Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (75281)	6/15/2011 3:47:49 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217592

Arun, the point was to demonstrate the difference between qualitative and quantitative and that simply having more people of a particular type doesn't improve the outcome when the difference is a qualitative one. The original point was patent counting versus patent quality and my examples of chess, sprinting and basketball were to demonstrate the importance of the qualitative aspect. Raising the basket to 100 metres would mean the example didn't demonstrate the point. You have shifted the goal posts from an example of qualitative to something about Indians being good at chess which has nothing to do with the point under discussion at all. Here is the point: < see you counting: < as far as patent counting goes, who is counting? did you see me counting? as far as i am concerned, the patentable processes and items are under-counted > Yes, it looks as though you are counting to know they are under-counted. Keep in mind that qualitative matters more than quantitative and there's no law of nature that says more and more Chinese being born would increase the proportion who can win in the NBA or could keep pace with Usain Bolt or excel against Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov. It's a matter of quality, not so much quantity. But yes, in general, of course, tritely, <as economies get more dynamic, the count goes up, and the quality evolves > When the creative are working dawn to dusk harvesting rice in knee deep water, they are not able to spend so long inventing Cyberspace. The water shorts the nano circuits. > We can also discuss how high basket ball hoops should be to make the height of basket ballers a minor point. Short, muscular, shot-putter types might be more effective with 50 metre high hoops, but I expect tall would still be better. China issuing lots of patents won't put China in the lead economically. What matters is their quality. Mqurice

To: arun gera who wrote (75281)	6/15/2011 7:11:06 PM
From: dvdw©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217592

Basketball is a cunnundrum considering that these professional men are playing on the same sized court at avg ht of 6'7" to 7'.x(depending on positions)as they did when they were 9 to 12 years old, with avg ht and wts proportional to the skill set expected for this current courts design. The entire Pro aspect of the sport needs to be reworked to include an expanded playing surface with all court metrics expanded, including the height of the hoop. Until this is done, the Pro sport is just plain boring, ripe for ref malfeasance, and essentially not worth watching.