|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2023 2:00:06 GMT
It's getting even worse with social media as social media amplifies extreme positions.
Lets say you are a community and want to build something. With military thinking you would spend most of the time arguing.
Military thinking involves secrecy and deception. With an industrial economy you actually want openness. Copying technology is good because it gets more widely exploited and increases economic output.
If you run a company, treating your competitors as the enemy is causing you to make moves which are destructive, where it is better for the economy if you focused on your own quality of output rather than trying to destroy the opportunities of others who might take your business.
In marketing, military thinking involves force. Oh you want to unsubscribe to money being debited from your account each month for crap. Contract forces you to keep going. The alternative is marketing a product by creating a product which has advantages over the other choices. That is you market by attraction rather than entrapment of your enemy (customer).
Military thinking involves manipulating the enemy's brain in order to buy something. Your product will be sold with one of those dry ice smoke machines to make it look out of this world and as impressive as the shine on your boots. The fact it don't work properly and gets stuck in the English Channel is a secondary consideration. It's al about puffing yourself up.
Military thinking is a product resembling the basic supplies issued to a squaddy. It will be standard issue and woe betide if you complain!
Anyway those are my thoughts, not copied form anyone or any newspaper. Let us know yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 2, 2023 6:46:32 GMT
No it does not. If you allow businesses to copy anothers invention or discovery then there is no incentive to invest in research.
Hence the introduction of Patent Laws in the 1400's
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 2, 2023 6:54:06 GMT
It's just another crude attempt at a backdoor way of saying "China is better at everything".
China loves to steal technology. BVL thinks this is not only a "compliment", but demonstrates their superior business acumen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on May 2, 2023 8:45:51 GMT
It's getting even worse with social media as social media amplifies extreme positions.
Lets say you are a community and want to build something. With military thinking you would spend most of the time arguing.
Military thinking involves secrecy and deception. With an industrial economy you actually want openness. Copying technology is good because it gets more widely exploited and increases economic output.
If you run a company, treating your competitors as the enemy is causing you to make moves which are destructive, where it is better for the economy if you focused on your own quality of output rather than trying to destroy the opportunities of others who might take your business.
In marketing, military thinking involves force. Oh you want to unsubscribe to money being debited from your account each month for crap. Contract forces you to keep going. The alternative is marketing a product by creating a product which has advantages over the other choices. That is you market by attraction rather than entrapment of your enemy (customer).
Military thinking involves manipulating the enemy's brain in order to buy something. Your product will be sold with one of those dry ice smoke machines to make it look out of this world and as impressive as the shine on your boots. The fact it don't work properly and gets stuck in the English Channel is a secondary consideration. It's al about puffing yourself up.
Military thinking is a product resembling the basic supplies issued to a squaddy. It will be standard issue and woe betide if you complain!
Anyway those are my thoughts, not copied form anyone or any newspaper. Let us know yours.
My thoughts are that you don't know anything about military thinking, Baron. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2023 11:40:52 GMT
No it does not. If you allow businesses to copy anothers invention or discovery then there is no incentive to invest in research. Hence the introduction of Patent Laws in the 1400's You invest in research to improve the product. Engineers normally work by taking inspiration from others. Patents are a way of stopping the development becoming widespread. The idea is someone else will take you idea and then develop it further and you can copy that improvement too if you want. Both systems have advantages and drawbacks, but the difference here is military thinking will always opt for the one rather than the other. We do not live in the 1400s now, but when we did there was a hell of a lot of military stuff going down. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2023 11:42:12 GMT
It's getting even worse with social media as social media amplifies extreme positions.
Lets say you are a community and want to build something. With military thinking you would spend most of the time arguing.
Military thinking involves secrecy and deception. With an industrial economy you actually want openness. Copying technology is good because it gets more widely exploited and increases economic output.
If you run a company, treating your competitors as the enemy is causing you to make moves which are destructive, where it is better for the economy if you focused on your own quality of output rather than trying to destroy the opportunities of others who might take your business.
In marketing, military thinking involves force. Oh you want to unsubscribe to money being debited from your account each month for crap. Contract forces you to keep going. The alternative is marketing a product by creating a product which has advantages over the other choices. That is you market by attraction rather than entrapment of your enemy (customer).
Military thinking involves manipulating the enemy's brain in order to buy something. Your product will be sold with one of those dry ice smoke machines to make it look out of this world and as impressive as the shine on your boots. The fact it don't work properly and gets stuck in the English Channel is a secondary consideration. It's al about puffing yourself up.
Military thinking is a product resembling the basic supplies issued to a squaddy. It will be standard issue and woe betide if you complain!
Anyway those are my thoughts, not copied form anyone or any newspaper. Let us know yours.
My thoughts are that you don't know anything about military thinking, Baron. You don't know anything you are willing to discuss so you are are good as the insult you aim at me. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 2, 2023 12:02:12 GMT
Posters are reminded that the thread is in mind-zone. Tackle the ball rather than the player
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on May 2, 2023 12:59:47 GMT
Baron, so you think people who spend years, sometimes decades, and millions of dollars inventing something, should just let people copy their work once they're finished and get an equal share of the profits once all the hard work is done?
