Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Then again, theoretically...
Posted By: PCDestroyer	Date: 4/21/02 6:24 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Then again, theoretically... (Lophan) A good example of this is the chaos theory put forth by Ian Malcolm in the middle of "Jurassic Park" the first movie... The reasons he stated for the park and most of man's technology eventually failing... is a lack of understanding of that technology. No one starts from scratch... and makes a new piece of technology. I mean, even if an idea or technology itself is original... at least the pieces that make it possible are from someone else's work. So... what he basically stated was... that unless you start from the ground up (and even that isn't a guarantee) and built your "new idea"... it would be prone to utter failure in your hands. This being the result of taking someone elses work as a leaping off point to reach your own lofty goal... and skipping a lot of protocol on the way. Why would someone skip such protocol? Because they say "hey, they did it and it worked... ours will work on top of it..." But they don't go through the process to get to this point... and therefore have a lack of understanding of that point. Anyway, to the meat of the subject at hand... nothing is new under the sun... so every idea was some form of someone elses at one point or another in it's journey to becoming someone elses idea entirely. However... most of the time people try to avoid (depending on the market... yo-yos are pretty much yo yos... cuz they are all round with a piece of string) outright copying someone. But people will do it if they can get away with it and use it to make money. If it had been reversed right now... Apple would be a monopoly anyway... and maybe Microsoft or some other company would be kicking around some small GUI that 5% of the world market uses... just so Apple isn't busted as an anti-trust... So it kinda works both ways... but in reality... Apple implemented the idea to the extent that it is today... FIRST... and they deserve really the credit and spotlight... that is what was really stolen. Xerox/PARC never did anything with it to any great effect... If they had... well then we wouldn't be having this argument most likely... PCD

Message Index

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh!	Miguel Chavez	4/17/02 11:19 a.m.
Yeah... Kinda	Mr. Zarquon	4/17/02 11:56 a.m.
Geez... why the negative spin?	ferrex	4/17/02 1:03 p.m.
Because, I am.	Mr. Zarquon	4/17/02 1:10 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	Kanen Faud'r	4/17/02 1:26 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	PCDestroyer	4/17/02 2:32 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	Mark Levin	4/17/02 3:07 p.m.
Carmack...	Miguel Chavez	4/17/02 3:22 p.m.
Re: Carmack...	ferrex	4/17/02 7:08 p.m.
Re: Carmack...	Mr. Zarquon	4/17/02 9:31 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	PCDestroyer	4/17/02 3:45 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	ferrex	4/17/02 7:02 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 9:57 a.m.
Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG	protexts	4/18/02 4:46 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 10:11 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is off	protexts	4/18/02 2:11 p.m.
Make a 1AC!	123456789	4/19/02 11:47 a.m.
Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	kiro69	4/18/02 11:19 a.m.
Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter...	Lophan	4/18/02 12:09 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	protexts	4/18/02 2:30 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:37 p.m.
The place where your whole argument falls down...	Louis Wu	4/18/02 4:54 p.m.
Re: The place where your whole argument falls down	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 5:04 p.m.
Ack.	Louis Wu	4/18/02 5:16 p.m.
Re: Ack.	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 5:45 p.m.
Re: Ack.	protexts	4/18/02 9:34 p.m.
Re: Ack.	kiro69	4/19/02 10:36 a.m.
Re: Ack.	Louis Wu	4/19/02 10:54 a.m.
Re: Ack.	protexts	4/19/02 10:01 p.m.
As I said before, I agree.	123456789	4/19/02 5:36 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	protexts	4/19/02 5:38 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:26 p.m.
awesome reply, pcd *NM*	kiro69	4/18/02 10:43 a.m.
Re: Quick note...	Lophan	4/18/02 12:38 p.m.
Re: Quick note...	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:40 p.m.
Re: Quick note...	Warbow	4/18/02 4:42 p.m.
Re: Quick note...	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:57 p.m.
Re: Let's look at this a little closer...	Lophan	4/19/02 12:24 a.m.
Re: Let's look at this a little closer...	PCDestroyer	4/19/02 10:24 a.m.
Re: Let's look at this a little closer...	vector40	4/19/02 9:03 p.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	Lophan	4/20/02 12:13 a.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	vector40	4/20/02 1:12 a.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	PCDestroyer	4/21/02 6:27 p.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	protexts	4/20/02 5:15 a.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	vector40	4/20/02 4:09 p.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	PCDestroyer	4/21/02 6:24 p.m.
Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 3:24 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	Aida-kun	4/22/02 5:15 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 9:56 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 2:45 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 9:49 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 3:05 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 8:34 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	kiro69	4/23/02 10:35 a.m.
I agree	123456789	4/17/02 3:19 p.m.