There's one important difference between your example and this case - the number of people targeted. If you're sending out hundreds of letters to people claiming that they damaged your car, then that's extortion.
I don't see how that would work out. If a garden shed based inventor comes up with a novel, useful nuclear reactor design and patents it, your law would ensure that he'd have to go into the energy business.
The real answer is to not allow patents for things that are "obvious" to people knowledgeable in the relevant field. These obvious patents don't help anyone because almost no-one searches through patents to find out how to do things.
Yes, smaller effects can easily be overlooked. Tobacco hasn't been in major use (excepting occasional ceremonial use by native americans) for as long as coffee, yet it was suspected of being dangerous by the early 19th century. Major usage of tobacco didn't really take off until the late 19th century when the cigarette machinery was developed.
Negative effects tend to be more noticeable than positive effects as they take effect quicker. If people are dying 10 years before they should be, you're going to spot that before the people living for 10 years longer. Also, human psychology tends to inflate negative effects (although marketeers will tend to inflate positive effects).
As far as I know, they do both come from the same root:
The word "evangelist" comes from the Koine Greek word Îá½Î±ÎÎÎÎÎÎν (transliterated as "euagelion") via Latinised Evangelium, as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists). The Greek word Îá½Î±ÎÎÎÎÎÎν originally meant a reward given to the messenger for good news (Îá½" = "good", á¼ÎÎÎÎÎÏ = "I bring a message"; the word "angel" comes from the same root) and later "good news" itself.
The verb form of euangelion, ehtoqualia[clarification needed] (translated as "evangelism"), occurs rarely in older Greek literature outside the New Testament, making its meaning more difficult to ascertain. Parallel texts of the Gospels of Luke and Mark reveal a synonymous relationship between the verb euangelizo (Îá½'αÎÎÎÎÎÎÏ) and a Greek verb kerusso (ÎÎÏÏ...ÏfÏfÏ), which means "to proclaim".[2]
That's not really the meaning of evangelical/evangelize. It typically means to preach (christian) gospel. A better choice of word would be inform/teach/discuss/exhort etc. And yes, I'm an atheist.
I think the idea fits a lot of "strange" facts about humans. Losing body hair, but keeping hair on the top of your head suggests lots of time standing in water. Breath control for swimming/diving leads on to changes suitable for spoken language. I haven't read either of those books, so I don't know the details.
If you go back a few hundred years, that'd be easy enough to find. Just a case of trawling through old birth/death rates to see if there's any correlation between when coffee was introduced to a village/society and their longevity.
If there are significant negative effects of drinking coffee then I'd have thought we'd have found out about it by now. Coffee's been around for several hundred years so typical consumption most likely doesn't have bad effects that are easily noticeable.
I don't know how I remembered your Folger's reference as I don't think they showed it in the UK when I was a kid in the 70s. Must be the blood content in my caffeine stream.
You seem to be a bit confused. I mentioned the "persistence hunting theory" in relation to adaptations in humans. Your theory about hominids carrying spears doesn't seem to make much sense - why don't other hominids run like we do or carry spears?
I'm not saying that your theory is right or wrong, but it doesn't seem to have much descriptive/predictive power. That could be because organised large-scale warfare depends on society and is thus too recent for evolution to have caught up with.
Funnily enough, dogs are one of the few animals that can *almost* keep pace with a long distance human runner and some people think that is why dogs were such a good choice to be domesticated.
It's not entirely fair as the horse has to carry a human, but it does show how humans are better runners than you might think. Conversely, midday African sun would make it much harder for the horses than racing in Wales (typically cold, rainy weather).
Also, a lot of bike lanes are very poorly designed for cyclists. Lots of them here in the UK are dual purpose pedestrian/cyclist tracks which means that they're not suitable for a cyclist going 15mph or quicker. A lot of bike lanes have badly thought out exit points, so you can actually put yourself in more danger by using the lane and then being dumped into fast moving traffic at an inopportune point.
Cycle lanes (at least in the UK) are purely optional and as a UK tax payer, I pay more than my fair share towards roads and definitely have the right to use them. Demanding that cyclist use a cycle lane whenever possible is like demanding that motorists have to use motorways (interstates) whenever possible.
You could be right, but conversely if losing body hair is so beneficial to humans, you'd have thought there'd be more bald animals that use the same advantage. The other good reason for losing hair is if we spent large amounts of time in water - fishing most likely. There's the whole Aquatic Ape theory, but it's not given much credence.
"Not evolved to digest" is subtly different from an appeal to nature. Evolution tends to take lots of generations for an adaptation to be distributed throughout a population, so our bodies might not be well adapted for eating some foods. Cow milk is a classic example where most people can digest lactose, but about a third of adults have trouble with it.
However, humans do seem to be adapted for something like persistence hunting. Our ability to run long distances in the hot African midday sun would soon cause an antelope to drop dead of heat exhaustion probably way before they got to be 20 miles away. Our lack of thick hair and sweating ability do point towards a remarkable ability to withstand heat. Also, animals running tend to loop in a large circle rather than travelling a long distance.
And, I'm not a runner (although I do a load of cycling which is also endurance based).
Yes, but it's trickier to get large amounts of coins out of the US to make it worth the cost of the flight. I wonder if they'd allow a shipping container full of coins out?
Slashdot Mirror
There's one important difference between your example and this case - the number of people targeted. If you're sending out hundreds of letters to people claiming that they damaged your car, then that's extortion.
