I actually go to another website where all posts must be reviewed by admins before being posted... forum discussions are the slowest, most obnoxious things ever (and there's not really discussions as large or complex as, for example, our politics debates)...

And yeah... as an f-mod, I must say that having to review all your posts and approve them being put in the forums... would really make my job suck...

With regards to the You_Fool issue, although neither of us can make a guarantee regarding mod action against any flamer (because f-mods don't have that power to determine blocks, and if you were hoping for retaliation within this competition, I, as a competitor, have absolutely no jurisdiction in that regards, as I could otherwise really abuse that power), the moderators have very clearly stated recently in their Announcements that they are taking a more stringent stance in fighting flaming in the forums... and, with the current judging pool consisting of two moderators and one forum moderator, it's nearly impossible that any instance of flaming would go unnoticed by the moderators.  Thus, the only variable in the equation would be whether the moderators consider what is cited as flaming to be justifiably considered flaming.

Translation: Behave, You_Fool! 

*stocks up on gold, non-perishable food, and weapons*

What's your definition of "realistic" to which you are suggesting we should aspire?

1: What is "reputable?"
2: Probably best to leave that to the debate.  If I call someone's source out as bull, and it's likely their source is bull due to the arguments I lay out... then you can use those implications, as necessary, to ignore portions of evidence which are bull.  The other guy gets a chance to respond to the charge... and you have a debate!  But if it was just a rule judges are to enforce... it's possible a judge would say "I don't think this is reputable" in a situation where debaters may have no warning about the reputable-ness of the source, and no way to either justify the source or replace it with a better source.

Bahahahahaha!

> The Yell wrote:

> The fact Zarf doesn't remember hearing about it is because the bulk of the human race said "Oh shut up."

bahahahah

EDIT: Reversing my previous edit, only because it's probably a biased ruling for me, as a participant in the discussion, to be ruling on the rules validity of the discussion, since I have a number of vested interests in the issue.  Edited posts will be restored to their previous state until a more unbiased moderator can review.

That's not an answer.  What are the other two systems that ignore population to elect the person?  You very specifically said "there are 3 different systems that pick the President... if you win 1, you don't necessarily win."

So I ask again... what are the other two systems?

Seven votes decided Iowa. 

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> Also, didn't George Bush rig his second election? (I am not sure on this, this is why I pose it as a question...I am not an American, nor do I have any interest in your political system)

Generally, if people claim one of the elections was rigged... they refer to the first one, not the second.  Not that either is necessarily true... this is just a relatively unheard of complaint. 

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> With all due respect, Zarf, forgive me for missing in your giant post where it was where you demonstrated that current patent system has provisions for inventors who are not motivated by greed.  If you would, would you refresh my memory?

Sure.  Here it is:

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> 2: Actually, if your ethic is that we should support the "solve world problems" inventors, you should be totally in favor of patent rules.  Let's say, for example, that I have an idea for a drug, which will cost me exactly $50 million in initial investment, plus my own work-hours, to invent.  Remember, we're talking here about the inventor who invents to solve world problems... so let's assume the personal utility of money to this person=0, except for what is needed to actually create the drug.

Anyway, under the no-patent system, the inventor must first raise $50 million in order to work on the drug.  So that requires a good amount of time in money saved, investments, etc., in order to raise the money.  Then he'll make the invention... spending his $50 million.  The result: a drug was invented, and the inventor has paid the time and effort it took to produce the money to make the invention.  The invention was probably delayed by years before actually being created, due to the time required to produce the initial investment for the final product.  He got a good feeling from helping the world.  However, that good feeling was delayed by the total time required to obtain the financial resources to produce the final good.  Thus, he lost out on the motivation he was attempting to gain, because the satisfaction was delayed by the ability to create the product.

What about under the patent system?  Under this system, the inventor doesn't even need to raise the $50 million.  Alternatively, the inventor can collude with a business (generally by being employed in their research department).  The business will raise the $50 million from its other departments, and obtains the patent.  The inventor receives a paycheck for their work.  More importantly, though, the inventor didn't need to invest the time and effort required to obtain the $50 million to create the invention... because the business already had the $50 million.  The inventor does sacrifice the patent, yes, but we're talking about a "good inventor" under your interpretation, who shouldn't care about money... so this is a nonexistent sacrifice.  This inventor gains his satisfaction from helping the world earlier... and sacrifices something he doesn't give a crap about.

> Secondly, re:
My point does not assume that inventors wouldn't be motivated by greed under our current system.  To the contrary, my point is simply that a patent system without greed as a motivator would still be successful because many inventors would still invent regardless of monetary reward; and moreover, I'll go so far as to say that perhaps the inventions invented under such a patent system would be better, and more conducive to bettering society would better facilitate the kind of civilization in which the best interests of humanity are ensured, for such inventors would not produce inventions simply for selfish, ego-centric personal gain, but rather they would be motivated simply by the concept that their invention would better society somehow.  More to the point, then, would be, notion that removing the motivation of monetary gain from the patent system would result in only those inventions which were actually beneficial to society to be available to humanity, and thereby negating the ill-sociological-effects of those inventions which had been produced without any regard for the best interest of those individuals who would be using them nor the best interest of the civilization in which such inventions would be commonplace.

First of all, military-grade weapons are a completely different story here because they don't operate within the patent system.  Iran is not banned from constructing chemical weapons just because Germany built them first.  Whether patent laws exist or don't exist, it doesn't mean weapons wouldn't be created because weapons generally operate as trade secrets (the organization secures the information as to how the weapon is developed, so the agent only has a monopoly as long as they can secure the knowledge of the weapon's creation).  So WMDs are a terrible example of a "bad" invention that would be prevented.  Do you have an example of a legal, non-military grade, dangerous invention which would be prevented?

Second, how do you explain the computer virus?  No, I'm not talking about programs which try to steal personal information in order to take millions out of your credit cards.  I'm talking about the computer viruses that just destroy your computer, fry the hard drive, etc.  There's no personal gain from creating the invention.  The invention is purely destructive, created out of an individual's desire to cause destruction.  So don't frame the issue solely as if the only inventors would be peace-loving people.  In reality, there are people who just like to watch things burn.

That being said... the financially motivated people are the ones who tip the balance.  People with both good and ill intentions may be operating largely independently, constructing inventions with relatively few resources.  However, the people with financial intentions have the capacity to organize the people with good intentions for the purpose of effectively coordinating efforts against the bad intentions.  Take the computer virus.  A virus comes out one day.  There are plenty of antivirus programs available, some free and some charging a fee.  Which ones are generally the first to create the counteraction against the virus?  Yeah... it's Norton and McAffe.  And this is in an industry with a relatively low cost of producing goods... coding computer programs is much less resource-intensive than, for example, drug research.  However, resources still matter.

Third... even if your arguments are true, they only apply to the patent side of the equation.  What about the copyright side?  Are there "bad" works of art and ideas which you think we need to prevent from being produced?  If so, I'm going to preemptively call Godwin's Law on myself.  Copyright-produced works, such as books, movies, and web programs, still require resources to produce the works (especially movies).  What works do we generally prefer to watch?  Personally, all things being equal, I preferred Saving Private Ryan over an equivalent movie with a Youtube video budget.  If you don't like it... Youtube is still around.

Fourth, the fact that a person is profit-motivated doesn't mean their invention is bad.  Your interpretation would leave out many inventions which are profit-motivated, yet would not be harmful.

Fifth, as my argument at the top of this post states, high-cost inventions would still be left out, even by people motivated for the betterment of mankind.

Then there's Flint's arguments... I'll let him defend the general merits of capitalism...