You seriously think that's fair?
let me tell you why that's a bad idea - if that was the status quo, no one would want to invent anything, because of the cost and work required - everyone would want to make cheap copies.
Your thinking literally explains the problems with the communist mindset and why Russia and China have barely invented anything in the past hundred years compared to the west which has and continues to dominate innovation and technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 2, 2023 13:20:58 GMT
No it does not. If you allow businesses to copy anothers invention or discovery then there is no incentive to invest in research. Hence the introduction of Patent Laws in the 1400's You invest in research to improve the product. Engineers normally work by taking inspiration from others. Patents are a way of stopping the development becoming widespread. The idea is someone else will take you idea and then develop it further and you can copy that improvement too if you want. Both systems have advantages and drawbacks, but the difference here is military thinking will always opt for the one rather than the other. We do not live in the 1400s now, but when we did there was a hell of a lot of military stuff going down. The fact that you can copy someone else's innovation doesn't provide any incentive to innovate yourself. Here you appear to argue that an innovator's ability to copy another innovator is somehow compensation for others copying his innovation. This is bad reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 2, 2023 14:35:05 GMT
You invest in research to improve the product. Engineers normally work by taking inspiration from others. Patents are a way of stopping the development becoming widespread. The idea is someone else will take you idea and then develop it further and you can copy that improvement too if you want. Both systems have advantages and drawbacks, but the difference here is military thinking will always opt for the one rather than the other. We do not live in the 1400s now, but when we did there was a hell of a lot of military stuff going down. The fact that you can copy someone else's innovation doesn't provide any incentive to innovate yourself. Here you appear to argue that an innovator's ability to copy another innovator is somehow compensation for others copying his innovation. This is bad reasoning. An engineer was born to innovate. That's the kind of animal it is. The more ideas you see, the more new ideas you have. An economy that does not do patents is an economy where everyone is racing to get ahead of everyone else. The option of innovate once and then have rights as taxman encourages you to sit on your arse. The alternative is, you innovate once, you are 6m ahead of your rival. By the time your rival has copied your innovation you are two more innovations ahead. Customers get to see your firm as the firm with all the latest tech. Another thing is you innovate and the entire market copies you, then the market recognises the innovation they all copied is from a certain firm, and that firm becomes a household name, so it is free advertising. In their natural habitat engineers which are from different companies like to talk. I give you a tip on how i solve a problem and you kindly reply with a good tip on how you solve a problem I'm having and we both walk away rewarded.
An economy that works in this way develops far faster and so the whole of that society is enriched because on another level you have competition in economic systems at play, so a good economic system brings in capital, investment, brains and all to that economy.
Now back to the black and white military thinking. The answer would be your answer. One issue one universal reason, but we aught to know reality is a complex system. It has loops within loops, like a giant many body problem where everything affects everything else.
Military thinking can be summed up in "They're out to get you"/"We must restrict them".
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 2, 2023 14:41:12 GMT
Afaik China is not falling over itself to reveal their innovations with the West.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 2, 2023 14:44:33 GMT
The fact that you can copy someone else's innovation doesn't provide any incentive to innovate yourself. Here you appear to argue that an innovator's ability to copy another innovator is somehow compensation for others copying his innovation. This is bad reasoning. An engineer was born to innovate. That's the kind of animal it is. The more ideas you see, the more new ideas you have. An economy that does not do patents is an economy where everyone is racing to get ahead of everyone else. The option of innovate once and then have rights as taxman encourages you to sit on your arse. The alternative is, you innovate once, you are 6m ahead of your rival. By the time your rival has copied your innovation you are two more innovations ahead. You are just repeating the same reasoning error again. If there is no or little advantage to engaging in innovation, the optimal strategy is to focus on copying the innovations of others. It's the same as arguing that allowing theft distributes goods - sure it does, but there is a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on May 2, 2023 15:08:15 GMT
The fact that you can copy someone else's innovation doesn't provide any incentive to innovate yourself. Here you appear to argue that an innovator's ability to copy another innovator is somehow compensation for others copying his innovation. This is bad reasoning. An economy that does not do patents is an economy where everyone is racing to get ahead of everyone else.
This is patently (excuse the pun), incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Which is why communist countries are so far behind the west when it comes to innovation and technology. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 2, 2023 16:13:22 GMT
Apart from Covid I'm struggling to think of any great inventions coming out of China in recent years..
Where is the Chinese DARPA?
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 2, 2023 16:23:57 GMT
Maybe the Chinese think it's fair game since we stole the recipe for gunpowder, the method for making porcelain and tea plants from them?
Not to mention paper, the printing press and Hong Kong.
Not saying it's right but up until the Renaissance the Chinese invented just about everything except glass.
|
|
