regulation and government),
> > attempt to control the production and distribution of wealth.
>
> The kinds of economies you are referring to are not capitalist
> economies, but mixed economies--mixtures of capitalist and socialist
> elements, freedom and controls. Under capitalaism the government's only
> function is to protect individual rights, not to regulate the exchange
> of value; there would be a separation of economy and state in the same
> way and for the same reasons as a separation of church and state.
>
I think that you will find, in practice, that in Capitalist economies,
no more and no less than in Socialist or Communist economies, the
function of protecting the rights of the individual and regulating the
exchange of value are inseperable. Perhaps this can be made evident
without specific example by considering that Capitalism and a free
market are distinct entities, in that either may exist without the
other. Thus Capitalist interests may also regulate the exchange of
value, control the production and distribution of wealth without the
need of government to do so. This description correlates with a
prinicpal objection forwarded by Capitalists in reference to government
powers under Socialism, yet the difference is little more than the label
we give to the controlling factions, i.e. government or Capitalists.
To see this in action, I think one need go no farther than Indonesia,
where the IMF forced the government to defer its own economic response
in favor of a plan developed by the IMF. The tool for implementing this
deferral was the threat of economic sanctions, and the plan included a
significant fuel price increase. Such threats are a major weapon of
Capitalism, and without government regulation this tool may be used at
the discretion of the Capitalists. A domestic example is the common
practice by large corporations of eliciting tax concessions from states
and municipalities under threat of removing their businesses elsewhere.
I am not judging this practice here, but pointing out that it exists,
and that it represents a power concentration inherent in Capitalism
which both parallels that of government and, if unrestrained, could
certainly be used against the interests of the public.
M
Brian G. Moore
In article <355E69...@ultranet.com>,
Marc Andelman <drgo...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>This issue of academic patents is possibly the most vital
>technology issue of our time . Besides your helpful
>remaks, the lack of interst or comment other than React's,
>who is a couple cents short of a dollar, is appalling.
>Everyone please read the May 1 Sience article.
>
>Regards,
>Marc Andelman
Marc, it is not that we are not interested. In fact I agree with
you wholeheartedly about the issue of patents. However, it is your
raging desire so see all of academia, in fact all of public education
down to the pre-school level, done away with that makes me realize
you cannot be reasoned with on this issue.
--
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
bg...@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
re...@ix.netcom.com
Brian G. Moore wrote:
>
> In article <355E69...@ultranet.com>,
> Marc Andelman <drgo...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
> >This issue of academic patents is possibly the most vital
> >technology issue of our time . Besides your helpful
> >remaks, the lack of interst or comment other than React's,
> >who is a couple cents short of a dollar, is appalling.
> >Everyone please read the May 1 Sience article.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Marc Andelman
>
> Marc, it is not that we are not interested. In fact I agree with
> you wholeheartedly about the issue of patents. However, it is your
> raging desire so see all of academia, in fact all of public education
> down to the pre-school level, done away with that makes me realize
> you cannot be reasoned with on this issue.
>
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.
M
David Allsopp
>> It is a very common, and useful, misconception IMO. Common because it
>> is an principal part of the teachings of the Christian church. Useful,
>> because it allows us to bear, condone, and excuse, poverty and
>> suffering.
>
>
>Why are you responsible for another person's poverty unless you've
>advocated that someone be forcibly prevented from earning a living? In
>a free society, if you wanted to help someone who was impoverished, you
>would not be stopped.
How would you help all the impoverished people around you unless you
were fabulously wealthy? We are all responsible for each others'
welfare in a civilised society, and therefore bear a small part of the
responsibility if society allows people to fall into poverty.
If there is widespread unemployment then society and the economy need
to change. Individuals cannot solve the problem by employing
all the jobless around them; they can't afford it!
>> You can see them under Capitalist economies where corporations, by the
>> use of force (implicit in the combination of regulation and government),
>> attempt to control the production and distribution of wealth.
>
>The kinds of economies you are referring to are not capitalist
>economies, but mixed economies--mixtures of capitalist and socialist
>elements, freedom and controls. Under capitalaism the government's only
>function is to protect individual rights, not to regulate the exchange
>of value; there would be a separation of economy and state in the same
>way and for the same reasons as a separation of church and state.
How can you protect individual rights without regulating the economy to some
extent?
By your definition, I don't believe there are any capitalist economies,
ie totally free markets, because they don't work. Too many people suffer,
together with destruction of the environment etc.
Lloyd R. Parker
Jeffrey Haber (ha...@sb.fsu.edu) wrote:
: Why are you responsible for another person's poverty unless you've
: advocated that someone be forcibly prevented from earning a living? In
: a free society, if you wanted to help someone who was impoverished, you
: would not be stopped.
Well, if you're a Christian, you're responsible for your fellow man
(including the poor) because Jesus said that we should help those less
fortunate. If you have a conscience, or any sense of morals or ethics, I'd
think you'd feel some responsibility to help those in need too.
Lloyd R. Parker
re...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: > We establish a "public
: > sector" and give it the monopoly on enFORCEing those laws.
:
: The public sector consists of three branches: the legislative which in
: brief makes the laws and hence falls outside your definition, the
But also establishes the mechanism for enforcing laws.
: executive which impliments these laws hence also falls outside your
Isn't arrest a part of enforcing laws?
: definition, and the judicial which enforces the laws. You are only
: speaking of the judicial.