No, like the computer and the television the airplane was invented in germany.
Was it? I think the airplane was invented long before there was a germany. People have been trying to fly since they first saw birds. The Greeks were obviously thinking about it a long time ago (ever here of Icarus?).
I guess it all depends on how you define an airplane. But if you define it as a self propelled flying contraption, well then, you gotta go with the Wrights.
Why is everyone pounding their damn chests over who invented what anyway? Most (if not all) inventions always build on the ideas of others.
Carrier was an engineer for a company that build air handlers. All he did was cool the damn air as it went through the vents. So you could say lots of things about how he didn't invent anything. But yet, there it was, an air conditioner. He thought of a new way to do something.
No since getting your pantties in a wad over who invented what.
The only people its not a win for are the prisons (they would lose a signifigant portion of their population, as the number of
prisoners in jail for non-violent drug offences dwarfs all violent crimes) and the street level pushers, who would no longer have
a profitable buisness.
No, that's not the only people that it's not a win for. There are a lot of big arms manufacturers in this country that are making a lot of money by selling arms to the government to fight the war on drugs. It's the point that everyone misses in this argument.
The drug legalization debate has been going on for years. Most of the points have been covered above, but everyone seems to forget the fact that large corporations are making a mint off of the war on drugs.
And not to seem negative, but in the US today, big corporate dollars control the government. Those companies pay huge amounts of money into campaigns. Those legislators aren't going to legalize drugs as long as this war keeps them in office.
Ah... yea... And we do. We've paid for that military research, and we pay for soldiers to take that research and utilize it to protect us. I'd have to say, that would be access to it.
Blech! Not the old "Variety is the spice of life." thing!
I agree, childeren need social interaction, but they don't need to be subjected to every type of social situation that exists. Why to people assume that we should ship our kids off to be in a large mixed group, when in our adult lives we choose nice small comfortable groups?
I don't get it. I don't buy it. Adults carefully choose the people and places in which they interact, we owe it to our childeren to choose the people and places that they interact with as well.
A stupid statement like Sean's probably would have been ignored ten, even five years ago. For that matter, so would the bullying.
Yea, but it ain't 5 or 10 years ago. The fact is, that kids are snapping and killing each other today. It's not happening everywhere or as much as the media leads you to believe, but one kid dead, is one too many!
I feel for Sean, but we're not getting a full story from this thing. We don't know how long he's been getting bullied. We don't know if he's reported it and been ignored. Did his requests to the school supervisors to stop the bullying go unanswered? If so, did he try to get his parents involved? Did his parents get involved and also get ignored?
There's a helluva lot of information missing. But IMHO, one kid threatening to kill some others, is a problem. It's not fair, but, since it really is happening these days, you have to take it seriously.
He wasn't denied an education or incarcerated, he was asked to move to a different school. (Of course the problem with that is that the school he was asked to move to was probably full of even more bullies!)
It sucks, but he shouldn't have said it IMO. It hits too close to home.
As for the taxpayers paying for quality education, the truth is that we aren't putting enough money into our schools. And parents today feel that since we're paying taxes, that's all we need to do. Schools need more money, but further than that, parents need to be involved daily with their kids education and lives. I'm not saying that it's not true with Seans parents, actually they may be quite involved, but parents as a whole are not. You can't expect underpaid school administrators to have to mop up our messes.
Plus, our schools are just too damned big! They're not community schools. Part of the problem is that if Sean is being bullied by Bad Johnny, Johnny probably lives half way accross town from Sean and Seans parents have no idea who the hell Johnny is or who his parents are. If they did, then the first time that Sean came home saying that he was being pushed around by Johnny, Seans old man could have taken a walk down the streat and discussed the problem with Johnnys old man and got little Johnny a good ass whippin' with an old hickory switch! That community isn't there anymore, so the kids aren't as accountable. And kids need some boundries.
Perhaps if abused students and their parents took a stand and demanded a crackdown on the type of abuse that occurs in
public schools, the backlashes wouldn't happen anymore.
Now I agree here. But that's just the point, parents aren't taking the time. Until a sense of community is returned to this country, it will keep deteriorating. We're all too busy doing our own thing instead of being involved with each other.
But, all of that takes money and time, and we're not willing to part with either.
Suppose in the future I can clone those cookies that you baked and that a friend of mine purchased one of your cookies. Then I can make as many of those as I want. Your cookie ends up being the same as intellectual property.
