No I want to see a Japanese man step foot on the moon.
Our government could easily place a lander on the moon so what, thats not proof a human was there
I want to see the footprints. I want to see other humans from other countries walking on the moon. I want to see the flag exactly where it was in the 1960s still there.
Thats not good enough, until other countries land on the moon why should i believe information coming from the government about what the government did? If other governments who may be our enemies give the same information thats when Ill believe it.
I know we have satelites because other governments have them too, not because ive actually seen a spy satelite.
You can physically go there and see it. As far as whats inside, well you can believe the gov and they say Area51 doesnt exist even though you can physically GO to Area51, or you can believe the people who claim it exist and who work there.
Since the government doesnt give any counter information on this issue, you dont have any choice but to believe the amazingly imaginative stories.
You'll never be able to prove UFOs or Alien Abductions are real unless you physically show people.
You'll never be able to prove that the moon landing happened unless you physically bring people to the moon.
I'd believe the moon landing happened if other countries also went to the moon, the fact that its only the USA who sent men to the moon allows skeptics to claim its a hoax.
It would be hard for skeptics to claim UFO sightings are a hoax if other governments were claiming its not, but because our government says its a hoax and other governments dont comment on it , well then its a hoax. Forget what millions of people say, forget video tapes, forget physical evidence like weird metals, its all fake or done in the studio.
Wow look at the UFO videos, the crop circles, alien autospy, hell all of this bullshit could be created by the government as part of a psyops program to confuse and scare other enemy governments into wasting resources on invaders that dont exist.
You need to wake up and learn to believe what you can actually prove, not just what you see.
How is NASA more credible than the so called crackpots?
What makes NASA incapable of lying?
I just dont understand how people can be so stupid to trust everything the government says. Gov said Roswell was a flying saucer, then changed their story to a weather balloon when people began to panic, then in the 1990s they said it was a top secret spy balloon with test dummies inside with big black eyes like the witnesses saw.
Thats 3 seperate lies about the same incident right there.
Then you have the secret test trials they did on the population and prolly still do. \\ The government is no more credible than people on the art bell show, when I see another country besides our own go on the moon and put their flag on it, then i'll believe we went there.
So far i've only heard of one country landing on the moon, the USA, I've only seen one video, ours, and no ones ever done it since then, not even us.
So of course I'm skeptical, I mean China, Russia and other super powers still havent landed on the moon and its 2002?
Thats like me looking at UFO footage (theres plenty of so called scientists who do this) And claiming its real.
The government is quick to call it swamp gas, air balloons, everything under the sun besides an un indentified flying object. The government is to arrogant to admit they dont know something.
So if they cant admit they dont know what a UFO is, why would they admit the moon landing could have been staged?
IT only happened once,theres no absolute proof,it could be as fake as Alien Autopsy.
How can you believe something when it was only on TV? You didnt see it in person.
Also why has no other country gone to the moon besides us? We havent even gone back since then.
So why not be skeptical.
I'm going to admit I dont know either way. I dont trust the government, the government is just as quick to claim something they cant prove is a hoax, like UFO sightings. Millions of people claim to have seen them, but its a hoax because the government prolly doesnt even know.
So why dont we have the right to be skeptical of the government if they are skeptical of us?
If you claimed to have found an unlimited energy source and your only proof was a video tape, and no one has since been able to duplicate your experiment in a lab, everyone would say its a hoax, including NASA.
IF people can believe that millions of abductees are lying why then is it illogical to believe our government may have faked the moon landings?
To this day no other country has put a man on the moon.
To this day we havent went back to the moon, and the timing is suspcious.
I'm not saying we couldnt do it, but we have every right to be skeptical of the moon landings, just like we have every right to be skeptical of the roswell incident.
The government lies when it benifits them to do so.
People still need drug stores, they still need the drugs packaged in pill format, they need bottles, its not like you have the ability to make your own drugs just because you know the ingredients.
The information are the ingredients, dont you get it?
The drug company does not need to patent the information to make money off of it. Look at redhat, they dont own linux, they spend millions helping to develop it, and they profit off of it.
Innovation comes from knowledge and sharing of information.
You'll make better music if you listen to more music and have access to better tools.
You'll be smarter if you read more books and with this intelligence you can use this knowledge to give back to the world in the form of your own knowledge.
