Pages: 1 … 7 8 9

 

2008-09-24 17:49:58
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6848|Texas - Bigger than France
Who really cares who created what?

The original point that started this - wtf Ireland, what did you do?

Even though its true, does mean its relevant.




j/k btw...It's not true....Ireland has done a literal economic miracle recently...and I have some authority about this right now because I'm temporarily Irish due to a few beers after work.
2008-09-25 01:18:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Invent and Produce any cars ever and sell them worldwide?  Germany, Britain.
- Those are the only countries to have done that?
No, but America didn't 'invent' the car. Ford just worked out how to mass produce them.
Airplanes?  Germany again, jet engine was invented in Britain.
- Revisionist history much? Germany did not invent the airplane. First sustained heavier-than air flight was by the Wright Brothers, in America.
But they hardly 'invented the airplane'. Even their claim is arguable given they used a catapult launch. There are other claimants too.
They did do the best salesmanship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_h … p_the_pace
The airplane was invented elsewhere - Da Vinci at the latest.
Space?  Russia - first in pretty much everything apart from the moon, the geosynchronous satellite was invented by Arther C Clarke - a Brit.
- Not so much. Reading before making uninformed statements is a good thing...give it a try.
- Nobody "invented" the geosynchronous satellite. Geosynchronous is an orbit, not a widget. You can put anything into geo orbit.
Arther C Clarke invented the geosynchronous communications satellite, which is why no-one else could patent it, although they tried.
GPS?  Based on British and German WW2 rangefinding and location technology and the original Sputnik.
- Only if you don't bother to read its actual history.
You need to read before that, GPS was a technological development, not really an invention.
Internet?  Switzerland.
- Try DARPA. That's a US entity, btw.
Internet is a mixture of things, no-one can really claim to have invented it.
- Advertising something and inventing something are completely different things.
That was my point.
Fuck Israel
2008-09-25 02:45:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Airplanes?  Germany again, jet engine was invented in Britain.
- Revisionist history much? Germany did not invent the airplane. First sustained heavier-than air flight was by the Wright Brothers, in America.
But they hardly 'invented the airplane'. Even their claim is arguable given they used a catapult launch. There are other claimants too.
They did do the best salesmanship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_h … p_the_pace
The airplane was invented elsewhere - Da Vinci at the latest.
Drawings are not an invention. Working vehicle with an associated patent, however...

According to the Smithsonian Institution and Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), the Wrights made the first sustained, controlled, powered heavier-than-air manned flight at Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, four miles (8 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on December 17, 1903
End of story.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Arther C Clarke invented the geosynchronous communications satellite, which is why no-one else could patent it, although they tried.
No. He clearly was the first one to develop the concept of putting a communications satellite in geosynchronous orbit. That is a concept. He didn't invent the satellite(s) that were subsequently put into that orbit. Those are things. You're confusing concepts (ideas) with inventions (things)...similar to your argument about the airplane.

Dilbert_X wrote:

GPS?  Based on British and German WW2 rangefinding and location technology and the original Sputnik.
- Only if you don't bother to read its actual history.
You need to read before that, GPS was a technological development, not really an invention.
GPS involved putting TDOA concepts into equipment on satellites and launching them. Using specific receivers to leverage that. Yes, it was an invention. Using your argument, nothing is an invention, because everything is just "a technological development" at some level.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Internet?  Switzerland.
- Try DARPA. That's a US entity, btw.
Internet is a mixture of things, no-one can really claim to have invented it.
Certainly...yet you claimed that Switzerland did.

Dilbert_X wrote:

