It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors.

It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.

Originally written 13 Aug. 1813
Thomas Jefferson

Yeahhhhhhh. I called Jennings classic “Seekers” instead of “Searchers”.

The ghost of Larry said it is an ambitious classic that just needed a quick change artist.

These are the jokes folks.

Been busy!  Hope you all check it out and make some of your Christmas money….Bill’s money.

Search and Destroy.  Pffft.

Another lying sack of shit kicks the bucket.  M.A.D.

Not to steal my man blendomagic’s thunder, but this is well worth checking out.  Thanks for giving the heads up.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://elmanuscritoblog.blogspot.com/&ei=V8YsS5K_Doed4QbRw-SOCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.elmanuscritoblog.blogspot.com/%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

“Sucker” effects it seems have been slotted into too vast a category.  For instance Devilish Miracle could, and has been put in this category essentially, yet this isn’t the type of effect I’m pointing at in the following.  It’s more of the type of effect where there is such a gaping hole in the method it’s hard to over look.

For instance “2 card monte”.  I first saw this performed by a guy on the Jersey coast when I was still fairly young.  I hung around the guy long enough to see him do the effect two or three times.  Mind you this was way before Blaine made it the somewhat over popular effect, for it’s own good it has become.  Since I brought it up.  Here is the video that started the whole fray.  Take note at around :48

I remember seeing that show for the first time and thinking “yup”.  2 card monte was never a big deal in my travels.  Blaine was all about reactions on camera, but I think this “presentation” should be in the class of abysmal.

Sure I do it now and again because it’s brainless, but I’ve never horribly cared for what I said is that gaping problem no one can get around.  People don’t WANT to think when we do magic on these types of terms.  It’s a little demanding to do something like “I give you this card here, now I take it back, now back with this one and this one here”.  We’ve all had this happen right?  Even opening in making a big deal that “this is just for fun”, many people will get aggravated, claim they have poor memory, you seem challenging indirectly, they can be challenging etc.   No matter how it’s done, and of course can get fine reactions, to me it’s too sucker in it’s design….your near saying it out loud in the actions.

Now let’s take Dr. Daley’s Last Trick as a similar effect.  It has no challenge, it’s very open, and “no thinking” is required.   2 card monte isn’t horribly fun while it’s “going on” for the spectator, no matter the patter (poet and don’t know it).  If we add Bannon’s simple, yet in it’s own way, brilliant addition of crossing the arms, it’s fun from point A-B and done before any type of challenge, memory is needed.  Of course the obvious here is that all four cards are shown before hand, so in theory it should be less of a reaction you’d think.  Not in my travels though.  In showing 4 you have more cards that transposed.  It’s not about 2 cards in laymen’s minds but 4 which is a tad more impossible and the surprise stays in tact the same being they don’t know the ending.  Personally I’ll take Dr. Daley’s Last over 2 card monte any day.

Other ones that bother me are many Cannibal plots.  Again we can categorize all of them in the sucker category if we wish, but I’m talking about almost  blatant “Haha….you actually think there are 4 cards here huh”.  If you show X card going into the pack, no one in their right mind is going to think it was “eaten or dissipated”.  Not in that type of case.  Your just hiding a card.  You know it, they know it, so why the tap dance in stating such silliness.  Granted these versions make good in the end, but the damage is somewhat done.

Cures?  One of the Card Of The Month effects was Max Maven’s “Fine Mesh”.  This is one hell of a good effect for these reasons.  Clean as a whistle in the end and the cards “really do seem to vanish” without any hiding, crazy counts and whatnot.  If you have some kind of Cannibal effect where you truly are using a sucker format, try fine mesh instead.  Another of note would be Chris Kenner’s “Diet”.  This is a good example of what may be impossible to state in text, but should be an obvious.  Diet is over before it began.  Sure it’s a sucker effect, but there is no insult of intelligence.  As you say your not showing 4 cards, adding a 2D, then stating “the 2D is gone, yum yum”.  Clean at the end, no need to hop back to the deck….on and on.

Hard to express these things my friends.  Just beware with your sucker effects.  Some can be great, some can get fair reactions, but are the ends justifying the means.  Doc did a great “card on forehead” at a party once.  Though of course I knew the plot I loved seeing it, and so did everyone else in the room…..even the “sucker”.  Some of them work, but really think about what your sucker effects signify in the end.  Are they really fun?  Are you just showing you can do something they can’t do?  Are you making them think too much?  Are you insulting their intelligence?  Is it coming across as challenging?  Are there alternatives better than what we did before?  Turn on the yellow light when reading these types of effects, I’m sure glad I did.

Read The Comment

Short term memory loss or something.  WOW.

Find where it’s from yet? Took us 3 days after release to find where it’s from. You did it for 2 years and never knew the proper name of this control? Ouch.
Good luck then. I wouldn’t count on this video being sold much longer.

Well since it’s release I have been told by u and someone else that it has existed( so they think ) and been created before me. So I did sone more research and the only place I could find it was in Steve beans trap door called the flip switch… Is that the place ur refering to? So why play this cryptic game?if it’s sum where else then let me know if not then fuck off. We do not want to take credit for anything that is not ours so if u care about this art then please let me know where it is u found this so we can make the proper and correct adjustments. Soooooo ball in ur court!

JM

I’m not making any money. I’ll help if you pay me a little. After all filming one move and selling it to kids is easy money.
You still didn’t get the name right. The media wants to know if you are claiming this as your own.

Simple yes or no.

PS. Haven’t you become the bad ass over the years!

wtfnolimits
…

why dont you be a fucking man and come from behind your internet throne and either call me or tell me who it is im talking to. If you think I am trying to take credit for something thats not mine then you are dead wrong? Do u know how many magic books and magazines etc..there are out there? u think I can go through every single fucking one.

i showed this around to some big names for the past 2 years and no one ever said i think this is so and so’s if they did I would never have put it out.

So tell me where the fuck you think this is found so I can make the correct adjustments (either taking it down or giving credit).

Who the fuck are you and who the fuck is the media?

Here is my number 1-800-We’z-Got-Cake
Call and lets talk like real men..if you can. And if you do not want to do that at least tell me who it is I am speaking to and what your fucking problem is.

This is the last time I will respond if you do not call or reveal your mysterious self.

JM

(This part was actually sent as a separate Email)

p.s. I’ve always been a bad ass.. you just got the memo!