|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 11:01 AM EST |
Just because you don't like the analogy doesn't mean you can
misinterpret it as a metaphor and debunk the entire argument
based on one misaligned analogy. for the purposes of this
article, the equivalencies of the two meanings are spot on...
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 11:08 AM EST |
I think there Trollville has adopted a new writing style.
Here are a few of its hallmarks:
1. Short attention span. The trollset in this comments
section doesn't seem to have read past the fifth paragraph
of the article. I bet this sentence would really anger them
if they could read all the way to the end of it.
2. A certain randomness in spelling.
3. Reliance on the exclamation point! Really!!
4. Abbreviations frm txtng.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 11:36 AM EST |
Coincidentally, I've just been preparing (for Project Gutenberg) a book on the
origins of the slide rule. One man invented it (various forms of it, actually);
another man got into the business of making them--when King Charles I went to
the block, one of his last dispositions was a slide rule, which indicates the
time frame involved.
Guess which man got the patent? (for ten years, as it happens)
Also, there's nothing in that book suggesting that patents granted new
inventions (and, presumably, giving a device to the king) were new, even then.
Patents (royal monopolies) were a much older idea; the recent notion is of a
patent being granted for invention (rather than just simply as a royal method of
controlling/regulating the national economy.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
