@blowdart: Fully-qualfied type name: System.Security.Principal.WindowsImpersonationContext
Thank goodness for usings and autocomplete.
Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
I love you how backtrack after somebody destroys your argument. You were right the first time. Patent protection on drugs lasts 20 years (at least they are in the US), but that period of protection, as with any patent, begins when it's filed.
Drugs have to go through extensive testing in clinical trials before the FDA approves them and well before they ever hit the market, and that process could take years. Companies, effectively have only some fraction of those 20 years of protection, but it certainly isn't zero.
I think we all know that in Dutch history, there was a time when tulip bulbs practically served as currency. (Gotta love how the unfettered capitalist system was able to pull that one off!) Maybe Maddus wants to go back to the Tulip Standard.
I pay substantially more taxes than the average person in my country, and receive substantially less than my fair share in return. But I don't think that crippling capitalism and abolishing the government would equal me back to a better position. I think that it would just crush the economy and throw everyone in the country into blinding poverty.
You bring up a great point. Nose, face, spite. The neocons in our country would sooner have everybody live in abject poverty than to give anybody currently in poverty "something for nothing" because of their warped notion of what "fairness" is.
I guess that you don't seem to recall evil mentioning that you have to spend your own money to defend a patent. You just couldn't wait to unload your "government force" schtick again, could you? And I see you got a daily double with the "spend other people's money" bit! LOL
cbae: His solution is to eliminate government so it cannot be encroached upon.
Revisionist Historian: Exactly! That would be far cheaper then to try and regulate it.
Comparing a position of a person in a debate to rape and rape victims is despicable, childish and rather offensive.
Come back when you can act like an adult and provide an argument for your position.
I presented an analogy. It's your job to prove my analogy flawed or irrelevant. And what's despicable about what I said? I didn't say you advocated the rape of women. I'm claiming your position is one of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
See, I didn't reduce your position any further using some slippery slope argument. Your position can't be reduced to any further absurd scenario. It was at the absurd level to begin with. All I did was provide an analogy. Prove that it's a false analogy.
and where did I claim it was a fallacy? It's just a very stupid and unconstructive form of debating,.
Again, I didn't use reductio ad absurdum, but I do seem to recall somebody giving the example of a 100% tax scenario to make the case that increasing taxes is bad. Are you claiming that reductio ad absurdum isn't stupid or unconstructive when you use it?
Nice! Free controls! Thanks for contributing to my laziness. You must be a socialist at heart.
Unfortunately, with regard to patentability, I can probably find cases of prior art for each of your controls. It's a goodwill gesture on your part to offer these, but let's not kid ourselves. If you really had patentable IP, you would patent it in a heartbeat.
First, "reductio ad absurdum" isn't a logical fallacy. When you claim: "Hey, that's reductio ad absurdum! Use some other kind of argument." You're basically saying: "Hey, that's a legitimate logical argument! I quit because I have no retort."
Second, the argument that I used isn't really "reductio ad absurdum" anyway. Your argument to get rid of government entirely is already absurd and can't be reduced any further.
When you have brokers telling their retail customers to continue to buy and hold while the trading arm of these same firms selling short and closing out positions at the end of every trading day, you know it's a complete set-up.
In the past, you could rely on the "greater fool" to one day get you out of a bad trading position. Now you have your own brokerage firm trying to make money at your expense. It's as bad as when real estate agents would bid on the same houses that you hired them to help you purchase several years ago when everybody want to flip houses for huge profits.
@JohnAskew: The funny thing is that Maddus has acknowledged previously that corporations are, in fact, dangerously encroaching on government. But his solution isn't to prevent this from happening by dissuading corporations through regulations, penalties, sanctions, etc.. His solution is to eliminate government so it cannot be encroached upon. IOW, instead of preventing women from being raped by punishing the rapist. Prevent rape by getting rid of women.