Why is is such a stretch that something that has value costs money?
This nasty sumbitch called the supply-demand curve. Value is subjective.
The last decade has made it brutally obvious that volume is king. Among industries that whine about piracy hurting theoretical profits, how many have tried *gasp* lowering prices? Should a song really cost more than a hamburger?
There are teeth here: the court system. It's syntactically like "winning" a settlement. I imagine being hit (violence!) with a $1B lawsuit is a declaration of war, and I don't have a very vivid imagination.
In fact, agreement, from the press release, is the weasel word here -- concession is more accurate.
Couldn't you have just bitched about their data retention policy like everyone else?
Why would you need unique labels? In your example why not just use:
May && Work && SmallProject... etc
Noisy intersections:
What do you gain by separating Work from other uses of Work in other contexts?... if you then refine it with May, or with May and Small Project then you'll get the same result.
The long-form labels are what I called "extra organizational work." Keeping a tab on suitable refinements, as you suggest, is what I meant by "extra mental work."
This year's Work is "in some sense" isomorphic to last year's Work, so I am inclined to label both Work. Without hierarchy, though, searching Work today gets me a hundred things from last year I don't care about -- and maybe I can't remember a key, today, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
My mind has all sorts of fuzzy associations. I don't deny my filing system, without hierarchy, fails to be well-defined. I just don't see how "B < A, analogous to D < C" can be encoded with labels as efficiently as "folders" (even if their existence is an illusion conjured by the application). So I don't think a paradigm shift is possible until such a shift occurs with my brain and/or search technology.
I would like Gmail to pretend folders exist, even if they don't. Storing things so I can find them should not be an exercise in predicate calculus.
Well, I did mention this a couple of posts ago. Microsoft have been promising to put this in WinFS since Cairo, and Reiser spent a long time looking at how this would work in a FS. If you're familiar with the newer search interfaces on the mac then they are going in this direction.
To echo what Baric's hammering above, if they want to make the guts more general and powerful, go for it. In terms of UI, though, I don't see anybody saying "forget folders," which is why Gmail's implementation rubs me funny.
The context is separated by the set of labels that you are finding the intersection of.
Precisely.
No such limitation exists.
I didn't call it a "limitation." I claim it requires extra mental or organizational work to create unique labels to enforce hierarchy:
May &&
MayWork &&
MayWorkSmallProject &&
MayWorkSmallProjectBob && MayWorkSmallProjectBobGUI &&...
I claim the increased complexity of data relationships (Venn diagrams) can mean undesired noise in query results.
I claim that if we have become so enlightened to the "restrictive" nature of the folder paradigm, it is natural that all parent/child relationships evolve to labels. Yet no one suggests this is a good idea anywhere but email.
I conclude there is a reason: a logical "superset" of a hierarchical data structure is less human readable.
Gmail's answer is "who cares?" The day they launch Telepathic Meme-search Beta, I will agree.
When you organise things hierarchically you put one folder inside another. This is equivalent to putting two labels on the same message.
No it isn't. It's equivalent to putting two labels on the same message and promising yourself never to use the "sublabel" in any other context. I suggest myraid intersections are highly unnatural to keep track of, best enforced by the data structure, and that the evolution from CLI to drag-and-drop GUI reflects the improved efficiency.
What's your iTunes look like? C:\?
An ease-of-search versus prescience argument can be made for either paradigm, I think, with no presumption "most people" absorb and recall information one way or the other.
I had the same reaction. If you are interested in visiting his homepage, the "Cure for Blind Code" 2/3 down is the essence of the discussion.
His resolution of the uncomfortable fact computers do algorithms and not algebra is to invoke low-level unicorn code ("the only pure alogrithmic allowed") that takes care of the details "thanks to the high speed of modern processors." That any calculation which taxes modern architecture creates an immediate no-go on the whole idea hasn't escaped him; he excuses himself by appealing to scale -- surely it would help.
After all, we emulate parallelism in various software implementations, so "why not" build it into the kernel in a way that (a) does everything you ask (b) without breaking?
It seems to me anyone with a clear such solution has an imperative to do it and put Intel out of business, lest he be accused of ivory-tower pontification.
'We think they are forgetting that the public road is not theirs, and are exhibiting territorial behavior that normally would only be acceptable in personal space,'
Is driving like an asshole territorial behavior inappropriately expressed in a public space? Or does it only count when you self-report that a guy causing a car wreck makes you feel angry?
If you are listening to violent, misogynistic garbage like most gangsta rap while you are going about your day, you are just feeding yourself a steady stream of crap.
Whereas the violent, misogynist garbage in the bible has vitamin C in it.
Since it is passive, not active, your brain is probably not actively engaging and analyzing the input the way it would with a book or video game.
I note with some interest you say "passive" entertainment is more corruptive than "active" entertainment, for precisely the reason the opposite is generally held true.
I'm about as libertarian as they come... However, I'm also not blind to the fact that things like pornography and violent, depraved music are psychologically harmful when regularly consumed.
No, you aren't about as libertarian as they come. I clicked through to your homepage; you identify as a "Christian libertarian" and we know what that means.
I consume both and am quite unharmed, thanks. I wonder how you identify "pornographic" and "violent, depraved" in a way that excludes any entertainment. For example, I know of precisely one story wherein daughters rape their father. I bet your pastor reads it a Lot.
Primary school curricula should require programming. And abstract algebra (groups, rings, and vector spaces, not 8th grade arithmetic).
It's criminal we have a captive audience at the peak of their learning capacity and don't give them a 21st century skillset in favor of -- sorry -- creative writing or soft science.
Don't bother. Man is by nature a sinner, the only way out is Jesus -- I believe this is the core assertion of the "belief system," which is itself a euphemism for socially reinforced advertising jingles.
the creator is obviously and naturally entitled to owning their ideas
A student of the "paraphrase what he said and negate it" school of rhetoric, I see.
Anyone who has tried to make this work -- fairly -- realizes it can't. Trying has brought us to legal reductio ad absurdum, with USPTO overwhelmed by nonsense concept-squatting and the court system burdened with eight-figure (hence, "important") infringement suits.
In a perfect world, maybe the ancient Greek who figured out the major scale is entitled to royalties on every piece of tonal music ever "invented" (and for Jack Valenti's duration of "forever minus a day"). The rest of us realize that's idiocy: does the practically negligible difference in intonation from changing temperament count as materially different? What about timbre? Who ought to own the 12-bar blues?
Your suggestion our legal process need concern itself with the pockets on my jeans is ridiculous. I challenge you to argue "Amazon's" 1-click claim is any less so.
None of "original," "idea", "implementation" is well-defined. Even the comparably hyper-cooperative world of math publication sees hot debates over independent discovery. We therefore conclude "ownership" in this context is neither obvious nor natural. Enjoy your Monday.
You will, no doubt, condemn any corporationy corporation, that is caught violating GPL
In much the same way I believe murder is wrong despite my willingness to shoot a guy who breaks into my home. Doing the best you can with the cards you're dealt doesn't make you a hypocrite.
*shrug* Discover didn't build a name for itself with sensational mysticism ("surfer dude Lisi may unlock universe with E8 shapethingy"). This seems to be a modern news trend that's invaded popsci.
The grounded, hypothesize-and-falsify style engages my mind like a good mystery. If you're interested in my views on soft science, I'm certain they're in my post history. The parent's article accurately conveys the spirit -- both adventure and method -- of scientific thinking. I praise it for that, even if the underlying field isn't rigorous. Speculation and science aren't exclusive; look at the Standard Model.
Our OP, on the other hand, is another "study shows" piece of smut masquerading as research. To the press's credit, the source material is conveyed without an awful amount of color.
Wonderful insight. I'm fond of criticizing soft science thusly: if your "research" only produces questions, never answers, you're doing philosophy. The ideal of Feynmann's science is an eagerness to answer all critics. Decorum in statistics requires that you hedge whatever tentative correlation you're able to make; funding requires that you sound conclusive regardless. "We're pretty sure the dice are loaded, although it should be noted we're throwing them in sand." Not an avenue for further study, I think, just bad experimental design.
The study questioned 292 male and female online gamers aged between 12 and 83 about anger and stress. They then played the game for two hours and were retested
People with blue eyes, she explains, are stupid. She embarrasses them. People with brown eyes, she goes on, are smart. She praises them. Social strata form as you would expect, with the "superior" kids being cruel little bastards to the stigmatized ones. Academic test scores follow accordingly.
Later, she announces she made a mistake -- it's blues who are smart, browns dumb. Test scores reverse accordingly.
The exercise is only barely more sophisticated when she performs it on adults at company teamwork seminars. They have some idea what's happening, and it still works.
