I would love to teach. There are at least three problems with it, however.
1. The pay. I made more money starting out with a B.S. than my mother makes after 10+ years teaching with a Master's degree. Anyone halfway competent can make more money than a teacher.
2. The students are awful. Except for the advanced math & science courses, 90% of your students don't care about the material, and 95% would rather be elsewhere than in your class. And all the good courses are being taught by the teachers who have been there for 10+ years- starting out as a teacher you'll be stuck teaching the classes that no one else wants to take, such as remedial addition.
3. The bureaucracy is ridiculous. You have minimal control over your own curriculum, you aren't allowed to discipline children, you have no real authority or respect.
Fix any one of those and I would consider it. Fix two and I would be willing to be a teacher. Fix them all and many people would be willing to be one.
Atheist:
I believe that there is no purpose to the Universe, and that it was caused by natural processes, not the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.
Have I described Atheists in religious terms yet? They typically have beliefs concerning the 'cause, nature, and purpose of the universe'. Some Atheists go so far as to believe in a specific cause despite evidence otherwise- there were many scientists who refused to beleive in the Big Bang Theory because their beliefs required an eternal universe. In other words, they had faith. To paraphrase someone's sig: "Atheism is a religion in the same way that criticizing stamp collecters is a hobby". It's the difference between 'I don't believe in gods' and 'I do believe there are no gods'.
But honestly, we are arguing semantics- it's not like it matters whether Atheists count as religious or not. It's like arguing whether Platypi count as Mammals or not. I could go on about how it has fur and gives milk, and you could talk about how they lay eggs and have a beak. We treat Platypi as Mammals because it's simpler that way- we can put all the animals in nice labeled categories. Calling Atheisism a religion lets us do the same thing with people.
I would like to see aggregate data, I do not really care about individuals. Knowing the percentages of people who play different classes, those classes preferred skills (and least preferred ones) is much more interesting than the choices a simple character makes. But then, I don't even play the game, so other people's opinions may vary.
Examiners obviously aren't getting proper information right off the bat.
Increasing applicant liability for prior art doesn't help the little guy- he's too busy to read through existing patents, and can't afford a lawyer to do it for him.
I'm confused about how unfriendlies can help get a known bad patent issued. Does 'too much information' hurt an examiner? Are you referring to patents that are poorly written? Those should just be rejected. If you are referring to other people providing information outside the patent, I fail to see how those can help push a patent through. What are you going to do, gush on about how it's the best thing ever written? It's alot easier to point out prior art than it is to show there is no prior art.
With the more open environment, companies and individuals could more easily game system, loading up examiners with more and more information from friendly or unfriendly parties. "We certainly can't allow having more information come in and harrassing the applicant, and we can't hold up the timing of application processing," Dudas said.
Because when you're trying to get a patent approved, the last thing you need is people pointing out the prior art, or people double checking your 'facts'- those things are harrassment and hold up the timing of application processing!
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, especially a day later, but your post was so delightfully full of hatred and low on logic that I felt like responding.
No one in their right mind would use a desktop PC to operate a warship Good thing they aren't.
Why are they using seven year old technology. Why not upgrade to Vista. For obvious reasons- namely that 2000 is stable in a controlled enviroment, with years of testing done on it, while Vista is questionably stable in any enviroment. You are probably aware of this, why bring it up?
I know that in your own, special world nothing Microsoft does ever works, while all open source, UNIX based solutions work perfectly with no problems. In the real world a combination of solutions seems to be best, and you figure out which of your options provides the best value. (We use a combination of Open Source software, home-brewed software, and commercial software- whatever is cheapest/most reliable for what we want it to do). Note that training people for UNIX based systems takes money, usually more than a Windows liscence does. If the system isn't going to be enough better to justify the extra expense, it's not worth it.
It sounds like a delightful place to work, where other employees are afraid to talk to this guy now because they think their phones are wiretapped, and they would rather hide their problems than fix them. Just as well they never wanted to interview me.
First, many cheap foods are actually rebranded goods from a third company- Every cream cheese (except Philidelphia) that I've bought for years had an identical generic wrapper underneath the outer packaging, regardless of what store brand was on the outside.
Second, many exclusives are higher quality- the Martha Stewart goods in Kmart being a prime example. They are not branded with the store name, however, because people interpret that as being the cheap option. (I.E. if Schnucks wanted to market exclusive high-end cream cheese, they wouldn't call it Schnucks Cream Cheese- they'd call it "Prarie Fresh" Cream cheese or some such).
The point of the article is not that Windows is perfect or reliable- The point of the article is that Windows is amazingly better than the current software running on Navy vessels. A specialized, stripped-down, offline version of Windows 2000 is going to be stable and secure enough, especially compared to what they run now.
Exclusives give me a reason to visit a store that's not based off price and convenience. For instance, if I want a copy of Half-Life 2, I have no reason to visit a nearby GameStop if I can get it cheaper at a nearby Target. If Target is the only one who has it, though, I have to go there- and I will probably end up paying more too, since there is no competition for that title.
While this does shaft the consumer slightly, we only notice because games are normally sold by resellers, not the original manufacturer. (McDonald's, for instance, doesn't allow resellers to sell Big Macs). Lots of things we buy are only availible from one store, while things like grocery stores ususally have a mix of exclusive and non-exclusive items. It looks like Game stores want to emulate the grocery store model.
Wikipedia:
Child molestation is an informal synonym for child sexual abuse, most often used for sex between adults and young children.
Dictionary.com: molestation:
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.
So actually, yes, you did mention rape, because child molestation includes rape, and is used most frequently to describe child rape. Sexual Harrassment usually referes to minor things- no one calls rape sexual harrassment, for instance. When you call someone a child molester, however, you imply they are rapists.
Moral of the story: When people talk about child molesters they are usually talking about rapists. You might have your own 'special' definition, but it's not the one most people are using. So when you say 'child molesters aren't a big deal', 80-95% of people will interpret that as 'child raping isn't a big deal'. Don't blame me for 'misinterpreting you' or claiming that I'm some sort of extremist.
Also, if some kids gets groped by someone in a position of trust the school needs to fire him. If you groped an adult woman at work they'd fire you and you'd probably have a Sexual Harassment suit on your hands. You're right that making a big fuss about it is probably worse for the kid than firing the teacher and then ignoring it, but once the kid complains you can't say that it's normal and he should forget about it. (If the incident is minor enough, the teacher can be given a warning before firing.)
Welcome to the 21st century, where you can't grope the wenches or oppress the blacks without a lawsuit on your hands. If you've been fired and unemployed after groping some kid, I do have a little sympathy for you- you're like the poor guys who stole money from the till, got caught, and now no one will hire them. Oh, wait, those people were idiots who got what they deserved. My bad.
"Your honor, the defendant knowingly put his trojan in the child pornagraphy I was downloading off his server, and then he kept track of all my chat logs with 13-year old boys".
If I was one of the people he hacked, I sure wouldn't be going to the cops about it.
I have some friends who've been raped, is that enough for you? Or do I need to have been molested as a child to realize that it's not fun? I haven't been murdered, either, does that mean that I can't say murder is wrong?
If you've been abused and came out of it fine, good for you. But don't think that makes rape 'okay'. And if you haven't been repeatedly raped by your stepfather, you shouldn't be trolling public forums talking about how Child Molesters aren't a big deal.
You may be confusing Pedophiles (People sexually attracted to children) with Child Molesters (People who sexually abuse children). Rape is a horrible crime, and raping children is considered even worse than raping an adult, in the same way that murdering children is considered worse than murdering adults. There are not actually many worse things- the only crimes worse than rape I can think of offhand are kidnapping and murder. Child porn is horrible because it's people filming their own crimes for other people to see- It's as if I was distributing pictures of bodies I killed on the internet.
Pedophiles, on the other hand, are often harmless, just like how people who fantasize about killing their ex are usually harmless. You just don't want to leave them alone in a room with their ex.
So two huge, bloated monopolies are fighting, and rather than vote for the one who might be in the right, you're voting for the one that used to dump some extra mountains of cash into research? I hope you never serve Jury duty. "Well, he did kill his wife, but he donated several hundred dollars to the EFF, while his wife voted for Bush. Let's give a verdict of 'Not Guilty'."
Yeah- I bet that if Software patents were banned then Microsfot would copy Google's search engine- they would probably give it some stupid name like 'MSN Search' or something.
First, Algorithms are Math. Math should not be patentable.
Second, I've independently invented several algorithms that are not patented or in public domain (as far as I can see- I work in a very specialized field). However, I've also independently invented algorithms that I later found other people invented long before me. I'm much more concered about random idiots suing me for accidentally violating patents I've never heard of than I am about people stealing my ideas. (Stealing my code is protected by copyright).