- Advertising something and inventing something are completely different things.
That was my point.
No, your point was that Switzerland (CERN, specifically) invented the internet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-25 05:58:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Drawings are not an invention.
Yes they are. If you have a working prototype so much the better, but not required.
You're confusing concepts (ideas) with inventions (things)...similar to your argument about the airplane.
Not really, concepts are inventions and can be patented. Inventions aren't necessarily 'things'. Inventions are usually related to things but a drawing is all that is ever required. Proof that it works or can be made is not needed, only the concept.
He didn't invent the satellite(s) that were subsequently put into that orbit. Those are things.
You're confused between invention and engineering. AC Clarke created the concept of the geosynchronous communications satellite. An engineer would have then engineered one to be made by a technologist.
Taking existing microwave location technology and putting it onto existing satellite technology - might be patentable in the US, probably not elsewhere.
End of story.
The Wrights certainly didn't 'invent the aeroplane' or 'invent the wing', they succeeded in getting one to work where other engineers had failed. The Wrights were engineers/technologists, not inventors. They did not come up with a new concept or technology, they just repackaged technology which was available and made someone elses concept work.
Using your argument, nothing is an invention, because everything is just "a technological development" at some level.
There needs to be an 'inventive step' for there to be an invention. Taking an existing technology and repackaging it or just putting your badge on it isn't necessarily inventive.
Certainly...yet you claimed that Switzerland did.
I was kidding, we all know it was Al Gore.
Fuck Israel
2008-09-25 09:37:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Palin is a distraction. A very effective one by the looks of it.

Recently Obama has taken a proactive approach (as opposed to reactive). The more he does the more appealing he looks. The voters want a plan. The attacks are a dime a dozen. They also open the door to having something come back on you. One example is the bridge to nowhere remarks Biden was tossing at Palin. He's mocked her more than once on that issue. CNN recently called him out. I swear, someone needs to tell Biden to go sit down. He's killing it for Obama.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-09-26 01:47:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Drawings are not an invention.
Yes they are. If you have a working prototype so much the better, but not required.
No, they're not. They're drawings. If you "invent" something that doesn't perform its intended function, the only thing you've "invented" is a paperweight.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

You're confusing concepts (ideas) with inventions (things)...similar to your argument about the airplane.
Not really, concepts are inventions and can be patented. Inventions aren't necessarily 'things'. Inventions are usually related to things but a drawing is all that is ever required. Proof that it works or can be made is not needed, only the concept.
Now you're confusing a patent (which can apply to an idea or a thing) with an invention. You're confusing intellectual property with concrete things. You don't "invent" intellectual property.

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary wrote:

2. That which is invented; an original contrivance or construction; a device

Dilbert_X wrote:

He didn't invent the satellite(s) that were subsequently put into that orbit. Those are things.
You're confused between invention and engineering. AC Clarke created the concept of the geosynchronous communications satellite. An engineer would have then engineered one to be made by a technologist.
Taking existing microwave location technology and putting it onto existing satellite technology - might be patentable in the US, probably not elsewhere.
You said he invented the geosynchronous satellite. He didn't. His idea was inventive, but he didn't invent the geosynchronous communications satellite. The people who built the satellite, put it in geo orbit and proved that it worked did. It's really pretty simple.

And if you buy into the idea that just thinking about it constitutes the invention, then even Clarke didn't do it first.

wiki wrote:

The concept was first proposed by Herman Potočnik in 1928 and popularised by the science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in a paper in Wireless World in 1945. Working prior to the advent of solid-state electronics, Clarke envisioned a trio of large, manned space stations arranged in a triangle around the planet. Modern satellites are numerous, unmanned, and often no larger than an automobile.

Dilbert_X wrote:

End of story.
The Wrights certainly didn't 'invent the aeroplane' or 'invent the wing', they succeeded in getting one to work where other engineers had failed. The Wrights were engineers/technologists, not inventors. They did not come up with a new concept or technology, they just repackaged technology which was available and made someone elses concept work.
Actually, they did come up with new technology regarding changing the airflow over the wing--which, when implemented, led to sustained, controlled heavier than air flight. You really need to read a bit more about that.

wiki wrote:

The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 - January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 - May 30, 1912), were two Americans who are generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on 17 December 1903. In the two years afterward, the brothers developed their flying machine into the first practical fixed-wing aircraft. Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed wing flight possible.
Again, if you invent something that doesn't perform its intended task (like, say...controlled fixed wing flight), then all you have invented is a paperweight. A large, elaborate, winged...paperweight.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

Using your argument, nothing is an invention, because everything is just "a technological development" at some level.
There needs to be an 'inventive step' for there to be an invention. Taking an existing technology and repackaging it or just putting your badge on it isn't necessarily inventive.
Again, if you come up with a concept and you can't make it work, you have invented nothing. If you come up with a concept, test it and prove it works, you have (see definition above). One can be "inventive" without actually inventing anything.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-27 06:01:34
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Now you're confusing a patent (which can apply to an idea or a thing) with an invention. You're confusing intellectual property with concrete things. You don't "invent" intellectual property.
You can also 'invent' a process or system, it doesn't need to be a 'thing'
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary wrote:
2. That which is invented; an original contrivance or construction; a device
For some reason your cut and paste missed line 1.
'1. The creation of something in the mind.'
Actually, they did come up with new technology regarding changing the airflow over the wing--which, when implemented, led to sustained, controlled heavier than air flight. You really need to read a bit more about that.
Except it had been done before, the only acheivement was the Wrights were first to patent, not first to conceive. The European patent system is different.
Chanute freely shared his knowledge about aviation with anyone who was interested and expected others to do the same, although he did encourage colleagues to patent their inventions. His open approach led to friction with the Wright brothers, who believed their ideas about aircraft control were unique and refused to share them. Chanute did not believe the Wright flying machine patent, premised on wing-warping, could be enforced and said so publicly.
Its pretty hard to patent something birds have been relying on for millenia, but the US system is pretty slack.
Again, if you invent something that doesn't perform its intended task (like, say...controlled fixed wing flight), then all you have invented is a paperweight. A large, elaborate, winged...paperweight.
None of your definitions say it has to work, the patent system does not require proof of function, only the concept in the form of a drawing.
Something can not work at all, or perform very poorly, it doesn't even need to be manufactured, it can still be an invention.
The people who built the satellite, put it in geo orbit and proved that it worked did. It's really pretty simple.
They invented nothing, they are engineers and technicians, nothing more, unless they created new ideas in the process.
Fuck Israel
2008-09-27 06:25:23
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

lol what did i do
2008-09-27 06:38:24
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6927|London, England

usmarine wrote:

lol what did i do
What did you do?

Why are they yelling at each other about inventions or something?
2008-09-27 06:39:04
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

usmarine wrote:

lol what did i do
What did you do?

Why are they yelling at each other about inventions or something?
no u
2008-09-27 07:33:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Now you're confusing a patent (which can apply to an idea or a thing) with an invention. You're confusing intellectual property with concrete things. You don't "invent" intellectual property.
You can also 'invent' a process or system, it doesn't need to be a 'thing'
Yes...but a process or a system is also a "thing". You're claiming that because people thought of a concept, that they invented something.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary wrote:
2. That which is invented; an original contrivance or construction; a device
For some reason your cut and paste missed line 1.
'1. The creation of something in the mind.'
Because an invention, in the context of usmarine's original post, was the creation of "an original contrivance or construction a device".

Dilbert_X wrote:

Actually, they did come up with new technology regarding changing the airflow over the wing--which, when implemented, led to sustained, controlled heavier than air flight. You really need to read a bit more about that.
Except it had been done before, the only acheivement was the Wrights were first to patent, not first to conceive. The European patent system is different.
Umm...I suppose you missed the part where they are generally credited, by the international community (FAI), to be the first to perfect sustained, controlled, heavier than air flight?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Chanute freely shared his knowledge about aviation with anyone who was interested and expected others to do the same, although he did encourage colleagues to patent their inventions. His open approach led to friction with the Wright brothers, who believed their ideas about aircraft control were unique and refused to share them. Chanute did not believe the Wright flying machine patent, premised on wing-warping, could be enforced and said so publicly.
Its pretty hard to patent something birds have been relying on for millenia, but the US system is pretty slack.
And Chanute was wrong, wasn't he? It's not at all hard to patent something that is a reproduction of a naturally-occurring thing. The Wright Brothers' patent being a case in point.

DIlbert_X wrote:

Again, if you invent something that doesn't perform its intended task (like, say...controlled fixed wing flight), then all you have invented is a paperweight. A large, elaborate, winged...paperweight.
None of your definitions say it has to work, the patent system does not require proof of function, only the concept in the form of a drawing.
Something can not work at all, or perform very poorly, it doesn't even need to be manufactured, it can still be an invention.
And a patent does not equate to invention, either. A working example or clear documentation, with proof via testing, does.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The people who built the satellite, put it in geo orbit and proved that it worked did. It's really pretty simple.
They invented nothing, they are engineers and technicians, nothing more, unless they created new ideas in the process.
Then nobody invented it, because Arthur C. Clarke certainly didn't.

