It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
www.ipo.gov.uk...
Crucial to the success of a patent is that the product or process claimed by the patent is inventive and the invention is not part of the 'prior art'.
This means that the invention must not have been made available to the public before the priority date. For most countries in the world, this is the date on which the patent was originally filed at the applicable patent office. www.eurekamagazine.co.uk...
Iamschist Populations, of any species tend to balance themselves. It seems any particular one that over grows will be almost wiped out by disease, usually. Humans are not different or special.
Why is that? Without an explanation this sounds like a desperate ideological assertion, to justify a political philosophy…
colin42 As important a science is I believe it does not have the answer to over population and all the related issues that come from that.
Two things…
The cause is greed. If the 1% relented in trying to own everything leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps the world would be completely different.
That’s true. They also consume dozens of times more resources than malnourished people, living in mud huts made of sticks. Here only science e.g. through better recycling technology that can actually turn trash into money, has the answer. www.youtube.com...
Educated people with good health care, housing do not have big families.
That’s not true. America didn’t fight e.g. Saddam because the American people were short of living standards in 2003, but because the propaganda masters lied to them about him…
People that have a future do not fight wars in an attempt to get one because they have too much to lose and won’t fight wars for the greed and power of a few.
How many pages of examples do you want? GM foods peddled as the answer to world hunger. I don’t see any effect so far. Computers pretty useless in a country where the majority of its country cannot read and do not have electricity. High speed trains have little impact on communities whose main form of travel is ox and cart.
Why is that? Without an explanation this sounds like a desperate ideological assertion, to justify a political philosophy…
You are correct. That is why I put education as the number one essential.
1. You have more hope of squeezing water out of stone, than expecting human nature to change.
Really? Then the oil spill in the gulf due to risk taking of a few for profit is not an example? The deaths of thousands in Bopal (8000 in three days) and still kills today 30 years later with the plant still polluting. Science has not helped here has it.
2. I’m not sure how much as a percentage of world pollution the 1% cause, but I doubt it’s much more than say 10% of the population. In other words the difference to be had is limited.
The malnourished burn wood to cook and for warmth, destroying their environment because they have no choice and cannot get an education to give them a choice
That’s true. They also consume dozens of times more resources than malnourished people, living in mud huts made of sticks.
I said science is important. Science will help us turn things around but it is not the solution, it is part of the solution and you need an education to put it to use
Here only science e.g. through better recycling technology that can actually turn trash into money, has the answer. www.youtube.com...
And you think a war engineered to get control of resources for a few helps your stance how?
That’s not true. America didn’t fight e.g. Saddam because the American people were short of living standards in 2003, but because the propaganda masters lied to them about him…
Well that’s just lying-marketing. People have always lied to promote their products-services.
colin42 How many pages of examples do you want? GM foods peddled as the answer to world hunger. I don’t see any effect so far.
But the computer still works the same way as it would here, and actually has even more demand over there, it’s just they need to focus on other areas of science Britain did in the 50’s, like getting a National Electricity Grid first.
Computers pretty useless in a country where the majority of its country cannot read and do not have electricity.
Pretty much everything in this world does both good and bad and science is no exception. However without science most of the world’s population would never have been born. Would that have been progress?
Really? Then the oil spill in the gulf due to risk taking of a few for profit is not an example? The deaths of thousands in Bopal (8000 in three days) and still kills today 30 years later with the plant still polluting. Science has not helped here has it.
As said we have 1% in whatever human society, be them tribal, capitalist or communist. All these 1%’s tend to consist of (mostly) ruthless and immoral people, and in this way have proven to be a stubbornly permanent feature of the human society –undoubtedly predating writing.
The third world is kept as the third world to protect cheap resources and high profits. Are you telling me that the 1% is not directly to blame?
Nearly everywhere that is poor lacks a Western culture. I.e. that tend to be countries that believe woman should not work, homosexuals should be killed, tribal-religious feuds should be sustained, religion must be compulsory, conversion should be met with the death penalty, bribery-gifts to tribal elders is a way of life.
The malnourished burn wood to cook and for warmth, destroying their environment because they have no choice and cannot get an education to give them a choice
Well good luck educating them.
I said science is important. Science will help us turn things around but it is not the solution, it is part of the solution and you need an education to put it to use
Because I don’t moan about ideology or morality. I make a much more powerful argument, by arguing what I believe to the case which is the wars in Iraq-Afghanistan were a mistake both for the 1% and the man on the street.
And you think a war engineered to get control of resources for a few helps your stance how?
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. www.reuters.com...
Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.