You are not clear on cause and effect here. If Xerox didn't expect to get the patents they did, the tech would never have been developed, implemented, and/or marketed. And yes, marketed. Often, that's the most expensive and difficult part.
"Tear shedders" like you are simply nuts wanting a free ride on other's hard work. You probably are a heavy user of P2P networks to illegally copy copyrighted work and live in some pirate haven in Asia. Someday you'll actually have to learn how to create value -- like Xerox and Microsoft did.
To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils the name of a great entrepreneur. But hey, this is slashdot and reality doesn't count. I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
These small companies -- why wouldn't they just patent the results of their efforts? Why exactly do patent laws favor size? I have a small number of patents that I paid for as an individual. They aren't going to make me millions, but submitting and getting a patent doesn't have any size barrier(s).
This is just one example -- it may have points that support or don't support patent law. In total, the laws support tech AND economic development. As much as you want to live in a Star Trek world, we don't. Not every industry pimps itself out cheap like the software world.
I don't doubt that this little known fact is true, but the toxic effects of coal are not concentrated to the degree that they are with nukes -- and that is the point.
You've misunderstood me. I'm not against fissile nukes, I just realize that it is a reasonable position to be against them -- they produce some of the most concentrated toxic waste known to mankind.
You have a different definition of resounding success than I do. While I regret the sacrifices, I think the heros that died would agree with my appraisal rather than yours.
All of our wisdom about what to and to not do in building new vehicles (launch and orbital) owes a great deal to the shuttle and ISS. Quite simply put, an ounce of implementation is worth a ton of might be.
Shuttle is the most reliable way to get people and cargo into and out of LEO. The best thing about the ISS is the lessons it is teaching us on long term LEO ops. The Mir/Salyut(s)/Skylab contributed to this, but ISS is what our engineers are learning on today. You had to do ISS before you could do anything else.
I can't think of a single US space program that hasn't been a resounding success.
Mercury-Apollo: Delivered all goals. Skylab: largest volume to date. ASTP: Delivered all goals. SSP: most reliable heavy lift ever. ISS: Longest continual human presence and still ticking.
Pure crap. Saddam was paying PLO terrorists. That alone was enough justification. Add to that his threats and weapons programs and we have more than enough evidence to justify a policy of preventative (or -emptive) strike.
War crimes?!? Please...you are so out of the mainstream. Bush's policies are key to eliminating the slime on this planet.
I don't know where you live, but I guarantee in the long run it will be a better place because of these policies.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not clear on cause and effect here. If Xerox didn't expect to get the patents they did, the tech would never have been developed, implemented, and/or marketed. And yes, marketed. Often, that's the most expensive and difficult part.
"Tear shedders" like you are simply nuts wanting a free ride on other's hard work. You probably are a heavy user of P2P networks to illegally copy copyrighted work and live in some pirate haven in Asia. Someday you'll actually have to learn how to create value -- like Xerox and Microsoft did.
To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils the name of a great entrepreneur. But hey, this is slashdot and reality doesn't count. I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
It just proves that patents stifle creativity.
How is this a fact much less proof?
Moving past the a.h. attack...
These small companies -- why wouldn't they just patent the results of their efforts? Why exactly do patent laws favor size? I have a small number of patents that I paid for as an individual. They aren't going to make me millions, but submitting and getting a patent doesn't have any size barrier(s).
So seriously, what was your point?
The light bulb, elements of MRI, most major drugs, and do your own research.
This is just one example -- it may have points that support or don't support patent law. In total, the laws support tech AND economic development. As much as you want to live in a Star Trek world, we don't. Not every industry pimps itself out cheap like the software world.
How else can you explain our cars still using the same exact fuel they always have while my 5 year old computer is consider ancient.
Fundamental chemistry?
Such insight...
Companies will not invest in the necessary R&D without some guarantee of exclusivity for some period of time.
But you knew that -- you're just bitter.
You neglect to recognize the fact that the technology would never have been developed without the patent. But that just spoils your rant doesn't it.
Your world view must change regularly. But you probably don't remember it.
I don't doubt that this little known fact is true, but the toxic effects of coal are not concentrated to the degree that they are with nukes -- and that is the point.
You've misunderstood me. I'm not against fissile nukes, I just realize that it is a reasonable position to be against them -- they produce some of the most concentrated toxic waste known to mankind.
Surely there's a better alternative...
Not claiming any morality here at all. Regime change was #1) in the best interest of the US and #2) in the best interest of the region/world.
The fact that the two items correlate is all I need to know about the situation's morality.
You have a different definition of resounding success than I do. While I regret the sacrifices, I think the heros that died would agree with my appraisal rather than yours.
All of our wisdom about what to and to not do in building new vehicles (launch and orbital) owes a great deal to the shuttle and ISS. Quite simply put, an ounce of implementation is worth a ton of might be.
Shuttle is the most reliable way to get people and cargo into and out of LEO. The best thing about the ISS is the lessons it is teaching us on long term LEO ops. The Mir/Salyut(s)/Skylab contributed to this, but ISS is what our engineers are learning on today. You had to do ISS before you could do anything else.
My SUV gets at least 20 mpg.
Maybe they don't like nuclear because of the lethal crap that hangs around for tens of thousands of years... nah, that couldn't be it...
I can't think of a single US space program that hasn't been a resounding success.
Mercury-Apollo: Delivered all goals.
Skylab: largest volume to date.
ASTP: Delivered all goals.
SSP: most reliable heavy lift ever.
ISS: Longest continual human presence and still ticking.
The US has two space programs: one is civilian, one is military. Both are needed.
Yeah, yeah, it's all our fault.
If you believe the US can't afford "hundreds of billions of dollars" you haven't looked at how much we blow on pizza.
Precision munitions provide great leverage.
Excellent ideas -- and I believe plans are in place. Syria is supporting the Iraqi insurgency and Iran is run by a hostage-taking terrorist.
These policies are just what the world needs.
Pure crap. Saddam was paying PLO terrorists. That alone was enough justification. Add to that his threats and weapons programs and we have more than enough evidence to justify a policy of preventative (or -emptive) strike.
War crimes?!? Please...you are so out of the mainstream. Bush's policies are key to eliminating the slime on this planet.
I don't know where you live, but I guarantee in the long run it will be a better place because of these policies.
How was liberating Iraq and eliminating a tyrant an overreaction?
There's really nothing innovative here -- just more code... Nothing that couldn't be done before -- now we can just waste more time faster...
Good point -- he's not.
Every dime well spent.
1. Afghanistan
2. Iraq
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. ?
6. Profit!