Nope - that's not the problem. The problem is patents that are so obvious that everyone infringes them without even realising it.
I don't see how that would work out. If a garden shed based inventor comes up with a novel, useful nuclear reactor design and patents it, your law would ensure that he'd have to go into the energy business.
The real answer is to not allow patents for things that are "obvious" to people knowledgeable in the relevant field. These obvious patents don't help anyone because almost no-one searches through patents to find out how to do things.
FTFY
Yes, smaller effects can easily be overlooked. Tobacco hasn't been in major use (excepting occasional ceremonial use by native americans) for as long as coffee, yet it was suspected of being dangerous by the early 19th century. Major usage of tobacco didn't really take off until the late 19th century when the cigarette machinery was developed.
Negative effects tend to be more noticeable than positive effects as they take effect quicker. If people are dying 10 years before they should be, you're going to spot that before the people living for 10 years longer. Also, human psychology tends to inflate negative effects (although marketeers will tend to inflate positive effects).
It's from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism/ but Slashdot doesn't like the greek.
That's not really the meaning of evangelical/evangelize. It typically means to preach (christian) gospel. A better choice of word would be inform/teach/discuss/exhort etc. And yes, I'm an atheist.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Aquatic-Ape-Elaine-Morgan/dp/0812828739/ or better yet http://www.amazon.co.uk/Descent-Woman-Elaine-Morgan-ebook/dp/B00796E5H2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389641341&sr=1-1&keywords=descent+of+woman/.
I think the idea fits a lot of "strange" facts about humans. Losing body hair, but keeping hair on the top of your head suggests lots of time standing in water. Breath control for swimming/diving leads on to changes suitable for spoken language. I haven't read either of those books, so I don't know the details.
If you go back a few hundred years, that'd be easy enough to find. Just a case of trawling through old birth/death rates to see if there's any correlation between when coffee was introduced to a village/society and their longevity.
You left out the obvious "wine".
Ahh - that'd be it. Thanks.
How can an atheist be evangelical? (Unless they're hypocrites - preaching Christianity without believing in it).
(Or, alternatively, what does athiest mean?)
If there are significant negative effects of drinking coffee then I'd have thought we'd have found out about it by now. Coffee's been around for several hundred years so typical consumption most likely doesn't have bad effects that are easily noticeable.
I don't know how I remembered your Folger's reference as I don't think they showed it in the UK when I was a kid in the 70s. Must be the blood content in my caffeine stream.
You seem to be a bit confused. I mentioned the "persistence hunting theory" in relation to adaptations in humans. Your theory about hominids carrying spears doesn't seem to make much sense - why don't other hominids run like we do or carry spears?
I'm not saying that your theory is right or wrong, but it doesn't seem to have much descriptive/predictive power. That could be because organised large-scale warfare depends on society and is thus too recent for evolution to have caught up with.
Funnily enough, dogs are one of the few animals that can *almost* keep pace with a long distance human runner and some people think that is why dogs were such a good choice to be domesticated.
I did a bit of searching on this topic a while ago and found this interesting 22 mile race between humans and horses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon/
It's not entirely fair as the horse has to carry a human, but it does show how humans are better runners than you might think. Conversely, midday African sun would make it much harder for the horses than racing in Wales (typically cold, rainy weather).
Also, a lot of bike lanes are very poorly designed for cyclists. Lots of them here in the UK are dual purpose pedestrian/cyclist tracks which means that they're not suitable for a cyclist going 15mph or quicker. A lot of bike lanes have badly thought out exit points, so you can actually put yourself in more danger by using the lane and then being dumped into fast moving traffic at an inopportune point.
Cycle lanes (at least in the UK) are purely optional and as a UK tax payer, I pay more than my fair share towards roads and definitely have the right to use them. Demanding that cyclist use a cycle lane whenever possible is like demanding that motorists have to use motorways (interstates) whenever possible.
Just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean that I've just made it up.
Well done on thinking up your own theory, does it help explain human characteristics better than other theories?
You could be right, but conversely if losing body hair is so beneficial to humans, you'd have thought there'd be more bald animals that use the same advantage. The other good reason for losing hair is if we spent large amounts of time in water - fishing most likely. There's the whole Aquatic Ape theory, but it's not given much credence.
Also, hmmm sweet glands!
There should be a +1 irony mod for posts like that.
"Not evolved to digest" is subtly different from an appeal to nature. Evolution tends to take lots of generations for an adaptation to be distributed throughout a population, so our bodies might not be well adapted for eating some foods. Cow milk is a classic example where most people can digest lactose, but about a third of adults have trouble with it.
However, humans do seem to be adapted for something like persistence hunting. Our ability to run long distances in the hot African midday sun would soon cause an antelope to drop dead of heat exhaustion probably way before they got to be 20 miles away. Our lack of thick hair and sweating ability do point towards a remarkable ability to withstand heat. Also, animals running tend to loop in a large circle rather than travelling a long distance.
And, I'm not a runner (although I do a load of cycling which is also endurance based).
I agree with what you're saying, but fell that I should point out that hospitals often do make people "sicker".
Here's a current instance of a Welsh hospital: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hospital-visitors-urged-stay-away-6498464/ . They're warning people to stay away to stop the spread of norovirus.
Or, if you're in Wales, you'd do it slowly and Caerphilly (the same way you'd eat welsh cheese).
Yes, but it's trickier to get large amounts of coins out of the US to make it worth the cost of the flight. I wonder if they'd allow a shipping container full of coins out?