Err. no.. read first, then make notes during the lecture. If you go into the lecture having already PREPARED then you can ask about stuff that still isn't making sense to you, and take note of things that you will be able to recognise as important when discussed in the lecture.
This is the key right here.
That being said, most people find this way of learning to be too difficult and they don't keep it up for long. However, if you can manage it, then the amount you actually learn and retain will be HUGE.
He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed.
Too bad... fuck 'em.
Our uteruses would fly out of our bodies as they were accelerated to that speed
Won't someone please think of the uteruses!!
In the case where companies with a large patent portfolio are actually spending billions in R&D, I'd say you have a massive point, and that any claims made by anti-patent folks that patents are stifling innovation would be extremely difficult to substantiate... and that those claims may not even have any basis in fact.
However, in the case of companies with a large patent portfolio that do little to no R&D (with companies whose sole business case is patent trolling being the most obvious case), I would think that the claims made by anti-patent folks would need no substantiation at all...
Right now, the most attractive market (or means of distribution) for a "software tycoon in training" is the smartphone market (specifically Android and iPhone, since their distribution methods have the lowest overhead for the actual software authors).
The LodSys bullshit has definitely left me feeling a little gun-shy...
I don't think so.
The argument being made is that securing those rights (at least, using the current methods) doesn't actually promote that progress. So I suppose it could possibly be interpreted that the current system doesn't fulfill the intent of that portion of the constitution. Which might make the current process for obtaining a patent unconstitutional.
However, to claim that it makes patents themselves unconstitutional doesn't seem valid.... but, again, one could draw the conclusion (with a lot more evidence, I'd think) that progress in science and useful arts can't be promoted via granting parties exclusive rights to writings and discoveries at all... which would mean that the portion of the constitution that you quoted would have to be deemed as being sel-conflicting and therefore stricken from the constitution or amended... and while that claim might actually be true, I don't think getting it amended would be easier than revamping the patent system/process
Happiness is a hard disk.