In the UK teachers are not employed by the government. Head teachers and school governers
get pretty much a free choice on who they employ, and head teachers are answerable to local councils, not national government. Facts, please.
Suppose you spend
$50m on making a discovery. The device to
make use of this costs $5 to make, and saves everyone in the US $20.
As soon as you start to manufacture them (for $15)
along comes a cloning company and sells them for $6. The problem is, if you knew this was going to happen, why would you spend the $50m? Now imagine
that is is a drug, for example, which won't get made without that much investment, and you get
some idea of why patent protection is a good idea.
Yes, you have committed theft (assuming for the
moment that the car engine was patented, and that you try to sell the new engine).
Your idea for improving the engine is yours,
but the original idea for having an engine
in the first place belongs to the patent owner.
The way you should operate is to patent your improvement. Theh you can either improve other
people's engine for a fee, or get a license t
to manufacture the original engine (and add
your improvement while you are doing so) or
make a deal with the original patent owner.
What's the problem with that?
The difference, of course is that ideas
are not copyrightable. Nor are they patentable.
So your situation is ridiculous, but
has no bearing at all on reverse engineering of software.
I'm interested. Do you mean this?
I only ask because its an unusual point of view.
Presumably you believe in a creator, or you
wouldn't say "we were given". Do you
believe that anything we were given the ability
to do, we should do?
It depends on what you are doing, and what you actually want to do. There is a lot more to the
software business than coding. Are you testing?
Designing? Debugging? Documenting? Some of these
will be very useful as you progress in your career.
Presumably the U505 incident wasn't exciting enough to warrant actually basing the film on it.
After all the Batlle of the Atlantic was pretty much won by 1944.
Is it naive to think that the story would have been just as exciting if the protagonists had been
British?
That's easy. The kid wasn't 'designed to be healthy', ten or so of his siblings were destroyed, for no better reason than that they weren't medically useful. Not because they wouldn't be viable themselves, or would have diseases, or would suffer, but just because they weren't useful to someone else.
Is that how we want to treat human beings? Not me.
"I have not met any programmer-type-hacker who has been happy with the media's use of the word hacker" You have now. I've always used 'hacker" to mean someone who breaks into computer systems. I intend to continue doing so, if only because occasionally I have to talk to non-geeks. "A word always means what I want it to mean" may be great for Humpty Dumpty, but it doesn't help get your meaning across.
You have two choices. Either you have to "just deface every one of my company's servers every time they upgrade to the next release!", or call yourself something apart from "hacker". How about "Computer Security Consultant"?
Re:One Spiritual(?), Religous(?) person's thoughts
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
So much for rational argument. Even if "belief in God doesn't explain anything in science", does it explain anything in love, art, morality, philosophy or any of the other many parts of life that are not science?
Likewises, do you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis that the previous poster is hallucinating? If not, then its just your belief against his. Just because some people who hallucinate see God doesn't mean that all people who see God are hallucinating.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK teachers are not employed by the government. Head teachers and school governers get pretty much a free choice on who they employ, and head teachers are answerable to local councils, not national government. Facts, please.
Nice theory. But in the absence of observational data on any of these other universes, theory is what it will probably remain.
Of course the key points are 'where conditions allow' and 'eventually'. The whole argument is that 'where conditions allow' is extremely rare.
Even on earth, inorganic matter outnumbers organic enormously, so why do you say "entities capable of reproducing outnumber those that aren't?
Suppose you spend $50m on making a discovery. The device to make use of this costs $5 to make, and saves everyone in the US $20. As soon as you start to manufacture them (for $15) along comes a cloning company and sells them for $6. The problem is, if you knew this was going to happen, why would you spend the $50m? Now imagine that is is a drug, for example, which won't get made without that much investment, and you get some idea of why patent protection is a good idea.
Yes, you have committed theft (assuming for the
moment that the car engine was patented, and that you try to sell the new engine).
Your idea for improving the engine is yours,
but the original idea for having an engine
in the first place belongs to the patent owner.
The way you should operate is to patent your improvement. Theh you can either improve other
people's engine for a fee, or get a license t
to manufacture the original engine (and add
your improvement while you are doing so) or
make a deal with the original patent owner.
What's the problem with that?
The difference, of course is that ideas are not copyrightable. Nor are they patentable. So your situation is ridiculous, but has no bearing at all on reverse engineering of software.
I'm interested. Do you mean this? I only ask because its an unusual point of view. Presumably you believe in a creator, or you wouldn't say "we were given". Do you believe that anything we were given the ability to do, we should do?
It depends on what you are doing, and what you actually want to do. There is a lot more to the software business than coding. Are you testing? Designing? Debugging? Documenting? Some of these will be very useful as you progress in your career.
Presumably the U505 incident wasn't exciting enough to warrant actually basing the film on it.
After all the Batlle of the Atlantic was pretty much won by 1944.
Is it naive to think that the story would have been just as exciting if the protagonists had been
British?
No, I wasn't impressed with the historical accuracy of The Patriot either. It seems
like it was a low year for history in Hollywood.
That's easy. The kid wasn't 'designed to be healthy', ten or so of his siblings were destroyed, for no better reason than that they weren't medically useful. Not because they wouldn't be viable themselves, or would have diseases, or would suffer, but just because they weren't useful to someone else. Is that how we want to treat human beings? Not me.
"I have not met any programmer-type-hacker who has been happy with the media's use of the word hacker" You have now. I've always used 'hacker" to mean someone who breaks into computer systems. I intend to continue doing so, if only because occasionally I have to talk to non-geeks. "A word always means what I want it to mean" may be great for Humpty Dumpty, but it doesn't help get your meaning across.
You have two choices. Either you have to "just deface every one of my company's servers every time they upgrade to the next release!", or call yourself something apart from "hacker". How about "Computer Security Consultant"?
So much for rational argument. Even if "belief in God doesn't explain anything in science", does it explain anything in love, art, morality, philosophy or any of the other many parts of life that are not science?
Likewises, do you have any evidence to back up your hypothesis that the previous poster is hallucinating? If not, then its just your belief against his. Just because some people who hallucinate see God doesn't mean that all people who see God are hallucinating.