When the patent system was "put together" there were no "big corporations". As stated, it was intended "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'"
Well, unless RAH had actually patented the concept, he wouldn't have any legal standing; and that doesn't sound like something he would do, anyway -- he was a writer, not an inventor.
However, I can certainly see where he would have an objection and probably legal standing over someone using the name Valentine Michael Smith on something, as that would make it appear that RAH had something to do with it.
> The original Dianetics article was published in > the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction > (John W. Campbell was also into this kind of > thing). The book seems to have originally been > published in 1951 according to the Library of > Congress.
Well, yes and no. Obviously, the beneficiaries of it are benefited either way. And I see no reason a company making charitable contributions shouldn't get good press for it. They deserve to be recognized, and people who are interested in supporting such companies, such as the originator of this topic, can know what companies to support.
So in a sense, yes, that's enough. But when the good PR is the only motivation, and the good will isn't sincere, then you have to consider that if the social pressure shifts away, or in areas where there isn't currently any social pressure, they aren't so benevolent.
It got marked flame bait because it is. The r/l substitution is a problem of pronunciation, not spelling, and although I have known Japanese to do it in writing and typing (I did training ops with the JDF when I was in the Navy), they don't do it consistently, and definitely not on silent l's like in "talk".
Heh -- unless that woman is a lot taller than she appears in the picture, there's no way she weighs 3,000 pounds. She just isn't that big. Besides, you can tell the picture has been altered.
So, a person who writes a story or a song has no rights to it? Just because the song isn't "tangible", it should be free to everyone? So who's going to pay the songwriter's bills? Or perhaps you think that people shouldn't be able to write songs for a living -- they should have to do some "honest" work as well? It's a pretty theory, but it just doesn't work in real life. I'm all for sharing, and open source and all that, but the money's gotta come from somewhere -- it's just an ugly fact of life.
I don't understand what all the big hoo-hah is about human cloning. It's been going on as long as there have been humans. I read an article a couple of years ago, where a guy was saying this. He said, "I have a clone -- I call him my twin brother. And I can assure you, we are not the same person!" Cloning Hitler would not give you another Hitler. A person is more than the sum of their parts.
Slashdot Mirror
When the patent system was "put together" there were no "big corporations". As stated, it was intended "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'"
--
Well, unless RAH had actually patented the concept, he wouldn't have any legal standing; and that doesn't sound like something he would do, anyway -- he was a writer, not an inventor.
However, I can certainly see where he would have an objection and probably legal standing over someone using the name Valentine Michael Smith on something, as that would make it appear that RAH had something to do with it.
--
For whom the Ada programming language was named.
--
42
--
According to Merriam-Webster, epicenter is synonymous with center. But I agree, it's kind of a hoaky usage.
--
> The original Dianetics article was published in
> the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction
> (John W. Campbell was also into this kind of
> thing). The book seems to have originally been
> published in 1951 according to the Library of
> Congress.
No, according to the Library of Congress, it was published in 1950.
--
No problem. No problem at all -- let me know if there is anything else I can clear up for you.
--
Well, yes and no. Obviously, the beneficiaries of it are benefited either way. And I see no reason a company making charitable contributions shouldn't get good press for it. They deserve to be recognized, and people who are interested in supporting such companies, such as the originator of this topic, can know what companies to support.
So in a sense, yes, that's enough. But when the good PR is the only motivation, and the good will isn't sincere, then you have to consider that if the social pressure shifts away, or in areas where there isn't currently any social pressure, they aren't so benevolent.
--
It got marked flame bait because it is. The r/l substitution is a problem of pronunciation, not spelling, and although I have known Japanese to do it in writing and typing (I did training ops with the JDF when I was in the Navy), they don't do it consistently, and definitely not on silent l's like in "talk".
--
Heh -- unless that woman is a lot taller than she appears in the picture, there's no way she weighs 3,000 pounds. She just isn't that big. Besides, you can tell the picture has been altered.
--
So, a person who writes a story or a song has no rights to it? Just because the song isn't "tangible", it should be free to everyone? So who's going to pay the songwriter's bills? Or perhaps you think that people shouldn't be able to write songs for a living -- they should have to do some "honest" work as well? It's a pretty theory, but it just doesn't work in real life. I'm all for sharing, and open source and all that, but the money's gotta come from somewhere -- it's just an ugly fact of life.
--
I don't understand what all the big hoo-hah is about human cloning. It's been going on as long as there have been humans. I read an article a couple of years ago, where a guy was saying this. He said, "I have a clone -- I call him my twin brother. And I can assure you, we are not the same person!" Cloning Hitler would not give you another Hitler. A person is more than the sum of their parts.
--