So then, yes, it was your cookie. And it would be nice if everyone would give you something of value to obtain one of your cookies. But the point is that you do not really have a right to obtain value for those cookies. People can clone them, and knowing that, you have to decide if you want to share any of your cookies, because once you share it, it's out of the bag (so to speak;-) If you don't want anyone to have one of your cookies, then don't give (or sell) any of them. That's the only way to truely keep something yours. If you share it (even if you share it for money) chances are others will to.
It might suck for you (I would agree actually) but the point is, if you let something out to the public, you can't control it. The thing that you do have control over though is the things that you let go in the future. And that is what I think everyone seems to be forgetting.
The public is willing to pay for things that they deem valuable. So if your "cookies" seem valuable, they will find some way to pay you for them. If you first released chocolate chip cookie and only one person bought one, and everyone else cloned it, then you would have no reason to continue to bake cookies. The public then would be depriving itself of new cookies. I don't think they will do that. I think that even if we could clone those cookies, the public would find a way to pay you for your efforts to encourage you to bake new interesting cookies (assuming of course that you actually can bake good cookies).
Copyright is about the public agreeing to give up something to you so that you can afford to continue to come up with new kinds of cookies. It's a deal made between the public and the creator: "We'll agree to limit cloning if you'll keep makeing cookies". But it's not a right guaranteed to the creator. And, the public may change it's mind later and decide that we gave you too good of a deal and that we want to re-negotiate. It's not a method of insuring that you get rich from coming up with one really good type of cookie.
If you really don't want someone to have something, then keep it locked up and don't show it to anyone. If you do have an idea that you want to share, then share it. If the public wants to encourage you to continue to share ideas, they will offer you a deal (Copyright). If you don't like the deal they're offering, don't share your ideas. If the public isn't getting enough new ideas, they'll re-negotiate more to your favor so that the new ideas start flowing again.
It might suck, but that's free trade.
Re:wtf should he need to be a "big fan" of that Po
on
The Art Of The Matrix
·
· Score: 2
Damn dude, wouldn't "I thought the movie sucked and the book probably does too!" have been sufficient?
It's a book man... About a movie no less...
Maybe a little less caffine...
Slashdot Mirror
Damn! Thank you... and I was beginning to think no one actually knew that half of the population didn't know the word than existed.
How 'bout "Economically-conveyed-yet-valueless-paper book"? ;-)
I just read that page, and I'm pretty sure that's a picture of Betty Crocker. Maybe she invented A/C!
Long Live Betty Crocker!
Not to the slaves that had to walk back and forth in the heat to the water source to wet the fabric!
Oh, so we're not doing that anymore?
Still laughin'
Was it? I think the airplane was invented long before there was a germany. People have been trying to fly since they first saw birds. The Greeks were obviously thinking about it a long time ago (ever here of Icarus?).
I guess it all depends on how you define an airplane. But if you define it as a self propelled flying contraption, well then, you gotta go with the Wrights.
Why is everyone pounding their damn chests over who invented what anyway? Most (if not all) inventions always build on the ideas of others.
Carrier was an engineer for a company that build air handlers. All he did was cool the damn air as it went through the vents. So you could say lots of things about how he didn't invent anything. But yet, there it was, an air conditioner. He thought of a new way to do something.
No since getting your pantties in a wad over who invented what.
Most of us descended from amoeba too so maybe they should get the credit. And I don't think they originated in the UK ;-)
I couldn't agree more ;-)
No, that's not the only people that it's not a win for. There are a lot of big arms manufacturers in this country that are making a lot of money by selling arms to the government to fight the war on drugs. It's the point that everyone misses in this argument.
The drug legalization debate has been going on for years. Most of the points have been covered above, but everyone seems to forget the fact that large corporations are making a mint off of the war on drugs.
And not to seem negative, but in the US today, big corporate dollars control the government. Those companies pay huge amounts of money into campaigns. Those legislators aren't going to legalize drugs as long as this war keeps them in office.
Of course I could be wrong... or paranoid...
Ah... yea... And we do. We've paid for that military research, and we pay for soldiers to take that research and utilize it to protect us. I'd have to say, that would be access to it.
I agree, childeren need social interaction, but they don't need to be subjected to every type of social situation that exists. Why to people assume that we should ship our kids off to be in a large mixed group, when in our adult lives we choose nice small comfortable groups?
I don't get it. I don't buy it. Adults carefully choose the people and places in which they interact, we owe it to our childeren to choose the people and places that they interact with as well.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Yea, but it ain't 5 or 10 years ago. The fact is, that kids are snapping and killing each other today. It's not happening everywhere or as much as the media leads you to believe, but one kid dead, is one too many!
I feel for Sean, but we're not getting a full story from this thing. We don't know how long he's been getting bullied. We don't know if he's reported it and been ignored. Did his requests to the school supervisors to stop the bullying go unanswered? If so, did he try to get his parents involved? Did his parents get involved and also get ignored?
There's a helluva lot of information missing. But IMHO, one kid threatening to kill some others, is a problem. It's not fair, but, since it really is happening these days, you have to take it seriously.
He wasn't denied an education or incarcerated, he was asked to move to a different school. (Of course the problem with that is that the school he was asked to move to was probably full of even more bullies!)
It sucks, but he shouldn't have said it IMO. It hits too close to home.
As for the taxpayers paying for quality education, the truth is that we aren't putting enough money into our schools. And parents today feel that since we're paying taxes, that's all we need to do. Schools need more money, but further than that, parents need to be involved daily with their kids education and lives. I'm not saying that it's not true with Seans parents, actually they may be quite involved, but parents as a whole are not. You can't expect underpaid school administrators to have to mop up our messes.
Plus, our schools are just too damned big! They're not community schools. Part of the problem is that if Sean is being bullied by Bad Johnny, Johnny probably lives half way accross town from Sean and Seans parents have no idea who the hell Johnny is or who his parents are. If they did, then the first time that Sean came home saying that he was being pushed around by Johnny, Seans old man could have taken a walk down the streat and discussed the problem with Johnnys old man and got little Johnny a good ass whippin' with an old hickory switch! That community isn't there anymore, so the kids aren't as accountable. And kids need some boundries.
Perhaps if abused students and their parents took a stand and demanded a crackdown on the type of abuse that occurs in public schools, the backlashes wouldn't happen anymore.
Now I agree here. But that's just the point, parents aren't taking the time. Until a sense of community is returned to this country, it will keep deteriorating. We're all too busy doing our own thing instead of being involved with each other.
But, all of that takes money and time, and we're not willing to part with either.
Then again, maybe it's just me... ;-)
I see your point but...
Suppose in the future I can clone those cookies that you baked and that a friend of mine purchased one of your cookies. Then I can make as many of those as I want. Your cookie ends up being the same as intellectual property.
So then, yes, it was your cookie. And it would be nice if everyone would give you something of value to obtain one of your cookies. But the point is that you do not really have a right to obtain value for those cookies. People can clone them, and knowing that, you have to decide if you want to share any of your cookies, because once you share it, it's out of the bag (so to speak ;-) If you don't want anyone to have one of your cookies, then don't give (or sell) any of them. That's the only way to truely keep something yours. If you share it (even if you share it for money) chances are others will to.
It might suck for you (I would agree actually) but the point is, if you let something out to the public, you can't control it. The thing that you do have control over though is the things that you let go in the future. And that is what I think everyone seems to be forgetting.
The public is willing to pay for things that they deem valuable. So if your "cookies" seem valuable, they will find some way to pay you for them. If you first released chocolate chip cookie and only one person bought one, and everyone else cloned it, then you would have no reason to continue to bake cookies. The public then would be depriving itself of new cookies. I don't think they will do that. I think that even if we could clone those cookies, the public would find a way to pay you for your efforts to encourage you to bake new interesting cookies (assuming of course that you actually can bake good cookies).
Copyright is about the public agreeing to give up something to you so that you can afford to continue to come up with new kinds of cookies. It's a deal made between the public and the creator: "We'll agree to limit cloning if you'll keep makeing cookies". But it's not a right guaranteed to the creator. And, the public may change it's mind later and decide that we gave you too good of a deal and that we want to re-negotiate. It's not a method of insuring that you get rich from coming up with one really good type of cookie.
If you really don't want someone to have something, then keep it locked up and don't show it to anyone. If you do have an idea that you want to share, then share it. If the public wants to encourage you to continue to share ideas, they will offer you a deal (Copyright). If you don't like the deal they're offering, don't share your ideas. If the public isn't getting enough new ideas, they'll re-negotiate more to your favor so that the new ideas start flowing again.
It might suck, but that's free trade.
Damn dude, wouldn't "I thought the movie sucked and the book probably does too!" have been sufficient? It's a book man... About a movie no less... Maybe a little less caffine...