She seems to demonstrate we're wired with social reward-seeking as a high-priority process. It's hard to think when you're flustered, or make up a story when you're caught cheating, unless (A) the confrontational party has nothing you want or (B) you have experience achieving goals under similar duress. Turn the amplitude of this game up far enough, and it's what we call interrogation (or torture).
Unfortunately (research ethics aside) only local effects were examined. I don't think we know if weeks or years of this treatment have permanent consequences. There are compelling demographic and psychiatric reasons to ask.
Weren't we all pretty offended when some-country-or-other suggested you can't be found guilty of criminal behavior resulting from criminal tendencies written in your DNA?
It seems to me that your reason -- a euphemism for the old "they hate our freedom" saw -- is either a new phenomenon in social behavior, or a red herring. Wars have always been fought for land and resources...until now? C'mon. The radically conservative church-state that outlaws any other interpretation of its religion is our strongest economic and political Arab ally. Intolerance (nor human rights) must not be key.
As to "bringing the fight to them," the entire premise of terrorism is it doesn't work that way. Maybe you think it hasn't occurred to Hamza and Ahmed to blow us up, here, instead of blowing each other up in Tikrit? Al Qaeda, who will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life, gets distracted playing cat-and-mouse with IEDs?
I'm not prepared to admit our national security apparatus was compromised utterly by a group too stupid to be dangerous. Indeed Madrid 3/11/04 and London 7/7/05 demonstrate the flaw in "fight 'em there" logic. Israel's seen disproof of the "lightning rod" theory of counter-terrorism weekly for three decades. And I question, sir, the morality (even practicality, cf. NIE) of using Iraq (and Iraqis) as bait.
You say your viewpoint's simple. I'd use the word "naive," because it's a talking point with CYA political utility since Saddam's WMD never turned up. It's a slogan, a sales pitch. We're between a rock and a hard place spending money that may have been used more wisely to keep our economic and technological edge. I want to win too, but a lot of jerks are responsible for this fuckup and I'm not letting them off the hook.
I'm a guy who doesn't mind cancer so much, provided it's curable, doesn't rearrange my DNA, has vitamin C, that sort of thing. If they need to give me a freckle or two to justify continuing to let me see things free, well, shucks, I'd be a jerk to complain.
It's not impossible after they invent silent, invisible, opt-in, informative advertising. From there we can talk to Satan about putting a day spa in Hell.
One of the basic for science say that the same experiment, repeated under the same circumstances must produce the same results. Predictability of the theory.
Theory: Woman get stimulated by massaging their crotch (I hope that you all have some experience that prove that it does works sometimes). Experiment... try to do it in the bus... Did it work? Rarely? can't talk right now because she is busy extracting your tonsils without anesthesia? Yup. The theory ignores something called "relationship". And if you tell me that the theory can be modified by adding as requirement that a good relationship must exists, and the mood, and the location, etc; then I can tell that you haven't been in a long enough relationship. If any.
Way to go. You tried to be hip and you're still an idiot.
No one's ever claimed a crotch was responsible for all things in heaven and Earth. I doubt your God appreciates the comparison.
It offends me to hear the condescending, faux-humble give-peace-a-chance routine from a guy who can't even play "when in Rome" on a tech news forum. Frankly "God" and whoever modded you "insightful" for clever marketing can get bent.
Andrew Knight is the inventor of Storyline Patents.
The connection between patent law and unique fictional storylines necessary to conceive of Storyline Patents may never have been made if Andrew Knight did not occasionally dabble in fiction... Recognizing that fierce competition for publication and financial reward focused on the quality of storytelling, as opposed to the quality of the underlying storyline itself, and further recognizing that even the world's most skilled storytellers (of which he is clearly not) rarely turn a profit, his unique fictional storylines have matured into pending patent applications instead of novels or screenplays. He thus seeks reward on the true value of his innovations--the underlying storylines--instead of forced, sub-par expressions of these underlying storylines.
Hallelujah. Legal protection for the vague ideas of no-talent artists (cf. "storylines recognizing").
Isn't the form-and-function "expression," as opposed to an ill-defined goal, what patents are for? Say, the Salad Spinner, versus the true innovation of dry lettuce.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is is such a stretch that something that has value costs money?
This nasty sumbitch called the supply-demand curve. Value is subjective.
The last decade has made it brutally obvious that volume is king. Among industries that whine about piracy hurting theoretical profits, how many have tried *gasp* lowering prices? Should a song really cost more than a hamburger?
Thanks.
There are teeth here: the court system. It's syntactically like "winning" a settlement. I imagine being hit (violence!) with a $1B lawsuit is a declaration of war, and I don't have a very vivid imagination.
In fact, agreement, from the press release, is the weasel word here -- concession is more accurate.
Couldn't you have just bitched about their data retention policy like everyone else?
Why would you need unique labels? In your example why not just use: May && Work && SmallProject ... etc
Noisy intersections:
What do you gain by separating Work from other uses of Work in other contexts? ... if you then refine it with May, or with May and Small Project then you'll get the same result.
The long-form labels are what I called "extra organizational work." Keeping a tab on suitable refinements, as you suggest, is what I meant by "extra mental work."
This year's Work is "in some sense" isomorphic to last year's Work, so I am inclined to label both Work. Without hierarchy, though, searching Work today gets me a hundred things from last year I don't care about -- and maybe I can't remember a key, today, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
My mind has all sorts of fuzzy associations. I don't deny my filing system, without hierarchy, fails to be well-defined. I just don't see how "B < A, analogous to D < C" can be encoded with labels as efficiently as "folders" (even if their existence is an illusion conjured by the application). So I don't think a paradigm shift is possible until such a shift occurs with my brain and/or search technology. I would like Gmail to pretend folders exist, even if they don't. Storing things so I can find them should not be an exercise in predicate calculus.
Well, I did mention this a couple of posts ago. Microsoft have been promising to put this in WinFS since Cairo, and Reiser spent a long time looking at how this would work in a FS. If you're familiar with the newer search interfaces on the mac then they are going in this direction.
To echo what Baric's hammering above, if they want to make the guts more general and powerful, go for it. In terms of UI, though, I don't see anybody saying "forget folders," which is why Gmail's implementation rubs me funny.
The context is separated by the set of labels that you are finding the intersection of.
Precisely.
No such limitation exists.
I didn't call it a "limitation." I claim it requires extra mental or organizational work to create unique labels to enforce hierarchy: ...
May &&
MayWork &&
MayWorkSmallProject &&
MayWorkSmallProjectBob &&
MayWorkSmallProjectBobGUI &&
I claim the increased complexity of data relationships (Venn diagrams) can mean undesired noise in query results.
I claim that if we have become so enlightened to the "restrictive" nature of the folder paradigm, it is natural that all parent/child relationships evolve to labels. Yet no one suggests this is a good idea anywhere but email.
I conclude there is a reason: a logical "superset" of a hierarchical data structure is less human readable.
Gmail's answer is "who cares?" The day they launch Telepathic Meme-search Beta, I will agree.
When you organise things hierarchically you put one folder inside another. This is equivalent to putting two labels on the same message.
No it isn't. It's equivalent to putting two labels on the same message and promising yourself never to use the "sublabel" in any other context. I suggest myraid intersections are highly unnatural to keep track of, best enforced by the data structure, and that the evolution from CLI to drag-and-drop GUI reflects the improved efficiency.
What's your iTunes look like? C:\?
An ease-of-search versus prescience argument can be made for either paradigm, I think, with no presumption "most people" absorb and recall information one way or the other.
I'm 28 and if I walk around with a backpack on I will get pulled over for smoking.
I thought I had it bad. This guy gets pulled over walking around!
I had the same reaction. If you are interested in visiting his homepage, the "Cure for Blind Code" 2/3 down is the essence of the discussion.
His resolution of the uncomfortable fact computers do algorithms and not algebra is to invoke low-level unicorn code ("the only pure alogrithmic allowed") that takes care of the details "thanks to the high speed of modern processors." That any calculation which taxes modern architecture creates an immediate no-go on the whole idea hasn't escaped him; he excuses himself by appealing to scale -- surely it would help.
After all, we emulate parallelism in various software implementations, so "why not" build it into the kernel in a way that (a) does everything you ask (b) without breaking?
It seems to me anyone with a clear such solution has an imperative to do it and put Intel out of business, lest he be accused of ivory-tower pontification.
'We think they are forgetting that the public road is not theirs, and are exhibiting territorial behavior that normally would only be acceptable in personal space,'
Is driving like an asshole territorial behavior inappropriately expressed in a public space? Or does it only count when you self-report that a guy causing a car wreck makes you feel angry?
If you are listening to violent, misogynistic garbage like most gangsta rap while you are going about your day, you are just feeding yourself a steady stream of crap.
Whereas the violent, misogynist garbage in the bible has vitamin C in it.
Since it is passive, not active, your brain is probably not actively engaging and analyzing the input the way it would with a book or video game.
I note with some interest you say "passive" entertainment is more corruptive than "active" entertainment, for precisely the reason the opposite is generally held true.
I'm about as libertarian as they come... However, I'm also not blind to the fact that things like pornography and violent, depraved music are psychologically harmful when regularly consumed.
No, you aren't about as libertarian as they come. I clicked through to your homepage; you identify as a "Christian libertarian" and we know what that means.
I consume both and am quite unharmed, thanks. I wonder how you identify "pornographic" and "violent, depraved" in a way that excludes any entertainment. For example, I know of precisely one story wherein daughters rape their father. I bet your pastor reads it a Lot.
Primary school curricula should require programming. And abstract algebra (groups, rings, and vector spaces, not 8th grade arithmetic).
It's criminal we have a captive audience at the peak of their learning capacity and don't give them a 21st century skillset in favor of -- sorry -- creative writing or soft science.
Don't bother. Man is by nature a sinner, the only way out is Jesus -- I believe this is the core assertion of the "belief system," which is itself a euphemism for socially reinforced advertising jingles.
XP: taskbar/properties/start menu/classic, folder/tools/options/general/classic
the creator is obviously and naturally entitled to owning their ideas
A student of the "paraphrase what he said and negate it" school of rhetoric, I see.
Anyone who has tried to make this work -- fairly -- realizes it can't. Trying has brought us to legal reductio ad absurdum, with USPTO overwhelmed by nonsense concept-squatting and the court system burdened with eight-figure (hence, "important") infringement suits.
In a perfect world, maybe the ancient Greek who figured out the major scale is entitled to royalties on every piece of tonal music ever "invented" (and for Jack Valenti's duration of "forever minus a day"). The rest of us realize that's idiocy: does the practically negligible difference in intonation from changing temperament count as materially different? What about timbre? Who ought to own the 12-bar blues?
Your suggestion our legal process need concern itself with the pockets on my jeans is ridiculous. I challenge you to argue "Amazon's" 1-click claim is any less so.
None of "original," "idea", "implementation" is well-defined. Even the comparably hyper-cooperative world of math publication sees hot debates over independent discovery. We therefore conclude "ownership" in this context is neither obvious nor natural. Enjoy your Monday. You will, no doubt, condemn any corporationy corporation, that is caught violating GPL
In much the same way I believe murder is wrong despite my willingness to shoot a guy who breaks into my home. Doing the best you can with the cards you're dealt doesn't make you a hypocrite.
http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/opinion/1/
*shrug* Discover didn't build a name for itself with sensational mysticism ("surfer dude Lisi may unlock universe with E8 shapethingy"). This seems to be a modern news trend that's invaded popsci.
The grounded, hypothesize-and-falsify style engages my mind like a good mystery. If you're interested in my views on soft science, I'm certain they're in my post history. The parent's article accurately conveys the spirit -- both adventure and method -- of scientific thinking. I praise it for that, even if the underlying field isn't rigorous. Speculation and science aren't exclusive; look at the Standard Model.
Our OP, on the other hand, is another "study shows" piece of smut masquerading as research. To the press's credit, the source material is conveyed without an awful amount of color.
ahem
Wonderful insight. I'm fond of criticizing soft science thusly: if your "research" only produces questions, never answers, you're doing philosophy. The ideal of Feynmann's science is an eagerness to answer all critics. Decorum in statistics requires that you hedge whatever tentative correlation you're able to make; funding requires that you sound conclusive regardless. "We're pretty sure the dice are loaded, although it should be noted we're throwing them in sand." Not an avenue for further study, I think, just bad experimental design.
The study questioned 292 male and female online gamers aged between 12 and 83 about anger and stress. They then played the game for two hours and were retested
Great, great article. Reminds me of when science journalism was both.
Successful indie. Well, I grew up in Chapel Hill in the 90's. I have yet to see a $20 CD on a merch table. And who haggles?
Google "blue eyes experiment" (gosh, you could do cool stuff in the 60's!):
People with blue eyes, she explains, are stupid. She embarrasses them. People with brown eyes, she goes on, are smart. She praises them. Social strata form as you would expect, with the "superior" kids being cruel little bastards to the stigmatized ones. Academic test scores follow accordingly.
Later, she announces she made a mistake -- it's blues who are smart, browns dumb. Test scores reverse accordingly.
The exercise is only barely more sophisticated when she performs it on adults at company teamwork seminars. They have some idea what's happening, and it still works.
She seems to demonstrate we're wired with social reward-seeking as a high-priority process. It's hard to think when you're flustered, or make up a story when you're caught cheating, unless (A) the confrontational party has nothing you want or (B) you have experience achieving goals under similar duress. Turn the amplitude of this game up far enough, and it's what we call interrogation (or torture).
Unfortunately (research ethics aside) only local effects were examined. I don't think we know if weeks or years of this treatment have permanent consequences. There are compelling demographic and psychiatric reasons to ask.
Weren't we all pretty offended when some-country-or-other suggested you can't be found guilty of criminal behavior resulting from criminal tendencies written in your DNA?
It seems to me that your reason -- a euphemism for the old "they hate our freedom" saw -- is either a new phenomenon in social behavior, or a red herring. Wars have always been fought for land and resources...until now? C'mon. The radically conservative church-state that outlaws any other interpretation of its religion is our strongest economic and political Arab ally. Intolerance (nor human rights) must not be key.
As to "bringing the fight to them," the entire premise of terrorism is it doesn't work that way. Maybe you think it hasn't occurred to Hamza and Ahmed to blow us up, here, instead of blowing each other up in Tikrit? Al Qaeda, who will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life, gets distracted playing cat-and-mouse with IEDs?
I'm not prepared to admit our national security apparatus was compromised utterly by a group too stupid to be dangerous. Indeed Madrid 3/11/04 and London 7/7/05 demonstrate the flaw in "fight 'em there" logic. Israel's seen disproof of the "lightning rod" theory of counter-terrorism weekly for three decades. And I question, sir, the morality (even practicality, cf. NIE) of using Iraq (and Iraqis) as bait.
You say your viewpoint's simple. I'd use the word "naive," because it's a talking point with CYA political utility since Saddam's WMD never turned up. It's a slogan, a sales pitch. We're between a rock and a hard place spending money that may have been used more wisely to keep our economic and technological edge. I want to win too, but a lot of jerks are responsible for this fuckup and I'm not letting them off the hook.
I'm a guy who doesn't mind cancer so much, provided it's curable, doesn't rearrange my DNA, has vitamin C, that sort of thing. If they need to give me a freckle or two to justify continuing to let me see things free, well, shucks, I'd be a jerk to complain.
It's not impossible after they invent silent, invisible, opt-in, informative advertising. From there we can talk to Satan about putting a day spa in Hell.
One of the basic for science say that the same experiment, repeated under the same circumstances must produce the same results. Predictability of the theory.
Theory: Woman get stimulated by massaging their crotch (I hope that you all have some experience that prove that it does works sometimes). Experiment... try to do it in the bus... Did it work? Rarely? can't talk right now because she is busy extracting your tonsils without anesthesia? Yup. The theory ignores something called "relationship". And if you tell me that the theory can be modified by adding as requirement that a good relationship must exists, and the mood, and the location, etc; then I can tell that you haven't been in a long enough relationship. If any.
Way to go. You tried to be hip and you're still an idiot.
No one's ever claimed a crotch was responsible for all things in heaven and Earth. I doubt your God appreciates the comparison.
It offends me to hear the condescending, faux-humble give-peace-a-chance routine from a guy who can't even play "when in Rome" on a tech news forum. Frankly "God" and whoever modded you "insightful" for clever marketing can get bent.
Andrew Knight is the inventor of Storyline Patents.
The connection between patent law and unique fictional storylines necessary to conceive of Storyline Patents may never have been made if Andrew Knight did not occasionally dabble in fiction... Recognizing that fierce competition for publication and financial reward focused on the quality of storytelling, as opposed to the quality of the underlying storyline itself, and further recognizing that even the world's most skilled storytellers (of which he is clearly not) rarely turn a profit, his unique fictional storylines have matured into pending patent applications instead of novels or screenplays. He thus seeks reward on the true value of his innovations--the underlying storylines--instead of forced, sub-par expressions of these underlying storylines.
Hallelujah. Legal protection for the vague ideas of no-talent artists (cf. "storylines recognizing").
Isn't the form-and-function "expression," as opposed to an ill-defined goal, what patents are for? Say, the Salad Spinner, versus the true innovation of dry lettuce.