But you can pull that string much farther...to the point that nobody ever invented anything, as they were just engineers and technicians, building on something that someone else, all the way to the dawn of man, built. Your differentiation is nonsensical.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-27 17:00:14
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
https://www.fpsteam.it/img2004/doom/doom1_01.jpg
2008-09-27 17:03:23
SamTheMan:D
Banned
+856|6280|England

God Save the Queen wrote:

http://www.fpsteam.it/img2004/doom/doom1_01.jpg
hows the microwave?
2008-09-27 17:07:16
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
not till week after next.

I just got back from a camping trip.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-09-27 17:09:37)

2008-09-27 17:09:47
SamTheMan:D
Banned
+856|6280|England

cool

how was it?
2008-09-27 17:16:25
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6649|tropical regions of london
tequila.
2008-09-27 17:18:51
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6843|Long Island, New York
This scares the shit out of me. Honest to God.

2008-09-27 17:33:31
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Poseidon wrote:

This scares the shit out of me. Honest to God.

You scare awful easy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-28 03:14:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Because an invention, in the context of usmarine's original post, was the creation of "an original contrivance or construction a device".
Now you're just trying to avoid admitting you're wrong.
I'm not so interested in USM's definition of anything. Even when he's sober he doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I have no idea what you're on about.
And a patent does not equate to invention, either. A working example or clear documentation, with proof via testing, does.
Yawn, according to the source you cited yourself an invention need only be an idea, it can also be an artefact, either is fine.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary wrote:
1. The creation of something in the mind.
2. That which is invented; an original contrivance or construction; a device.
It doesn't say it has to be physically created.
The general definition of an invention is an idea -with some supporting explanation, you're saying it can only be a real object, you're wrong.
A patent by definition proves you have a novel invention, as opposed to something someone else already thought of.

Your precious Websters
Patent 2: of, relating to, or concerned with the granting of patents especially for inventions
So you see, patents cover inventions, patents do not require a working artefact, only a description preferably with a drawing.

Are we done now?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-09-28 03:41:24)

Fuck Israel
2008-09-28 10:10:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because an invention, in the context of usmarine's original post, was the creation of "an original contrivance or construction a device".
Now you're just trying to avoid admitting you're wrong.
I'm not so interested in USM's definition of anything. Even when he's sober he doesn't make sense.
I said context, not definition. He didn't offer a definition. But don't bother yourself with context or facts of the thread...wouldn't want you to start now.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyway, I have no idea what you're on about.
And a patent does not equate to invention, either. A working example or clear documentation, with proof via testing, does.
Yawn, according to the source you cited yourself an invention need only be an idea, it can also be an artefact, either is fine.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary wrote:
1. The creation of something in the mind.
2. That which is invented; an original contrivance or construction; a device.
It doesn't say it has to be physically created.
The general definition of an invention is an idea -with some supporting explanation, you're saying it can only be a real object, you're wrong.
A patent by definition proves you have a novel invention, as opposed to something someone else already thought of.
I didn't say it MUST be a concrete item. If it is an idea or a notion, it must be backed up with test data to show that it works. I said that repeatedly. Your example of Arthur C. Clarke saying geosynchronous orbit would be a good place for a comm satellite is akin to someone saying "the sky would be an interesting place in which to travel"...which is a far cry from that person inventing the airplane.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Your precious Websters
Patent 2: of, relating to, or concerned with the granting of patents especially for inventions
So you see, patents cover inventions, patents do not require a working artefact, only a description preferably with a drawing.

Are we done now?
Yeah, we're done. If you can't read your own citations, I'm not going to do it for you.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-28 11:55:43
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6798|Connecticut
This thread is stupid.
Malloy must go
2008-09-28 12:03:30
SealXo
Member
+309|6841

deeznutz1245 wrote:

This thread is stupid.
2008-09-30 00:58:32
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
I didn't say it MUST be a concrete item. If it is an idea or a notion, it must be backed up with test data to show that it works.
You're wrong.
You're so fixated on your made up, constantly changing and erroneous definitions there is no point arguing further.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard