Re: philosophical question about sharing information

Just to add some historical corrections... the mouse was invented, not at Xerox, but at SRI (by Englebert); and the Apple mouse was properly licensed from SRI. Many ideas for Apple products did come from Xerox PARC, but for which Xerox got some Apple stock in return. My guess is that Xerox probably made a lot more money from that Apple stock than they did by productizing the ideas on their own with Star Office workstations. So giving their ideas to Apple in exchange for a licensing fees and an investment opportunity likely benefited all parties greatly.

IMHO. YMMV.

When it's time, it's time. I had got a track ball working in my lab (I called it a palm ball) before PARC had a mouse. I built it to enable fine positioning in a machine for inspecting and repairing production masks for those new-fangled things called integrated circuits.

Jerry

The patent for Engelbart's mouse was filed in 1964, well before Woz and Jobs were out of high school. At least one small company licensed rights to the mouse patent from SRI, and they were selling mice to both Xerox and Apple. Xerox might not have had that GUI to show Apple if SRI had not shared or freely licensed their patent rights to that mouse.

That is because our argument was not with the Iraqi people.

Even when we were at direct war with the opposing nation, as was the case in WW II, we are NOT the type of nation that takes "the spoils of war" and keeps them. We helped rebuild both Germany and Japan, and I am sure we assisted France and Italy in post war years as well.

We are one "warring nation" that has historically NOT "captured" the "spoils" of a war for ourselves. We seldom have issue with the peoples of a nation. We typically have issues with the leaders of a nation who abuses his people, or behaves in some way that we think (and others, like the UN used to think) are unacceptable.

AND YES... WE ARE THE POLICEMEN OF THE WORLD. One of the many. Of course we are. Otherwise, scimitar wielding fucktards would overrun and murder and pillage territories at will.

We are like the Roman Guards of old, EXCEPT that we are peaceful and only meet justice where it is needed.

A Roman guard could draw his sword and kill a man at will... and did.

We are strong like Rome was, but we do not abuse our power and or our capacity to bring it.

or·di·nance (ôrdn-ns) n.

1. An authoritative command or order.

ord·nance (ôrdnns) n.

1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.

Now go away, I don't like stupid people....

You are stupid about America's role in the world. Then there is that "Piece of Shit" thing that you are. That places you over the top.

Neither do I. Why are you still here?

...Jim Thompson

The term you are looking for is "profit".

Profit can only be made _after_ the rebuilding has been complete and those people want the good of the winning power.

Yes the USA does not abuse is physical power, it will abuse its financial power. Just like England use to do.

donald

I suppose that depends on whether the market for your information is expanding or contracting. If there's enough demand for your skill set, sharing can help the industry and help you develop contacts in the industry. If your field is contracting, then you might be better off keeping as much business to yourself as possible.

I have found that lurking in the various Usenet groups and other online forums and monitoring their activity is a pretty good way to judge the relative health of an industry sector. Those that are active are in healthy lines of businesses. Those that are not, the related industries are contracting.

Interesting. A contractor in a contracting field. I'd avoid that terminology, just to avoid the association. Shrinking field... growth challenged field...... uhhh

RL

More uninvited commentary from the main Nazi troll....

What-sa-matter Bloggsy... running out of epithets ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

If you are in a growth challenged field, your best bet is to keep your head down, not advertise that fact and draw attention to yourself.

In my neighborhood, the local public electric utilities have frozen hiring and are looking to outsource engineering and maintenance. The one private utility did that years ago and now is being sold to a foreign investment fund.

Before all this happened, I used to see their engineering staff at various professional workshops and conferences. They also used to pop up on various newsgroups and online forums. As the local business climate wound down, they all disappeared. They are still on the job (I talk to quite a few of them face to face) but they are too scared to pop up publicly. I guess they figure that if no one sees your name, they won't remember it when the next round of cuts comes around.

On Apr 23, 5:15 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: ...

no we're not! that's a silly thing to say.

i am not free to attack people i don't like with a stick without risk of legal consequence.

i am also not free to light up a joint without risk of legal consequence.

r b-j

like me?

it's not just Catholics. there are the conservative evangelicals that are pretty much anti-abortion.

On Apr 24, 5:55 pm, JeffM wrote: ...

there are those of us on the religious left who are more consistent.

at least you're consistent (and literally "pro-death"). some of us are consistently "pro-life", but, speaking for me, i *really* cannot identify with the religious right movement in the U.S. i think those guys are full of shit for the same reason JeffM does.

back to Jerry:

but that is what happens when we legislate morality. and we do.

we have domestic violence laws on the books, we have child abuse/ neglect laws on the books. what gives society the right to tell parents how to minimally treat their children. hell, with this Morman cult thing in Texas, we are telling these people that their 13 year old girls may not marry (particularly middle-aged guys). and we told the rest of the Mormans that they couldn't have bigamy at all if they wanted Utah to join the Union. that is "an insistance that people conduct *their* private lives according to [other's] principles."

i don't think i identify too much with Michael, but the real issue here is where we, as a society, draw the line between mere fetuses (or is it "fetii") that have no protectable rights and human beings (incl. fetuses older than 25 weeks) where society chooses to protect and deliberately injects their presence and value system in the definition of that protection. that is simply the way it is. it is an inadequate rebuttal to just say "you live by your standards and i'll live by mine". whether it's simple criminal law, domestic law, environmental law, drugs/prostitution/vice, or drinking alcohol out of a brown bag in the street downtown, modern society simply does not go by that philosophy. we create collective standards and some places (like the Republic of Ireland) have different standards than others.

r b-j

...

We've been asked to cut this thread short, and I haven't replied to it since. Since you address me directly, I will respond, but privately.

Jerry

No, IDIOT! You ARE free to attack another person. You RISK prosecution if you break ANY law. There is, however, no law against actually breaking a law.

You're an idiot. Smoking a joint is not illegal. Do you even know what about cannabis is illegal? There are NO laws against consumption. The law regarding cannabis centers around mere possession.

Also, despite being a mis-demeanor in over 40 states, most of those states perform an arrest, when all they should be doing is writing a citation.

I'll bet that your "elixir" of choice kills more people than my "elixir" of choice does.

Do you really know anything about the human condition?

This is Usenet. Any retarded f*ck that attempted to moderate you or a given thread, including this one, can simply f*ck off and die.

Essentially, learn to use your filters, chump(s).