h a l f b a k e r yNo serviceable parts inside.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
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.
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]
[link]
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Do these ideas not get drummed out quickly enough as being known to exist? |
|
| |
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". |
|
| |
[DrCurry], would you perhaps suggest a memetic explanation somewhere in here? |
|
| |
All your memes are belong to us. |
|
| |
[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. |
|
| |
"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... |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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] 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. |
|
| |
//What? All the bollocks ideas have gone?// |
|
| |
Don't worry - there's plenty more where they come from... |
|
| |
My favourite is [marked-for-you-know-what], too expensive. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Ach, we can avoid the problem by agreeing not to read anything science-y except the hb. I'll start... |
|
| |
[p&p] Sorry, that is too much of a sacrifice for me. I gots ta have my science mags. |
|
| |
/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. |
|
| |
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, 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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |