TakeYouToTasker Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 No, I'm trying to find out who's a monopoly in this case and who's engaging in monopolistic behavior? Speaking of moronic logic. Really? You can't figure out who holds the monopoly or what creates the monopoly? Am I reading this correctly?
GG Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 Really? You can't figure out who holds the monopoly or what creates the monopoly? Am I reading this correctly? I can figure out a monopoly, that's why I'm asking you to define the parties who monopolies and are engaging in monopolistic behavior in the Kim Dot Com case. It's a very simple question that doesn't need to be answered with another question.
4merper4mer Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 If you I can't figure out on your my own why the test analogy is bad, I'm not going to act like it should be obvious and call people stupid heads. waste my time explaining it to you. You also can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that just because a law exists doesn't make it a good, wise, or just law. I fixed the first part for you. Regarding the second, you brought up the courts and their supposed skepticism regarding shrink wrap EULAs. You did it sans substantiation of course. Pardon me for thinking you were talking about legality when you brought up the courts. My bad. Anyway, If you're on this "it is ok to take other people's ideas and use them for myself" morality kick, why not make your case in the courts or the legislative process? Do you have an internship next semester so you can start to get a dose of the real world?
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) I fixed the first part for you. Regarding the second, you brought up the courts and their supposed skepticism regarding shrink wrap EULAs. You did it sans substantiation of course. Pardon me for thinking you were talking about legality when you brought up the courts. My bad. Anyway, If you're on this "it is ok to take other people's ideas and use them for myself" morality kick, why not make your case in the courts or the legislative process? Do you have an internship next semester so you can start to get a dose of the real world? ... I wouldn't teach you how to tie your own shoes, either; and quite frankly, if you can't understand why your own analogy is laughably horrendous, then I'm not going to waste my own very valuable time attempting to explain it to you because a) you're too damn dense to grasp the concepts, and b) my time is far more valuable than yours. Additionally, I see you can't remember your own arguments. You and GG the one who injected the courts into this discussion, and I was simply speaking to your incorrect absolute assertions. I'll try to dumb this down even further for you: Let's suppose that I invented a machine that would allow me to replicate perfectly any and all products on the Earth as often as I liked, and I offered this service to everyone in the world for free. A large % of the world took me up on this offer, and I replicated 10 million dollar homes, Ferraris, and an endless supply of whatever these individuals wanted free of any cost; would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why? Edited May 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 ... I wouldn't teach you how to tie your own shoes, either; and quite frankly, if you can't understand why your own analogy is laughably horrendous, then I'm not going to waste my own very valuable time attempting to explain it to you because a) you're too damn dense to grasp the concepts, and b) my time is far more valuable than yours. Additionally, I see you can't remember your own arguments. You and GG the one who injected the courts into this discussion, and I was simply speaking to your incorrect absolute assertions. I'll try to dumb this down even further for you: Let's suppose that I invented a machine that would allow me to replicate perfectly any and all products on the Earth as often as I liked, and I offered this service to everyone in the world for free. A large % of the world took me up on this offer, and I replicated 10 million dollar homes, Ferraris, and an endless supply of whatever these individuals wanted free of any cost; would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why? Answer the question first.
4merper4mer Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) ... I'll try to dumb this down even further for you: Let's suppose that I invented a machine that would allow me to replicate perfectly any and all products on the Earth as often as I liked, and I offered this service to everyone in the world for free. A large % of the world took me up on this offer, and I replicated 10 million dollar homes, Ferraris, and an endless supply of whatever these individuals wanted free of any cost; would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why? In your scenario did you buy the rights to Ferrari's original design or did you steal them? Edited May 9, 2013 by 4merper4mer
dayman Posted May 9, 2013 Posted May 9, 2013 Kim Dotcom is a troll who knows damn well what he was doing. To turn around and call out Hollywood is ridiculous.
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 In your scenario did you buy the rights to Ferrari's original design or did you steal them? Design is intellectual. Therefore it can't be owned.
truth on hold Posted May 10, 2013 Author Posted May 10, 2013 Kim Dotcom is a troll who knows damn well what he was doing. To turn around and call out Hollywood is ridiculous. http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/image/532
4merper4mer Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/image/532 Did Take You to Econ102 write that strip?
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) In your scenario did you buy the rights to Ferrari's original design or did you steal them? I simply walked up to the Ferrari, and replicated it with my replication machine. This replication produces an unlimited supply of Ferraris. Edited May 10, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 I simply walked up to the Ferrari, and replicated it with my replication machine. This replication produces an unlimited supply of Ferraris. Quit cloning around.
meazza Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 I simply walked up to the Ferrari, and replicated it with my replication machine. This replication produces an unlimited supply of Ferraris. Magically, women with gigantic breasts also appear.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 Magically, women with gigantic breasts also appear. What? Oh...it's just part of this ongoing analogy. Darn.
meazza Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 What? Oh...it's just part of this ongoing analogy. Darn. Ferrari's attract silicon
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Ferrari's attract silicon It's the headlight connection.
4merper4mer Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I simply walked up to the Ferrari, and replicated it with my replication machine. This replication produces an unlimited supply of Ferraris. In that case I give the human race about 4 generations before extinction. Good job.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) In that case I give the human race about 4 generations before extinction. Good job. That's not even an argument... infact, it's just a lazy, ignorant, and otherwise just plain stupid thing to say. Natural scarcity is a bad thing. However it's an unfortunate reality which nature has bestowed on us. What is absolutely unconscionable is the artificial creation of scarcity for scarcity sake. Technologies which render the scarce abundant should be embraced. If this drives down, or even eliminates some prices, so be it. Edited May 11, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 That's not even an argument... infact, it's just a lazy, ignorant, and otherwise just plain stupid thing to say. Natural scarcity is a bad thing. However it's an unfortunate reality which nature has bestowed on us. What is absolutely unconscionable is the artificial creation of scarcity for scarcity sake. Technologies which render the scarce abundant should be embraced. If this drives down, or even eliminates some prices, so be it. Except you're not innovating, you're just copying. Something that your comrades tried to do as well until they ran out of ideas to copy.
4merper4mer Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) That's not even an argument... infact, it's just a lazy, ignorant, and otherwise just plain stupid thing to say. Natural scarcity is a bad thing. However it's an unfortunate reality which nature has bestowed on us. What is absolutely unconscionable is the artificial creation of scarcity for scarcity sake. Technologies which render the scarce abundant should be embraced. If this drives down, or even eliminates some prices, so be it. I think in Econ 201 you may learn about some new concepts. Between now and September I'll oversimplify it a bit by pointing out that your imaginary machine which doesn't exist but makes you feel better about stealing music and porn cannot innovate new ideas. Anyone who does innovate new ideas will instantly have them stolen so why bother? Instead we can all sit around and get fat in our big houses until something comes along for which we are utterly unprepared. Maybe it is a disease or an asteroid or whatever. All the lazy losers that have been bred will be powerless to deal with it. Congrats. And no offense but I hope Ferrari sues the crap out of you when you steal their design. Edited May 11, 2013 by 4merper4mer
Recommended Posts