Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Cameron MacKinnon <cmackin+nn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:05:44 -0500
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:I think it may be useful to think of an invention as more of a
discovery if it is necessary or very much better suited than any
alternative to the task at hand.
Although I understand what you're saying, and the distinction you're trying to draw, I disagree. Just because an invention becomes indispensable does not mean that its creation was inevitable, or that, absent the inventor, mankind may not have had to wait a long time for the device to be invented by someone else.
In our current era of intellectual property, the distinction is vital. I believe that inventors of non-obvious[1] devices should be rewarded with patents, that discoverers of extant phenomena should be fêted but not granted patents, and that patent offices should better mind the distinction.
I think that since we have on line dictionnaries, there's no excuse not to read it more, and constat that to invent is synonym of to discover and to discover is synonym of to invent.
You can use these terms interchangeably.
This is complete balderdash. Columbus did not invent America, and Watson, Crick and whatshername did not invent DNA. James Watt and his contemporaries did not discover (dis-cover = uncover = reveal that which was already present) the steam engine.
Words have shades of meaning, and very few pairs of words mean exactly the same thing. The best that can be said of 'invent' and 'discover' is that a writer can (usually) mix them up and the reader will still understand what was meant. The best that can be said of many web dictionaries is that they may give someone a vague understanding of a word's meaning.
[1] Non-obvious: Unlike, say, Amazon's famous patent on one-click ordering. If everyone in the field says "well, duh" upon hearing about a supposed breakthrough, the non-obviousness of the invention ought to be called into question.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Harald Hanche-Olsen
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: David Golden
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- References:
- Lisp is Sin
- From: Adam Connor
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Majorinc , Kazimir
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Sam Steingold
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: David Trudgett
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Bruce Hoult
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: David Trudgett
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: David Trudgett
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Eli Gottlieb
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Kenny Tilton
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Eli Gottlieb
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Nathan Baum
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Eli Gottlieb
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: vedm
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Eli Gottlieb
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Bill Atkins
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Harald Hanche-Olsen
- Re: Lisp is Sin
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Lisp is Sin
- Prev by Date: Re: Quick (hopefully) help with format
- Next by Date: Re: Quick (hopefully) help with format
- Previous by thread: Re: Lisp is Sin
- Next by thread: Re: Lisp is Sin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|