Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge - Linux ; On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:13:17 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that >> Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him. > > I suspect that NO ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

  1. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:13:17 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    >> No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that
    >> Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him.

    >
    > I suspect that NO ONE participating in this discussion is qualified
    > to make such a judgement. I also suspect that Einstein would have been
    > the first person to minimize his own role in his discovery and would be
    > quick to give/share credit those that came before him.


    Actually, you give Al a lot more credit than he deserves. Current research
    indicates that his wife at the time was likely a co-author of the theory of
    general relativity, but he did not give her any credit.

  2. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 04:54:30 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:13:17 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >>> No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that
    >>> Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him.

    >>
    >> I suspect that NO ONE participating in this discussion is qualified
    >> to make such a judgement. I also suspect that Einstein would have been
    >> the first person to minimize his own role in his discovery and would be
    >> quick to give/share credit those that came before him.

    >
    > Actually, you give Al a lot more credit than he deserves. Current research
    > indicates that his wife at the time was likely a co-author of the theory of
    > general relativity, but he did not give her any credit.


    Behind every great man is a woman.....

    Or the Schestowitz version:

    "Never leave your buddies behind"
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On 2008-07-06, Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that JEDIDIAH spake thusly:
    >> On 2008-07-04, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>> In article <94o1k5-p9s.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    >>>>>> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human
    >>>>>> knowledge would never grow. Einstein didn't actually come up
    >>>>>> with anything new, just rehashed everyone before him.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you're claiming that Einstein drew his conclusions without any
    >>>> prior knowledge of maths and physics, and that E=mc2 just popped
    >>>> into his head from nowhere, based on no established principles
    >>>> whatsoever?
    >>>
    >>> No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that
    >>> Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him.

    >
    > It's not /me/ who's making any claims about Einstein, that's Fuddie.
    > I'm merely refuting those claims. Choosing to apply the disparaging term
    > ("rehash") to my conclusion is just hyperbole.
    >
    > Invention is the process of applying what we know to what we observe in
    > order to create something unique, but the components of that invention
    > are not new - it is merely a new implementation of established axioms.


    The real question is do you want to stiffle the creative process
    by erecting fences around ideas that may be nothing more than a reflection
    of the emergent properties of the knowledge that makes up the state of
    the art.

    [deletia]

    Ownership of invention exists to foster more invention,
    not create petty fiefdoms.


    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  4. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On 2008-07-06, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article , Homer
    > wrote:
    >> Such "rights" only currently exist in /law/ because a system that worked
    >> perfect well /before/ the existence of these unethical laws became
    >> /corrupted/ by greedy monopolisers. These "rights" exist purely for
    >> reasons of unethical business considerations (racketeering), not for any
    >> academic purpose, and certainly not for the benefit of society or even
    >> capitalism. Monopolies are entirely antithetical to the principles of
    >> the Free Market Economy.

    >
    > Nonsense. Have you every actually read any of the academic literature
    > on economics and/or law? Most economists and legal theorists have
    > concluded that patents do benefit society.
    >
    > That's because they don't ignore what you keep ignoring: if innovators
    > can't recoup R&D costs, they aren't going to invest in innovating. If


    ....that depends on the inventor.

    Do they need to scratch an itch or are they trying to make a buck?

    > it costs a billion dollars to develop, say, a new drug, but as soon as
    > it is released anyone can reverse engineer it and start manufacturing it


    Big Pharma is about the WORST example of subsidized invention you could
    possibly come up with. Cash cows and destructive maintenance drugs are
    fixated to the detriment of working on ideas that will permanently improve
    health.

    > cheaply, how will the company that spent the billion get that back?


    We really could do without the 5 lifestyle maintenance drugs that
    set you up for a cycle of interdependence and side effects.


    >
    > Here's what appears to be a good introduction to how economists look at
    > patents and copyrights:
    >
    >
    >



    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  5. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Snit wrote:

    < snip >

    > Do they think someone has a right to download a copy of a competitors web
    > site, replace the name of the competitor with theirs, and then publish the
    > site?
    >
    > How about with a book? If I write the next Great American (World?) Novel
    > do you think others have the right to put their name on an exact copy and
    > sell it?
    >
    > If not, well, based on what was written why not?
    >
    >


    Leave it to Snot Glasser to show his complete lack of understanding about
    copyright.
    But then, why should he understand that, as he is clearly unable to
    understand other simple concepts
    --
    I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
    slightly used clues.


  6. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    48730bbe$0$6555$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 7/7/08 11:39 PM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> Do they think someone has a right to download a copy of a competitors web
    >> site, replace the name of the competitor with theirs, and then publish the
    >> site?
    >>
    >> How about with a book? If I write the next Great American (World?) Novel
    >> do you think others have the right to put their name on an exact copy and
    >> sell it?
    >>
    >> If not, well, based on what was written why not?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Leave it to Snot Glxsser to show his complete lack of understanding about
    > copyright.


    So answer the questions.

    Oh.

    You can't.

    > But then, why should he understand that, as he is clearly unable to
    > understand other simple concepts


    Clearly you are not able to answer my questions.

    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman


  7. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    "Homer" stated in post ukhbk5-ceo.ln1@sky.matrix on
    7/8/08 12:30 AM:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
    >> Snit wrote:

    >
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>> Do they think someone has a right to download a copy of a
    >>> competitors web site, replace the name of the competitor with
    >>> theirs, and then publish the site?
    >>>
    >>> How about with a book? If I write the next Great American (World?)
    >>> Novel do you think others have the right to put their name on an
    >>> exact copy and sell it?
    >>>
    >>> If not, well, based on what was written why not?

    >>
    >> Leave it to Snot Glxsser to show his complete lack of understanding
    >> about copyright.
    >> But then, why should he understand that, as he is clearly unable to
    >> understand other simple concepts

    >
    > He also apparently believes that /distribution/ precludes /attribution/,
    > for some reason.


    Ah, and now you get to speak for me. LOL!

    > How someone with such poor comprehension can purport to be qualified to
    > /teach/ others, is quite incredible.


    Poor Homer... he cannot answer the questions so he makes up claims and
    attributes them to me (by implication) and then spews insults.

    Let me know when you have something of value to say.


    --
    When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
    to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
    beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller


  8. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 4873167d$0$27438$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 7/8/08 12:25 AM:
    >


    Leave it to the totally dishonest twit Snot Michael Glasser to demand an
    action and then stating that "one can't" at the same time

    < snip Michal Glasser gob****e >

    >
    > And you shall keep running. Yes, Peter - you are *that* predictable.
    >


    ANd you shall keep on snipping dishonestly, as you always do, Michal
    Glasser. Yes, Michael Glasser - you are *that* predictable.
    Here, let me help you regain what you found so embarrassing:

    ------------------------------
    Clearly, you must be clearvoyant to be able to do that.
    As in reality you are just a rather stupid "business man" who lets his wife
    do all the work to be able to troll usenet 24/7, you are unable to state
    what someone can or can't do. You utilize that tactic only as one of your
    incredibly dishonest trolling techniques
    Even several posts later at best one could state that someone does not
    answer. If he is unable to or simply unwilling to answer a twit like you,
    Glasser, is still undecided even then

    >> But then, why should he understand that, as he is clearly unable to
    >> understand other simple concepts

    >
    > Clearly you are not able to answer my questions.
    >


    Clearly you are unable to coherently ask

    And what you have put as a "question" is simply the statement that you know
    nothing at all about copyright. Well, thats not surprising, as you know so
    extremely little about everything
    ------------------------------

    Have you already found out that nobody is *willing* to answer your
    troll****e, Snot/Snit/Michael Glasser?
    Since when have you been put into a position to *demand* an answer and when
    getting none, to declare that people are "unable to answer"?

    Trolls and dishonest "business men" like you simply deserve no answer. It is
    that simple. Obviously not yet simple enough for you to understand, though
    --
    Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
    of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?


  9. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    487320c3$0$27446$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 7/8/08 1:09 AM:

    > snip


    And that is the best you can do... you *surely* cannot answer the questions
    I asked:

    Do they think someone has a right to download a copy of a
    competitors web site, replace the name of the competitor with
    theirs, and then publish the site?

    How about with a book? If I write the next Great American
    (World?) Novel do you think others have the right to put
    their name on an exact copy and sell it?

    If not, well, based on what was written why not?

    As I said:

    And you shall keep running. Yes, Peter - you are
    *that* predictable.

    And you were... you spewed all sorts of BS and *again* tied your BS to my
    personal info, something your current Usenet provider shall be made aware
    of.

    We both know your old Usenet host booted you for doing that type BS... maybe
    your current one will, too.

    --
    I know how a jam jar feels...
    .... full of jam!


  10. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    In article <48730bbe$0$6555$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>,
    Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    > Leave it to Snot Glasser to show his complete lack of understanding about
    > copyright.
    > But then, why should he understand that, as he is clearly unable to
    > understand other simple concepts


    Leave it to Peter to fail to note that [H]omer wishes to abolish
    copyright. BTW Peter, when are you going to comment on OO not being
    able to get the right answer on that multiplication problem you posted a
    few days ago?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  11. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Mike, ye cheese-filled stubborn spirit, dishonest varlet, we cannot
    misuse thee enough, ye fretted:

    > You're such an obvious waste of skin...


    Wrote the ****tard who quoted 8kb of text only to reply with a cliché.

    --
    alt.usenet.kooks
    "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
    Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

    Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
    Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
    Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
    Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

    Member of:
    Usenet Ruiner List
    Top Assholes on the Net List
    Most hated usenetizens of all time List
    Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

    Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E

    Join me for dinner. I'm cooking moldering guinea pig infection and
    komodo dragon innards vinaigrette accompanied with half-cooked spider
    infection and polluted wart with unwholesome catfish kidney stones,
    dished up in a splashing mug overflowing with specialised morsels of
    cucumber and acorn in fruit juice, a side of toadfish mammary gland and
    a shot glass of whale milk.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2