Its give and take, its not like you can pay for innovation, you cannot, you can pay for products, you can pay for people to give information they already have away but the fact is people would create and distrubte information even if they dont make money doing it.
People do it on the internet now, giving away files and information when they arent being paid to do so.
Innovation does not need to be encouraged, theres no short supply of innovation, its natural, selling innovation is like selling air.
You have a point people need a reason to spend their money to develop new things, and things which cost alot to develop will make money, my point is not that a person shouldnt have exclusive right to sell what they create, they definately should have the exclusive right to sell what they create if they created it
What they DONT have the right to do, is to stop people from giving away what they buy. IF I buy information I should become an owner of that information as well, giving me the ability to give it away if I want to.
Information should not be owned, products should be owned.
Microsoft can say that I dont have the right to sell Microsoft Windows and I'd agree with them, but If I give it away for free they have no right because I'm not taking anything away from them, the person I gave it to for free wouldnt have purchased it anyway.
Just like If i give away the cure for aids to africa, American drug companies shouldnt be able to sue me because I didnt create and sell a bottled drug, I just gave them the ingredients.
How can you sue me for giving the ingredients? This is what I mean when I say I'm against patents, I'm not against Capitalism or making money off of ideas, I'm against people who claim that when I buy something that I cant do what I want with it.
I can do whatever I want with anything I buy. If drug companies want to make money in a world with no patents they can sell drugs to the goverments itself, simply sell the drugs to the governments before you release your ingredients. This is like what Lindows does, they sell the OS beefore they give the code.
Redhat does this too you can get the code but theres reaosns for you to buy the product instead of just taking the code and creatinng your own.
Under real capitalism there are no copyrights, not only is copyright and patents anti capitalism, its against the constitution as well because it prevents freedom of speech.
You can argue that some products DO need patents, and I might agree with you that products which take millions to produce need patents for a set amount of time, such as movies, highly expensive cures to diseases, etc, but you can patent the physical device without patenting the information on it.
Example, you make a drug, you can have it so you are the only company in the world who can make this drug, yet the ingredients for the drug are free.
WHat about movies? You can make it so you are the only one who is able to sell this movie, but people can copy it themselves for free.
Most people do not have their own personal drug factories, so medicine companies will still be able to make plenty of money ot make up for R&D, movie companies will make less money until they increase the quality to a level which we cannot reproduce on our home PCs.
The information however should always be public domain and free, the right to sell it should not be free, the right to look at it, use it, read it and share it should be free.
This means a musician has the EXCLUSIVE right to sell their music, but if you copy and give it away they cannot do anything about it because no ones making money off of it. Thats how the laws should be, patents are not needed, just the exclusive right for the creator to profit off of what they made.
There is no R&D when it comes to producing information. I can understand you patenting a physical process, or even a physical item which costs you millions of R&D to produce, for a very short period of time such a patent should apply, maybe 2-5 years, allowing you to profit, but no, these patents last almost 100 years.
Its currently out of control, the R&D for drug research, you should not be able to patent the ingredients or information, you should be able to patent the physical product, the tools used to create the product, and you dont have to tell people how you physically create the product you create.
However the information itself should never be patented. People can make money selling products, people can make money selling services, but there is no need for patents, these patents hold back innovation more than helping, these patents keep the majority of this planets population poor, billions of people in africa, india, china all make up the majority of humanity and these people are poor because of patents.
In an entirely open world, these people could do their own R&D to cure their own diseases, they could release the ingredients to the cure, companies in the USA would still have to BUILD the machines and factories to make the cure, they'd sell the medicine still, but you'd sell he physical OBJECT, not the information!
So if you buy something you are paying for labor and not ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
And I dont mean stupid probes either.
No I want to see a Japanese man step foot on the moon.
Our government could easily place a lander on the moon so what, thats not proof a human was there
I want to see the footprints. I want to see other humans from other countries walking on the moon.
I want to see the flag exactly where it was in the 1960s still there.
Thats not good enough, until other countries land on the moon why should i believe information coming from the government about what the government did? If other governments who may be our enemies give the same information thats when Ill believe it.
I know we have satelites because other governments have them too, not because ive actually seen a spy satelite.
You can physically go there and see it. As far as whats inside, well you can believe the gov and they say Area51 doesnt exist even though you can physically GO to Area51, or you can believe the people who claim it exist and who work there.
Since the government doesnt give any counter information on this issue, you dont have any choice but to believe the amazingly imaginative stories.
I agree, if enough countries go back Ill believe it. BUT I'm not going to believe anything which comes directly from one source.
Why should I put all faith in NASA? When I see China or Russia go land on the moon I'll believe it.
UFO investigators, they go around trying to prove that UFOs are real and that they land on earth.
How is NASA going to prove we landed on the moon?
Impossible, even if there were thousands of hours of footage
You'll never be able to prove UFOs or Alien Abductions are real unless you physically show people.
You'll never be able to prove that the moon landing happened unless you physically bring people to the moon.
I'd believe the moon landing happened if other countries also went to the moon, the fact that its only the USA who sent men to the moon allows skeptics to claim its a hoax.
It would be hard for skeptics to claim UFO sightings are a hoax if other governments were claiming its not, but because our government says its a hoax and other governments dont comment on it , well then its a hoax. Forget what millions of people say, forget video tapes, forget physical evidence like weird metals, its all fake or done in the studio.
Wow look at the UFO videos, the crop circles, alien autospy, hell all of this bullshit could be created by the government as part of a psyops program to confuse and scare other enemy governments into wasting resources on invaders that dont exist.
You need to wake up and learn to believe what you can actually prove, not just what you see.
How is NASA more credible than the so called crackpots?
What makes NASA incapable of lying?
I just dont understand how people can be so stupid to trust everything the government says. Gov said Roswell was a flying saucer, then changed their story to a weather balloon when people began to panic, then in the 1990s they said it was a top secret spy balloon with test dummies inside with big black eyes like the witnesses saw.
Thats 3 seperate lies about the same incident right there.
Then you have the secret test trials they did on the population and prolly still do.
\\
The government is no more credible than people on the art bell show, when I see another country besides our own go on the moon and put their flag on it, then i'll believe we went there.
So far i've only heard of one country landing on the moon, the USA, I've only seen one video, ours, and no ones ever done it since then, not even us.
So of course I'm skeptical, I mean China, Russia and other super powers still havent landed on the moon and its 2002?
Thats like me looking at UFO footage (theres plenty of so called scientists who do this) And claiming its real.
The government is quick to call it swamp gas, air balloons, everything under the sun besides an un indentified flying object. The government is to arrogant to admit they dont know something.
So if they cant admit they dont know what a UFO is, why would they admit the moon landing could have been staged?
IT only happened once,theres no absolute proof,it could be as fake as Alien Autopsy.
So why cant the moon landing be a Hoax?
How can you believe something when it was only on TV? You didnt see it in person.
Also why has no other country gone to the moon besides us? We havent even gone back since then.
So why not be skeptical.
I'm going to admit I dont know either way.
I dont trust the government, the government is just as quick to claim something they cant prove is a hoax, like UFO sightings. Millions of people claim to have seen them, but its a hoax because the government prolly doesnt even know.
So why dont we have the right to be skeptical of the government if they are skeptical of us?
If you claimed to have found an unlimited energy source and your only proof was a video tape, and no one has since been able to duplicate your experiment in a lab, everyone would say its a hoax, including NASA.
IF people can believe that millions of abductees are lying why then is it illogical to believe our government may have faked the moon landings?
To this day no other country has put a man on the moon.
To this day we havent went back to the moon, and the timing is suspcious.
I'm not saying we couldnt do it, but we have every right to be skeptical of the moon landings, just like we have every right to be skeptical of the roswell incident.
The government lies when it benifits them to do so.
All schools in Denmark? HUGE HUGE Win for Open Source and Linux.
The support costs alone from the 1 million or so students will make sure Redhat stays profitable for a really long time.
No one should have the freedom to harm anyone else
We need to filter greedy bastards like you out of the community you sellout, go run microsoft windows.
The code costs time to produce, not everyone can do it, you certainly cant, so if you want good code, pay for it.
People using Lycoris and Lindows most likely cannot tell the difference.
Let those two OS's use the Windows style GUI, but lets innovate now because we already have things as Windows like as possible.
I think its time to innovate. I've given many ideas to the mailing lists, maybe they will use a few.
make people pay you to write the book page by page then.
They like a chapter and want another, they pay you and you write chapter 2.
People still need drug stores, they still need the drugs packaged in pill format, they need bottles, its not like you have the ability to make your own drugs just because you know the ingredients.
The information are the ingredients, dont you get it?
The drug company does not need to patent the information to make money off of it. Look at redhat, they dont own linux, they spend millions helping to develop it, and they profit off of it.
exactly
thats why the musician sells them at concerts
Proving that you do not need to sell information to make money and pay for R&D.
To everyone who says you do need patents, look at Redhat.
Innovation comes from knowledge and sharing of information.
You'll make better music if you listen to more music and have access to better tools.
You'll be smarter if you read more books and with this intelligence you can use this knowledge to give back to the world in the form of your own knowledge.
Its give and take, its not like you can pay for innovation, you cannot, you can pay for products, you can pay for people to give information they already have away but the fact is people would create and distrubte information even if they dont make money doing it.
People do it on the internet now, giving away files and information when they arent being paid to do so.
Innovation does not need to be encouraged, theres no short supply of innovation, its natural, selling innovation is like selling air.
You have a point people need a reason to spend their money to develop new things, and things which cost alot to develop will make money, my point is not that a person shouldnt have exclusive right to sell what they create, they definately should have the exclusive right to sell what they create if they created it
What they DONT have the right to do, is to stop people from giving away what they buy. IF I buy information I should become an owner of that information as well, giving me the ability to give it away if I want to.
Information should not be owned, products should be owned.
Microsoft can say that I dont have the right to sell Microsoft Windows and I'd agree with them, but If I give it away for free they have no right because I'm not taking anything away from them, the person I gave it to for free wouldnt have purchased it anyway.
Just like If i give away the cure for aids to africa, American drug companies shouldnt be able to sue me because I didnt create and sell a bottled drug, I just gave them the ingredients.
How can you sue me for giving the ingredients? This is what I mean when I say I'm against patents, I'm not against Capitalism or making money off of ideas, I'm against people who claim that when I buy something that I cant do what I want with it.
I can do whatever I want with anything I buy. If drug companies want to make money in a world with no patents they can sell drugs to the goverments itself, simply sell the drugs to the governments before you release your ingredients. This is like what Lindows does, they sell the OS beefore they give the code.
Redhat does this too you can get the code but theres reaosns for you to buy the product instead of just taking the code and creatinng your own.
Under real capitalism there are no copyrights, not only is copyright and patents anti capitalism, its against the constitution as well because it prevents freedom of speech.
You can argue that some products DO need patents, and I might agree with you that products which take millions to produce need patents for a set amount of time, such as movies, highly expensive cures to diseases, etc, but you can patent the physical device without patenting the information on it.
Example, you make a drug, you can have it so you are the only company in the world who can make this drug, yet the ingredients for the drug are free.
WHat about movies? You can make it so you are the only one who is able to sell this movie, but people can copy it themselves for free.
Most people do not have their own personal drug factories, so medicine companies will still be able to make plenty of money ot make up for R&D, movie companies will make less money until they increase the quality to a level which we cannot reproduce on our home PCs.
The information however should always be public domain and free, the right to sell it should not be free, the right to look at it, use it, read it and share it should be free.
This means a musician has the EXCLUSIVE right to sell their music, but if you copy and give it away they cannot do anything about it because no ones making money off of it. Thats how the laws should be, patents are not needed, just the exclusive right for the creator to profit off of what they made.
There is no R&D when it comes to producing information. I can understand you patenting a physical process, or even a physical item which costs you millions of R&D to produce, for a very short period of time such a patent should apply, maybe 2-5 years, allowing you to profit, but no, these patents last almost 100 years.
Its currently out of control, the R&D for drug research, you should not be able to patent the ingredients or information, you should be able to patent the physical product, the tools used to create the product, and you dont have to tell people how you physically create the product you create.
However the information itself should never be patented. People can make money selling products, people can make money selling services, but there is no need for patents, these patents hold back innovation more than helping, these patents keep the majority of this planets population poor, billions of people in africa, india, china all make up the majority of humanity and these people are poor because of patents.
In an entirely open world, these people could do their own R&D to cure their own diseases, they could release the ingredients to the cure, companies in the USA would still have to BUILD the machines and factories to make the cure, they'd sell the medicine still, but you'd sell he physical OBJECT, not the information!
So if you buy something you are paying for labor and not ideas.