When science can create a prime rib roast or [insert meat type], I'm in. Otherwise, an invention for some meat substitute or some fabricated muscle cell matrix, I couldn't care less about. Good if it feeds unfed people, but I won't ever likely be paying for it.
Just to clarify; it appears as though the comment was a qoute of Brian Bogosian. He is Visto's chairman, president and CEO. I don't believe the newswriter is responsible for it being a filler word
I think the court case wastes tax payer dollars. However, I also think this waste is inevitable. Consider 3 scenarios: 1) A court rules on an obvious case, thus wasting tax payer dollars. 2) The patent office thoroughly examines every patent application, thus wasting tax payer dollars on man power. 3) No one submits a patent application for something that already exists.
Now, scenario #1 already exists. In scenario #2, we could charge/fine applicants who apply for patents on prior art to offset wasted tax dollars. Would this stifle invention because of the potential overhead? Finally, I seriously doubt scenario #3 is ever going to happen.
I conclude that we either waste the money in the courts or in the patent office. I just don't know which would waste more.
Are you sure you can photocopy every page of a book you own? Up here in Canada, I was informed that I can only photocopy up to roughly 10% of a book, even if I own it. I could be misinformed though...
the keyword is "some". Using "some" does not dismiss your "being good".
Logically, even if religion gave "all" people reason to act good, then you would be not be excluded from the group of people who have reason to act good.
Summarizing:
Some of A is C
Some of B is C
All of A is not B
I don't see any contradictions
Slashdot Mirror
When science can create a prime rib roast or [insert meat type], I'm in. Otherwise, an invention for some meat substitute or some fabricated muscle cell matrix, I couldn't care less about. Good if it feeds unfed people, but I won't ever likely be paying for it.
Just to clarify; it appears as though the comment was a qoute of Brian Bogosian. He is Visto's chairman, president and CEO. I don't believe the newswriter is responsible for it being a filler word
I think the court case wastes tax payer dollars. However, I also think this waste is inevitable.
Consider 3 scenarios:
1) A court rules on an obvious case, thus wasting tax payer dollars.
2) The patent office thoroughly examines every patent application, thus wasting tax payer dollars on man power.
3) No one submits a patent application for something that already exists.
Now, scenario #1 already exists.
In scenario #2, we could charge/fine applicants who apply for patents on prior art to offset wasted tax dollars. Would this stifle invention because of the potential overhead?
Finally, I seriously doubt scenario #3 is ever going to happen.
I conclude that we either waste the money in the courts or in the patent office. I just don't know which would waste more.
Are you sure you can photocopy every page of a book you own? Up here in Canada, I was informed that I can only photocopy up to roughly 10% of a book, even if I own it. I could be misinformed though...
For me, it is the most funny april fools day ever. I have never laughed so hard at so many people bitching.
the keyword is "some". Using "some" does not dismiss your "being good". Logically, even if religion gave "all" people reason to act good, then you would be not be excluded from the group of people who have reason to act good. Summarizing: Some of A is C Some of B is C All of A is not B I don't see any contradictions