Third, If MS can take ideas from me and I can take ideas from MS, I benefit more than MS does- they have lots of intelligent people, and I have just me.
Something else you may be missing is that in software, if you have a great algorithm you probably have a program that runs using it. You don't just wake up in the middle of the night with a new Bayesian Filter without writing a program that checks your algorithm to see if it works. And if you have a prototype you can mass-produce it yourself.
Online it's easy to avoid people. If people are harrassing you, block them and ignore them. Flag them as Spam if it's email. If they can't get a response from you they will leave you alone. Worst case scenario you change your email address / screen name. It can be a hassle, but if you play it smart they'll get bored and leave you alone.
That makes it too tempting to give the laptops to people you want monitored- For instance, I could give it to random kids, and then figure out their schedules, where they live, and when they are alone in the house. And that's just scratching the surface- give me some time and I can think of worse abuses you could do with some sort of monitor on the computers.
De-activating the laptops prevents people from stealing and using them, but it also means that if some hostile person has access to your shutdown keys, they can take your laptop but not your data.
I think it all depends on the area in which you live. Almost all my experience with Christians has been positive. Most of my experience with Christians has even been with intelligent, reasonable Christians- because I prefer hanging out with reasonable, intelligent people. However, I am mentioning a specific minority of Christians who have taken the time to truely understand their faith. From surveys I've seen, most self-identifying Christians have a very marginal understanding of their faith. And while statistics can lie, I see no reason to disbelieve these.
P.S. Remember that I am going with self-identifying Christians here. We can all agree that there are plenty of people calling themselves Christians that don't act very Christ-like.
You know, I could replace that statement with "Most people are stupid. The ones who aren't are intellectually dishonest, perfectly willing to believe contradictory statements and lie to themselves and their children." It would be just as true.
The Christians that make the news (as Christians) are usually the ones that are crazy psychotics trying to enforce their own morality on other people- The Jerry Fawells, Jack Thompsons, and Clinic bombers. The Christians who don't make idiotic statements, don't try to legislate morality, understand the history of their faith, are honest about the limitations of their knowledge, and continue being Christians have my respect. Yes, they are the minority of Christians- but intelligent people are in the minority of almost any group. Even on Slashdot they are hard to find.
(I will use WoW as my example- but I don't play it, so I apologize if I get terms or numbers wrong).
I just thought of a great way to solve the problem of gold selling. You have an in-game auction house where you can sell and buy gold for real money, using the credit card you have on the account. Blizzard would probably take a small cut of the money (say 5-10%). However, it would be set up so that the gold you sell will be taken off next month's bill, with the stipulation that you can reduce your bill to 0, but you can't reduce it past 0. People trying to make a profit would have to use another system.
This would pose a huge problem for dedicated gold sellers.
1. Since you can't earn more money than you are paying Blizzard anyway, you can't turn a profit using this system.
2. People trying to turn a profit will need to establish a secondary 'black market'
3. The black market would be less convinient than the legitimate one- you'd have to set up a meeting outside of the game entirely.
4. The black market is less trustworthy than Blizzard's market- your gold isn't guaranteed the way Blizzard's system would be.
5. Since anyone can sell gold easily, the competition in the legit market would be huge.
6. #3 and #4 means that the black market would have to sell gold at a fraction of the price of the legit market to sell gold at all- and #5 means the base price is low.
7. End result: Gold farming for massive profit is impossible. Gold farming for minor profit is really hard. Gold farming for for free WoW time is possible, but only the hardcore will be able to.
I know some people object to gold buying because they believe that it's cheating. These people could be placed on server(s) that don't have the cashgold auction house. Most people's objections to gold farmers, though, is that profit-seeking groups destroy fun by wrecking economies, camping mobs, hogging quest items, etc. Those groups will cease to exist once they can't run a good profit. Everyone wins- people who object to the trade get their own server where there is no selling, and people who want to trade get servers where gold farming groups don't have a motive to disrupt anyone else. Oh, I guess the gold farmer's don't win, but that's sorta the point.
Thanks for posting an obvious comment in support of my argument. Since you seem to be agreeing with me now, does that mean that:
A. The post I replied to first was sarcasm/exagerration, or
B. You're being sarcastic now?
It looks like that was indeed the strategy. According to the AC who posted after you, this chemical is being patented for treating every serious disease known to mankind. And this is without any research verifying those claims. Something seems very wrong here- if you can patent a chemical doing anything without testing it, why not just create a computer program that creates some ridiculously huge number of organic compounds, patent them all, and wait for someone to find one of them that does something?
