Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Huh?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                               

New Marked For Deletion reason

 "Inventions" that are rewordings of items featured in recent magazines.
 
(+4, -4) 		  [vote for,
against]

If an "invention" is little more than a rewording of an article in the current edition of "Scientific American" "Popular Science" "Science News" or a similar publication, that invention should be deleted.

I have seen a number of items recently that I have just read about in one of the above publications. I don't think it does the bakery service to claim as inventions things that others are announcing in mainstream publications.

—Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 20 2006

GumBob Book_20Content_20Search_20device
See notes on this idea, which would seem to be a case in point. [DrCurry, Aug 20 2006]

Loophole, for zen_tom http://www.takeourw...m/TOW120/page2.html
[Ling, Aug 24 2006]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       I think you can merely indicate this with "not an original invention" and cite the source.   

       I have long noted the coincidence of ideas and real world product announcements, although I think the cause is usually more innocent - the poster has internalized the new invention subconsciously.
—DrCurry, Aug 20 2006
   

       Do these ideas not get drummed out quickly enough as being known to exist?   

       What they said.
—Dub, Aug 20 2006
   

       A slight variant of "Wasn't That Cool That Thing I Saw In The [movie/video game/other media] Wouldn't It Be Great If It Were Real".
—phundug, Aug 20 2006
   

       What the Curry man said.
—DrBob, Aug 20 2006
   

       [DrCurry], would you perhaps suggest a memetic explanation somewhere in here?
—daseva, Aug 20 2006
   

       All your memes are belong to us.
—DrBob, Aug 20 2006
   

       [DrCurry] et al. I suppose "not an original invention" does cover it, but I think this might be a special case. Yes, it may be an inadvertant activity, but it is kind of annoying.
—Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 20 2006
   

       "Not an original invention" does cover it - but what you're gettign at is possible blatant plagiarism, which is annoying. What I suggest you do when you spot this is mark the idea for deletion, with the not original bit and then attack the idea with great vengeance and furious anger, a la Pulp Fiction...
—Jinbish, Aug 20 2006
   

       As far as I understand the system (which, let's face it, isn't a lot), anyone can [m-f-d] anything for any reason at all, with some common reasons outlined in the help file. If they are correct in their assessment that the idea should be removed, it often is. If not they just get ignored or argued with. Search this site for "[m-f-d] bollocks" and you'll see what I mean.   

       EDIT - Nix that, everything which was [m-f-d] - bollocks appears to have been deleted. Probably because it was.
—wagster, Aug 20 2006
   

       The amusing part about this idea is that, if its targets' potential m-f-d's are encompassed by the umbrellas of 'unoriginal', 'baked', or some form of 'wtcttisitXwibniiwr', this idea itself would be marked for deletion as one of those listed above.
—jellydoughnut, Aug 20 2006
   

       [jellydoughnut] nice usage of the 'X' there, finally, a one size fits all WTCTT...etc   

       What? All the bollocks ideas have gone?   

       Even [etherman]'s original is gone. That was one of my favourites.
—zen_tom, Aug 21 2006
   

       //What? All the bollocks ideas have gone?//   

       Don't worry - there's plenty more where they come from...
—Jinbish, Aug 21 2006
   

       My favourite is [marked-for-you-know-what], too expensive.
—zeno, Aug 21 2006
   

       I think the various forms of "not original" (W..long acronym...) already take care of this. Just to be safe, I've added "read in a popular scientific magazine" to the list of media.
—jutta, Aug 21 2006
   

       Ach, we can avoid the problem by agreeing not to read anything science-y except the hb. I'll start...
—pigtails_and_ponies, Aug 21 2006
   

       [p&p] Sorry, that is too much of a sacrifice for me. I gots ta have my science mags.
—Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 22 2006
   

       /What if there's some sort of machine that exploits loopholes?//   

       As long as it is explictly described then I'm sure it'll be fine... such as a knot tying machine.
—Jinbish, Aug 24 2006
   

       Just out of curiosity, why are exploitable lapses of definition described as 'loopholes'? Is it to do with being able to pull at a loose thread in someone's jumper, and have it unravel completely? Or is it something else?
—zen_tom, Aug 24 2006
   

       zen_tom, see link.
"Loophole" popularity was probably increased by Scotty, who said:
"I canna change the laws of physics, Captain - but I can find ye a loophole."
Probably.
—Ling, Aug 24 2006
   

       //Just out of curiosity, why are exploitable lapses of definition described as 'loopholes'?//

The word loophole is originally a military term. It describes the small openings in walls that defenders can use to shoot at their enemies through. If you imagine the law (or other rules) as an impregnable wall then you can see why loophole was adopted as a euphemism for a gap in the regulations.
—DrBob, Aug 24 2006
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle