1) to be clear, I'm team Nikola Tesla, not the car company, but I like them too

2) I agree Musk may be a credit thief, or at the least he allows the perception that he's the inventor of his companies products to go uncorrected, but is he a patent thief? I've never heard him accused of that.

Edison, on the other hand, directly claimed invention credit for inventions he did not invent and outright stole patents from their rightful owners repeatedly.....and he publicly murdered elephants for fun.

Edison was a well known patent and credit thief.

I find it ridiculously suspicious that he "invented" the phonograph shortly after the invention of the exceptionally similar paleophone. Charles Cros submitted a sealed envelope containing a letter to the Academy of Sciences on April 30, 1877 detailing the design of the paleophone, the first device capable of recording and playing the recording back as sound, later that year an account of his invention was published on October 10, 1877 a month before Edison claimed credit, then Edison patented it the next year..
Suspicious to say the least if you consider how many other inventions he "invented" after someone else had already done so....like the light bulb.

Edison always seemed like the Trump of late 1800's inventors imo, constantly taking credit for other people's work, patenting their inventions without even crediting them, and was a total shady but successful business man thanks to a total lack of ethics.

Wizard of Menlo Park? Please. Just another backstabbing rat from New Jersy if you ask me.

I'm team Tesla all day long. ;-)

I found this interesting.


loosely related is the evil side of patent Trolls.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Patent Trolls
https://videosift.com/video/Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-Patent-Trolls

How can you patent a chemical made naturally by the human body?

@newtboy, when did you get your crown???! Congrats! Here’s a bowl of the much desired and patented A$$ Gr@v33 that comes with it.

@gwiz665, was I here when you got yours? I believe I was. Then again, I’m stupid and cannot remember nuffin, muffin.

@kronosposeidon whatever happened to you?

I want to preface this comment by saying that I am a political independent, and something that might help convince you of that is that I didn't vote for Donald Trump. The reason I didn't vote for him is because I had serious reservations about him considering what I knew about his character. Now that he is president I support him because I respect the office of the President and I pray for him just as I did for President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what he does, or that I am under any illusions about his character. It just means that I know God is working in these circumstances for a greater good.

I know a lot of Christians voted for Donald Trump because they knew he would side with them in the culture wars. And he has, to a large part. But that isn't the issue with me. I do not fight the culture wars even though I find abortion abhorrent and I lament the deepening darkness that pervades our culture. It is moral and spiritual darkness which will eventually lead to the one world government of the Antichrist.

My issue has to do with the church waking up, and stop thinking the solution is in fixing the culture because the culture is influencing the church more than the church is the culture. The solution is to get right with God and show the love of Christ to a lost and dying world.

So, here is the comment:

It's obvious that the entirety of news media is corrupt; if 2016 didn't make that obvious I don't know what would. They pick winners and losers, as supporters of Bernie Sanders realized. They all have a political agenda and will write either negative or positive coverage based on that agenda. They will present a certain slant to every issue which is favorable to their political aspirations. It is patently obvious and I think most of the country realizes this.

So, this outrage over Fox doing what every other news media company has done in the past, is pretty lame. Maybe Fox is better at it than MSNBC but the point is, they both function as the arm of their respective parties, and manipulate their media coverage to brainwash people into believing their worldview.

"Let's lay it right on the line. Bigotry and racism are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today. But, unlike a team of costumed super-villains, they can’t be halted with a punch in the snoot, or a zap from a ray gun. The only way to destroy them is to expose them—to reveal them for the insidious evils they really are. The bigot is an unreasoning hater—one who hates blindly, fanatically, indiscriminately. If his hang-up is black men, he hates ALL black men. If a redhead once offended him, he hates ALL redheads. If some foreigner beat him to a job, he’s down on ALL foreigners. He hates people he’s never seen—people he’s never known—with equal intensity—with equal venom.
Now, we’re not trying to say it’s unreasonable for one human being to bug another. But, although anyone has the right to dislike another individual, it’s totally irrational, patently insane to condemn an entire race—to despise an entire nation—to vilify an entire religion. Sooner or later, we must learn to judge each other on our own merits. Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill out hearts with tolerance. For then, and only then, will we be truly worthy of the concept that man was created in the image of God–a God who calls us ALL—His children.

Pax et Justitia,
Stan"

We lost Stan and Clownface Von Fuckstick is still alive.
There is no justice.

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

What sort of evidence?

- Accusation/testimonial evidence?

- Or Physical evidence that is an invariant indicator of rape, that you can hold, see, measure, etc?



Anyone can accuse. That's effortless. Takes barely more energy than breathing.

(It's also effortless for a group of sour girls to gang up on a dude that upset them. Because "f that guy'. (That attitude isn't even rare.))



Physical evidence? People are convicted day in and day out of all sorts of things without physical evidence.

(Court is after all a popularity contest.)




My scary moment was when a cop detained me and told me he was going to charge me with : reckless driving, driving without a seat belt, and with threatening his life.

Why? Because I pulled up to a road block and asked him if I could drive past his road block to go home (which was a short way past the road block)... and he was having some emotional stability/triggering issues at the time, and he instantly turned red and went full on tirade mode.

Fortunately for me, after detaining me a few hours, some switch flipped in his head again and he just went to his car, got in, and drove off. Surreal.

So I asked myself :
If I had been charged, what would be the difference in court, vis-a-vis evidence, between it being a lie, and it being the truth?
Answer : No difference.

All he threatened me with was provable only by his word, and no evidence was required. I likely would have gone to jail, and had my life turned upside down... all on some person's grimace.

My view on evidence changed that day.
I will _NEVER_ convict anyone of anything, without physical tangible evidence that I can hold in my hand and see with my eyes, or at least run forensic tests on.
Testimony doesn't mean _shit_. It's absolutely, patently _worthless_.

(I also now run a dash cam everywhere I drive to protect myself from false accusations)




Basically, unless you have physical proof, I don't care.
Whatever you have to say, prove it.
No proof, no cares.

That goes for all accusations of anything ever. Across the board. Absolute.

It's the standard I want people to have for me, and it's the standard I have for others.

-scheherazade





(Aside, unrelated : I know a dude that was raped by a girl (he was nearly paralyzed drunk at his own house party). Wasn't even a secret. People at the party knew it happened. Nobody cared. When he complained, all anyone said was "Oh whatever. Shut up get over it". It wasn't even a question of 'did it happen?', it was a matter of "so what?".)

You can totally be against both. Most reasonable people are.

What you shouldn't do is assume that they are both equally bad and equally prevalent (important note: I'm not saying @bcglorf is doing this.... but other people are definitely doing this).

Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave.

Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence. The numbers are hard to come by, but it's not even 1% of actual rapes (nevermind lesser sexual assault like groping, etc).

Finally, where is the abandoning of proof and evidence? Show me someone who has been convicted of sexual assault without any evidence. There's a big difference between accepting an allegation is worth looking into and convicting that person.

If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean their alleged assailant is guilty though.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies are basically inventing this narrative of victimhood where women are on the lookout for men to falsely accuse of rape, which is patently bullshit.

Congratulations! Your comment on How Peter Braxton defeated a patent troll and still lost has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

I agree that the GMO hysteria is way overblown, and the science on it causing any ill effects are nill. Tough non-GMO supporters tend to say that there's no long enough studies.

True enough, if you want a lifetime study you'll have to wait a great deal longer, since GMO foods only went commercial in 1994, tough i'm sure the studies were going on for ages before that.

In any case, what concerns me is the patent of crops, and while today as far as i know, the strain is patented for 20 years (atleast in the US) After that they become public domain as far as its makeup\modification is concerned. Fair enough.

The only issue i fear (which is not logical ), is that if\when GMO's become the "norm", and non modified crops are basically not grown anywhere, the rulebook goes out the window, some politicians gets alot richer, and the corporations now own all the plants\seeds. Forever.

I know it's extremely unlikely, but i dare anyone not to nod and think "yep, corporations would do that in a second if they could get away with it".

Ah the patented right wing magical equivalent; link please

Sorry, bud, but black people (and other minorities, and women) have often complained, rightly so, about under representation and total exclusion from movies, tv shows, availability of positive rolls, etc.
Saying he's never heard that complaint is 100% unbelievable, and I call b.s.....he's doing it himself to an extent in this video. I was ready to upvote until he spouted that nonsense.

White people complaining about that is patently ridiculous.