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to teach. There are at least three problems with it, however.
1. The pay. I made more money starting out with a B.S. than my mother makes after 10+ years teaching with a Master's degree. Anyone halfway competent can make more money than a teacher.
2. The students are awful. Except for the advanced math & science courses, 90% of your students don't care about the material, and 95% would rather be elsewhere than in your class. And all the good courses are being taught by the teachers who have been there for 10+ years- starting out as a teacher you'll be stuck teaching the classes that no one else wants to take, such as remedial addition.
3. The bureaucracy is ridiculous. You have minimal control over your own curriculum, you aren't allowed to discipline children, you have no real authority or respect.
Fix any one of those and I would consider it. Fix two and I would be willing to be a teacher. Fix them all and many people would be willing to be one.
Atheist:
I believe that there is no purpose to the Universe, and that it was caused by natural processes, not the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.
Have I described Atheists in religious terms yet? They typically have beliefs concerning the 'cause, nature, and purpose of the universe'. Some Atheists go so far as to believe in a specific cause despite evidence otherwise- there were many scientists who refused to beleive in the Big Bang Theory because their beliefs required an eternal universe. In other words, they had faith. To paraphrase someone's sig: "Atheism is a religion in the same way that criticizing stamp collecters is a hobby". It's the difference between 'I don't believe in gods' and 'I do believe there are no gods'.
But honestly, we are arguing semantics- it's not like it matters whether Atheists count as religious or not. It's like arguing whether Platypi count as Mammals or not. I could go on about how it has fur and gives milk, and you could talk about how they lay eggs and have a beak. We treat Platypi as Mammals because it's simpler that way- we can put all the animals in nice labeled categories. Calling Atheisism a religion lets us do the same thing with people.
I would like to see aggregate data, I do not really care about individuals. Knowing the percentages of people who play different classes, those classes preferred skills (and least preferred ones) is much more interesting than the choices a simple character makes. But then, I don't even play the game, so other people's opinions may vary.
Examiners obviously aren't getting proper information right off the bat.
Increasing applicant liability for prior art doesn't help the little guy- he's too busy to read through existing patents, and can't afford a lawyer to do it for him.
I'm confused about how unfriendlies can help get a known bad patent issued. Does 'too much information' hurt an examiner? Are you referring to patents that are poorly written? Those should just be rejected. If you are referring to other people providing information outside the patent, I fail to see how those can help push a patent through. What are you going to do, gush on about how it's the best thing ever written? It's alot easier to point out prior art than it is to show there is no prior art.
Because when you're trying to get a patent approved, the last thing you need is people pointing out the prior art, or people double checking your 'facts'- those things are harrassment and hold up the timing of application processing!
No one in their right mind would use a desktop PC to operate a warship Good thing they aren't. Why are they using seven year old technology. Why not upgrade to Vista. For obvious reasons- namely that 2000 is stable in a controlled enviroment, with years of testing done on it, while Vista is questionably stable in any enviroment. You are probably aware of this, why bring it up?
I know that in your own, special world nothing Microsoft does ever works, while all open source, UNIX based solutions work perfectly with no problems. In the real world a combination of solutions seems to be best, and you figure out which of your options provides the best value. (We use a combination of Open Source software, home-brewed software, and commercial software- whatever is cheapest/most reliable for what we want it to do). Note that training people for UNIX based systems takes money, usually more than a Windows liscence does. If the system isn't going to be enough better to justify the extra expense, it's not worth it.
It sounds like a delightful place to work, where other employees are afraid to talk to this guy now because they think their phones are wiretapped, and they would rather hide their problems than fix them. Just as well they never wanted to interview me.
First, many cheap foods are actually rebranded goods from a third company- Every cream cheese (except Philidelphia) that I've bought for years had an identical generic wrapper underneath the outer packaging, regardless of what store brand was on the outside.
Second, many exclusives are higher quality- the Martha Stewart goods in Kmart being a prime example. They are not branded with the store name, however, because people interpret that as being the cheap option. (I.E. if Schnucks wanted to market exclusive high-end cream cheese, they wouldn't call it Schnucks Cream Cheese- they'd call it "Prarie Fresh" Cream cheese or some such).
