Cheap Subscription to SuperBike Magazine

I'm not talking about law, others seem to be.

Some could might say I have lost an argument but by the the way live my
life it would take more that this for me to loose my dignity.

Plonk me.

 

You lost whatever was left of your dignity when you started this childish
whining!
Just try and stick to facts will you?

 

Ooerr.

Theo
with stolen sig

 

For a very long time Stephenson was making his steam engines with a "sun and
moon" gear conrod to drive shaft connection because someone had patented the
crank.

Theo

 

While true, it's a possibility or a probability, not a definite. Hence
you can't determine a specific value that has been lost, you can only
specify that you might have lost something. Hence a sum hasn't been
"removed from royalty payments" there is only a potentially smaller
sum in payment stream then might otherwise have been there (if, and
but maybe etc).

Oh no argument, I think copyright has value in western society that's
the reason it's survived 500 odd years. It is however been roundly
abused and misused at the moment by a bunch of vested interests. But
like most things our politicians (and those of the USA) have been
bought and sold so societal value add is unlikely to get a look in.
The basic principles of the Berne convention I support wholeheartedly.
The stuff that's been happening over the last decade is morally
reprehensible (albeit unsurprising - see cynicism about politicians in
the preceding sentence).

JL

 

Really ? So courts of law are imaginary ? I think you'll find that
it's the property rights you are claiming to be "stolen" that are
imaginary.

You're wrong. Just admit it.

Yes. Yes I do. You however don't seem to be as keen on it.

I don't need to - you can just look at their posts yourself.

Yup. And you don't have much to add do you ?

Mmm, so you are incapable of articulating it then ? Is this an
intellectual impairment or just a language impediment ?

Not literally no, although it strays towards that. To be rhetoric I'd
need to be trying to persuade you of something. Given you've proved
unwilling to take on very simple distinctions it's clearly not useful
to try and persuade you of anything.

I do however have to acknowledge I have been successfully trolled. Is
the real culprit going to put their hand up ? Have I been Hammified ?

JL

 

Thanks, you've mad me laugh after a run of very bad days.

 

That's what damages are for...redressing a wrong. still isn't theft..

JL

 

I think the problem is I am trying to explain my thinking to thieves or
lawyers and I am neither.

Maybe this may help..


From Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (to try and keep things
on topic)

His way of looking at things produces a kind of description that can be
called an "analytic" description. That is another name of the classic
platform from which one discusses things in terms of their underlying
form. He was a totally classic person. And to give a fuller description
of what this is I want now to turn his analytic approach back upon
itself...to analyze analysis itself. I want to do this first of all by
giving an extensive example of it and then by dissecting what it is. The
motorcycle is a perfect subject for it since the motorcycle itself was
invented by classic minds. So listen:

A motorcycle may be divided for purposes of classical rational analysis
by means of its component assemblies and by means of its functions.

If divided by means of its component assemblies, its most basic division
is into a power assembly and a running assembly.

The power assembly may be divided into the engine and the power-delivery
system. The engine will be taken up first.

The engine consists of a housing containing a power train, a fuel-air
system, an ignition system, a feedback system and a lubrication system.

The power train consists of cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, a
crankshaft and a flywheel.

The fuel-air system components, which are part of the engine, consist of
a gas tank and filter, an air cleaner, a carburetor, valves and exhaust
pipes.

The ignition system consists of an alternator, a rectifier, a battery, a
high-voltage coil and spark plugs.

The feedback system consists of a cam chain, a camshaft, tappets and a
distributor.

The lubrication system consists of an oil pump and channels throughout
the housing for distribution of the oil.

The power-delivery system accompanying the engine consists of a clutch,
a transmission and a chain.

The supporting assembly accompanying the power assembly consists of a
frame, including foot pegs, seat and fenders; a steering assembly; front
and rear shock absorbers; wheels; control levers and cables; lights and
horn; and speed and mileage indicators.

That's a motorcycle divided according to its components. To know what
the components are for, a division according to functions is necessary:

A motorcycle may be divided into normal running functions and special,
operator-controlled functions.

Normal running functions may be divided into functions during the intake
cycle, functions during the compression cycle, functions during the
power cycle and functions during the exhaust cycle.

And so on. I could go on about which functions occur in their proper
sequence during each of the four cycles, then go on to the operator-
controlled functions and that would be a very summary description of the
underlying form of a motorcycle. It would be extremely short and
rudimentary, as descriptions of this sort go. Almost any one of the
components mentioned can be expanded on indefinitely. I've read an
entire engineering volume on contact points alone, which are just a
small but vital part of the distributor. There are other types of
engines than the single-cylinder Otto engine described here: two-cycle
engines, multiple-cylinder engines, diesel engines, Wankel engines...but
this example is enough.

This description would cover the "what" of the motorcycle in terms of
components, and the "how" of the engine in terms of functions. It would
badly need a "where" analysis in the form of an illustration, and also a
"why" analysis in the form of engineering principles that led to this
particular conformation of parts. But the purpose here isn't
exhaustively to analyze the motorcycle. It's to provide a starting
point, an example of a mode of understanding of things which will itself
become an object of analysis.

There's certainly nothing strange about this description at first
hearing. It sounds like something from a beginning textbook on the
subject, or perhaps a first lesson in a vocational course. What is
unusual about it is seen when it ceases to be a mode of discourse and
becomes an object of discourse. Then certain things can be pointed to.

The first thing to be observed about this description is so obvious you
have to hold it down or it will drown out every other observation. This
is: It is just duller than ditchwater. Yah-da, yah-da, yah-da, yah-da,
yah, carburetor, gear ratio, compression, yah-da-yah, piston, plugs,
intake, yah-da-yah, on and on and on. That is the romantic face of the
classic mode. Dull, awkward and ugly. Few romantics get beyond that
point.

But if you can hold down that most obvious observation, some other
things can be noticed that do not at first appear.

The first is that the motorcycle, so described, is almost impossible to
understand unless you already know how one works. The immediate surface
impressions that are essential for primary understanding are gone. Only
the underlying form is left.

The second is that the observer is missing. The description doesn't say
that to see the piston you must remove the cylinder head. "You" aren't
anywhere in the picture. Even the "operator" is a kind of
personalityless robot whose performance of a function on the machine is
completely mechanical. There are no real subjects in this description.
Only objects exist that are independent of any observer.

The third is that the words "good" and "bad" and all their synonyms are
completely absent. No value judgments have been expressed anywhere, only
facts.

The fourth is that there is a knife moving here. A very deadly one; an
intellectual scalpel so swift and so sharp you sometimes don't see it
moving. You get the illusion that all those parts are just there and are
being named as they exist. But they can be named quite differently and
organized quite differently depending on how the knife moves.

For example, the feedback mechanism which includes the camshaft and cam
chain and tappets and distributor exists only because of an unusual cut
of this analytic knife. If you were to go to a motorcycle-parts
department and ask them for a feedback assembly they wouldn't know what
the hell you were talking about. They don't split it up that way. No two
manufacturers ever split it up quite the same way and every mechanic is
familiar with the problem of the part you can't buy because you can't
find it because the manufacturer considers it a part of something else.

It is important to see this knife for what it is and not to be fooled
into thinking that motorcycles or anything else are the way they are
just because the knife happened to cut it up that way. It is important
to concentrate on the knife itself. Later I will want to show how an
ability to use this knife creatively and effectively can result in
solutions to the classic and romantic split.

Phædrus was a master with this knife, and used it with dexterity and a
sense of power. With a single stroke of analytic thought he split the
whole world into parts of his own choosing, split the parts and split
the fragments of the parts, finer and finer and finer until he had
reduced it to what he wanted it to be. Even the special use of the terms
"classic" and "romantic" are examples of his knifemanship.

But if this were all there were to him, analytic skill, I would be more
than willing to shut up about him. What makes it important not to shut
up about him was that he used this skill in such a bizarre and yet
meaningful way. No one ever saw this, I don't think he even saw it
himself, and it may be an illusion of my own, but the knife he used was
less that of an assassin than that of a poor surgeon. Perhaps there is
no difference. But he saw a sick and ailing thing happening and he
started cutting deep, deeper and deeper to get at the root of it. He was
after something. That is important. He was after something and he used
the knife because that was the only tool he had. But he took on so much
and went so far in the end his real victim was himself.

 

Hey, that looks interesting. I might have to go download the entire
text and read the whole book. Can you send me a link please.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

<applause>

JL
(I was reading that thinking hmm that's a cut an paste - how do I
highlight the irony...well done Nev.)

 

Excuse me mister ! Point of order. Those two descriptors are NOT
mutually exclusive !! An "and/or" if you please !!

Feedback Mechanism ? It has to be change it's output according to
variable input to be a feedback mechanism, or at the least provide the
feedback for something else to respond to. An O2 sensor is a feedback
mechanism, the distributor is I guess given there's an ignition curve
in it's primitive way - cam isn't a feedback mechanism - there's
direct linear correlation to it's behaviour without any adjustment
based on variance in multiple inputs - the valves open and shut in the
same order regardless of rpm or any other input

Feeling a bit like Phaedrus are we sweetie ? You've carved yourself a
position with a blunt scalpel that you can't get out of ?

JL
(still feeling hammified though- or am i overly suspicious ?)

 

We agree on something!
It doesnt really change things though does it.

 

So, no chance of any facts then.....[/QUOTE]

 

That's no help at all. That book was not about motorcycles. The purpose of
the book was to try to prove the author was sane, he wasn't.

You stole that, didn't you?

Theo

 

Peter wrote...

When they go after so-called pirates, like that Australian guy who was
hauled off to the US, they claim x millions in lost sales. Thing is, those
who "pirate" stuff like Windows, MS Office and the like are usually
private individuals who would otherwise not purchase the products because
of the cost. So, how do they come at a figure or quantify a "loss"?

Perhaps if the copyright infringement was a straight out criminal act, or
perhaps a lower class of "crime", then that would remove the litigation
side of things - but that still doesn't stop people pursuing you in a
civil court if a criminal one finds you guilty.

This recently resolved case against the Aussie would have cost the suers
shitloads in court costs, getting the guy shipped over there and so on -
he's broke so they can't extract their pound of flesh outta him. So you
gotta wonder why bother, unless it's to (a) flex their American muscle and
(b) "send a message" to the rest of the world not to **** around with the
American corporations and their lawyers.

 

Knobdoodle wrote...

That'd be a patent. But even then, only limited to probably the
manufacturing process, not the idea of a shelter or roof.