Any invention that requires a large amount of upfront investment simply wouldn't happen if there wasn't some way to prevent competitors leeching off your R&D effort. This is so different from a new pizza topping that "order of magnitude" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Maybe, but most of the patents we see filed these days are comparable in their complexity to the new pizza topping. I could start listing them by thousands from Amazon's one click shopping patent to these, but I'm not going waste my time on it. What I'm saying, is that there a are some huge flaws in the patent system that unless they get fixed, they make the whole idea of patents stink.
Again, the difference is, you are not creating you are reselling.
But with slight modifications the restaurant analogy works, because they have a product. So should a receipe for a pizza be allowed to be patented? What would a pizza cost if the restaurant needed to pay royalties to the inventor? What if the inventor decided that his pizza receipts would only be allowed to be used in a certain chain of restaurants? Would that benefit the society? Which is what the patents are supposed to do: promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
I'm personally not totally opposing the idea of patents. But I'm critical towards them. They might be useful to the society in some rare cases, but definitely not in the software business.
Square-Enix is going to drop the PS3 platform altogether and go 360.
That's just going from bad to worse. Microsoft is no better in this matter. Both Sony and Microsoft have their history of playing ugly. People buying either PS3's or 360's are supporting this sleazy corporate culture.
It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras).
I support you in this fight, but when the PS3 comes out, the battle is most probably lost. Masses don't care about their digital rights, as long as they get their daily shots of soap operas and Final Fantasies. You and I know what's going on, but in the grand scale the corporate brainwashing works.
How to fight an enemy this big? Some form of consumer guerrilla tactics are needed. Tell all your friends what's going on. Most people won't care. But at least that's a start.
If you want to prove the non-existance of God, you need to figure out things like, the origin of matter and the setup for the big bang and you need to do it in a scientific way.
By the same logic: if you want to prove the existence of god, you need to figure out things like the origin of god and the setup for the creation of god.
Whatever existed - if anything even existed - before the Big Bang, it's most probably something our brains can never comprehend. Time and spatial dimensions were completely different, if such things even existed.
If you really want to think something before the Big Bang, you should also also ask was there something before the thing that was before the Big Bang and again something before that, and so on. Saying just that the god was the only thing that ever existed before the Big Bang is just as feasible as saying that the Big Bang was the first thing that ever existed, thus Big Bang could be called the god.
So was there a god before god and a god before those gods? If there was a god, why would there be only one, why not a dozen or a billion gods? I could prefer zero or -7 simultaneous gods, just for fun.
If some life form ever manages to live past the death of our universe, that life form could perhaps have some empirical evidence on what existed before our Big Bang. Before that, anything else is just a theory and most of the time a very bad theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Any invention that requires a large amount of upfront investment simply wouldn't happen if there wasn't some way to prevent competitors leeching off your R&D effort. This is so different from a new pizza topping that "order of magnitude" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Maybe, but most of the patents we see filed these days are comparable in their complexity to the new pizza topping. I could start listing them by thousands from Amazon's one click shopping patent to these, but I'm not going waste my time on it. What I'm saying, is that there a are some huge flaws in the patent system that unless they get fixed, they make the whole idea of patents stink.
Again, the difference is, you are not creating you are reselling.
But with slight modifications the restaurant analogy works, because they have a product. So should a receipe for a pizza be allowed to be patented? What would a pizza cost if the restaurant needed to pay royalties to the inventor? What if the inventor decided that his pizza receipts would only be allowed to be used in a certain chain of restaurants? Would that benefit the society? Which is what the patents are supposed to do: promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
I'm personally not totally opposing the idea of patents. But I'm critical towards them. They might be useful to the society in some rare cases, but definitely not in the software business.
Square-Enix is going to drop the PS3 platform altogether and go 360.
That's just going from bad to worse. Microsoft is no better in this matter. Both Sony and Microsoft have their history of playing ugly. People buying either PS3's or 360's are supporting this sleazy corporate culture.
It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras).
I support you in this fight, but when the PS3 comes out, the battle is most probably lost. Masses don't care about their digital rights, as long as they get their daily shots of soap operas and Final Fantasies. You and I know what's going on, but in the grand scale the corporate brainwashing works.
How to fight an enemy this big? Some form of consumer guerrilla tactics are needed. Tell all your friends what's going on. Most people won't care. But at least that's a start.
If you want to prove the non-existance of God, you need to figure out things like, the origin of matter and the setup for the big bang and you need to do it in a scientific way.
By the same logic: if you want to prove the existence of god, you need to figure out things like the origin of god and the setup for the creation of god.
Whatever existed - if anything even existed - before the Big Bang, it's most probably something our brains can never comprehend. Time and spatial dimensions were completely different, if such things even existed.
If you really want to think something before the Big Bang, you should also also ask was there something before the thing that was before the Big Bang and again something before that, and so on. Saying just that the god was the only thing that ever existed before the Big Bang is just as feasible as saying that the Big Bang was the first thing that ever existed, thus Big Bang could be called the god.
So was there a god before god and a god before those gods? If there was a god, why would there be only one, why not a dozen or a billion gods? I could prefer zero or -7 simultaneous gods, just for fun.
If some life form ever manages to live past the death of our universe, that life form could perhaps have some empirical evidence on what existed before our Big Bang. Before that, anything else is just a theory and most of the time a very bad theory.