The point of the article is not that Windows is perfect or reliable- The point of the article is that Windows is amazingly better than the current software running on Navy vessels. A specialized, stripped-down, offline version of Windows 2000 is going to be stable and secure enough, especially compared to what they run now.
Exclusives give me a reason to visit a store that's not based off price and convenience. For instance, if I want a copy of Half-Life 2, I have no reason to visit a nearby GameStop if I can get it cheaper at a nearby Target. If Target is the only one who has it, though, I have to go there- and I will probably end up paying more too, since there is no competition for that title.
While this does shaft the consumer slightly, we only notice because games are normally sold by resellers, not the original manufacturer. (McDonald's, for instance, doesn't allow resellers to sell Big Macs). Lots of things we buy are only availible from one store, while things like grocery stores ususally have a mix of exclusive and non-exclusive items. It looks like Game stores want to emulate the grocery store model.
The article linked to is great, I may have to check out the book.
Wikipedia:
Child molestation is an informal synonym for child sexual abuse, most often used for sex between adults and young children.
Dictionary.com: molestation:
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.
So actually, yes, you did mention rape, because child molestation includes rape, and is used most frequently to describe child rape. Sexual Harrassment usually referes to minor things- no one calls rape sexual harrassment, for instance. When you call someone a child molester, however, you imply they are rapists.
Moral of the story: When people talk about child molesters they are usually talking about rapists. You might have your own 'special' definition, but it's not the one most people are using. So when you say 'child molesters aren't a big deal', 80-95% of people will interpret that as 'child raping isn't a big deal'. Don't blame me for 'misinterpreting you' or claiming that I'm some sort of extremist.
Also, if some kids gets groped by someone in a position of trust the school needs to fire him. If you groped an adult woman at work they'd fire you and you'd probably have a Sexual Harassment suit on your hands. You're right that making a big fuss about it is probably worse for the kid than firing the teacher and then ignoring it, but once the kid complains you can't say that it's normal and he should forget about it. (If the incident is minor enough, the teacher can be given a warning before firing.)
Welcome to the 21st century, where you can't grope the wenches or oppress the blacks without a lawsuit on your hands. If you've been fired and unemployed after groping some kid, I do have a little sympathy for you- you're like the poor guys who stole money from the till, got caught, and now no one will hire them. Oh, wait, those people were idiots who got what they deserved. My bad.
"Your honor, the defendant knowingly put his trojan in the child pornagraphy I was downloading off his server, and then he kept track of all my chat logs with 13-year old boys".
If I was one of the people he hacked, I sure wouldn't be going to the cops about it.
I have some friends who've been raped, is that enough for you? Or do I need to have been molested as a child to realize that it's not fun? I haven't been murdered, either, does that mean that I can't say murder is wrong?
If you've been abused and came out of it fine, good for you. But don't think that makes rape 'okay'. And if you haven't been repeatedly raped by your stepfather, you shouldn't be trolling public forums talking about how Child Molesters aren't a big deal.
You may be confusing Pedophiles (People sexually attracted to children) with Child Molesters (People who sexually abuse children). Rape is a horrible crime, and raping children is considered even worse than raping an adult, in the same way that murdering children is considered worse than murdering adults. There are not actually many worse things- the only crimes worse than rape I can think of offhand are kidnapping and murder. Child porn is horrible because it's people filming their own crimes for other people to see- It's as if I was distributing pictures of bodies I killed on the internet.
Pedophiles, on the other hand, are often harmless, just like how people who fantasize about killing their ex are usually harmless. You just don't want to leave them alone in a room with their ex.
So two huge, bloated monopolies are fighting, and rather than vote for the one who might be in the right, you're voting for the one that used to dump some extra mountains of cash into research? I hope you never serve Jury duty. "Well, he did kill his wife, but he donated several hundred dollars to the EFF, while his wife voted for Bush. Let's give a verdict of 'Not Guilty'."
Yeah- I bet that if Software patents were banned then Microsfot would copy Google's search engine- they would probably give it some stupid name like 'MSN Search' or something.
First, Algorithms are Math. Math should not be patentable.
Second, I've independently invented several algorithms that are not patented or in public domain (as far as I can see- I work in a very specialized field). However, I've also independently invented algorithms that I later found other people invented long before me. I'm much more concered about random idiots suing me for accidentally violating patents I've never heard of than I am about people stealing my ideas. (Stealing my code is protected by copyright).
Third, If MS can take ideas from me and I can take ideas from MS, I benefit more than MS does- they have lots of intelligent people, and I have just me.
Something else you may be missing is that in software, if you have a great algorithm you probably have a program that runs using it. You don't just wake up in the middle of the night with a new Bayesian Filter without writing a program that checks your algorithm to see if it works. And if you have a prototype you can mass-produce it yourself.
Online it's easy to avoid people. If people are harrassing you, block them and ignore them. Flag them as Spam if it's email. If they can't get a response from you they will leave you alone. Worst case scenario you change your email address / screen name. It can be a hassle, but if you play it smart they'll get bored and leave you alone.
That makes it too tempting to give the laptops to people you want monitored- For instance, I could give it to random kids, and then figure out their schedules, where they live, and when they are alone in the house. And that's just scratching the surface- give me some time and I can think of worse abuses you could do with some sort of monitor on the computers.
De-activating the laptops prevents people from stealing and using them, but it also means that if some hostile person has access to your shutdown keys, they can take your laptop but not your data.
I think it all depends on the area in which you live. Almost all my experience with Christians has been positive. Most of my experience with Christians has even been with intelligent, reasonable Christians- because I prefer hanging out with reasonable, intelligent people. However, I am mentioning a specific minority of Christians who have taken the time to truely understand their faith. From surveys I've seen, most self-identifying Christians have a very marginal understanding of their faith. And while statistics can lie, I see no reason to disbelieve these.
P.S. Remember that I am going with self-identifying Christians here. We can all agree that there are plenty of people calling themselves Christians that don't act very Christ-like.
You know, I could replace that statement with "Most people are stupid. The ones who aren't are intellectually dishonest, perfectly willing to believe contradictory statements and lie to themselves and their children." It would be just as true.
The Christians that make the news (as Christians) are usually the ones that are crazy psychotics trying to enforce their own morality on other people- The Jerry Fawells, Jack Thompsons, and Clinic bombers. The Christians who don't make idiotic statements, don't try to legislate morality, understand the history of their faith, are honest about the limitations of their knowledge, and continue being Christians have my respect. Yes, they are the minority of Christians- but intelligent people are in the minority of almost any group. Even on Slashdot they are hard to find.
(I will use WoW as my example- but I don't play it, so I apologize if I get terms or numbers wrong).
I just thought of a great way to solve the problem of gold selling. You have an in-game auction house where you can sell and buy gold for real money, using the credit card you have on the account. Blizzard would probably take a small cut of the money (say 5-10%). However, it would be set up so that the gold you sell will be taken off next month's bill, with the stipulation that you can reduce your bill to 0, but you can't reduce it past 0. People trying to make a profit would have to use another system.
This would pose a huge problem for dedicated gold sellers.
1. Since you can't earn more money than you are paying Blizzard anyway, you can't turn a profit using this system.
2. People trying to turn a profit will need to establish a secondary 'black market'
3. The black market would be less convinient than the legitimate one- you'd have to set up a meeting outside of the game entirely.
4. The black market is less trustworthy than Blizzard's market- your gold isn't guaranteed the way Blizzard's system would be.
5. Since anyone can sell gold easily, the competition in the legit market would be huge.
6. #3 and #4 means that the black market would have to sell gold at a fraction of the price of the legit market to sell gold at all- and #5 means the base price is low.
7. End result: Gold farming for massive profit is impossible. Gold farming for minor profit is really hard. Gold farming for for free WoW time is possible, but only the hardcore will be able to.
I know some people object to gold buying because they believe that it's cheating. These people could be placed on server(s) that don't have the cashgold auction house. Most people's objections to gold farmers, though, is that profit-seeking groups destroy fun by wrecking economies, camping mobs, hogging quest items, etc. Those groups will cease to exist once they can't run a good profit. Everyone wins- people who object to the trade get their own server where there is no selling, and people who want to trade get servers where gold farming groups don't have a motive to disrupt anyone else. Oh, I guess the gold farmer's don't win, but that's sorta the point.
Thanks for posting an obvious comment in support of my argument. Since you seem to be agreeing with me now, does that mean that:
A. The post I replied to first was sarcasm/exagerration, or
B. You're being sarcastic now?
It looks like that was indeed the strategy. According to the AC who posted after you, this chemical is being patented for treating every serious disease known to mankind. And this is without any research verifying those claims. Something seems very wrong here- if you can patent a chemical doing anything without testing it, why not just create a computer program that creates some ridiculously huge number of organic compounds, patent them all, and wait for someone to find one of them that does something?