(48 photos in total. Scroll down to see more.)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Vernon Wright <vern4wright at yahoo.com>wrote:
I had an invite to his presentation down at Stanford.
But I had meetings that day that I just couldn't off :<
So I missed the historic event.
Though I use mice and realize the value of them, I still don't like vermin!
On your topic, yes, "discovery" v. "invention" annoys me. Even worse
is
"invention" v. "idea"; so many people think that having an idea is
the same
as creating an invention. If I had a patent for every idea that I never went
so far as to "invent", I'd have bought an Iowa class battleship, an SR-71,
and the Library of Congress.
OTOH, reporters are not well-known for using words precisely.
Vern
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
From: Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Engelbart's mouse / 40th anniversary
To: "cctalk at classiccmp.org" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 5:37 PM
There was a blurb just now on the radio (CBC) about
Engelbart's development of
the mouse, including an audio recording of his presentation
of it at a
conference in 1968.
That was nice, but weird/annnoying is that the reporter
referred to it as a
"discovery". Is it not possible to invent
anything anymore? Is everything, and
everything that will ever be in the future, an
already-existing concept waiting
out there in some alternative universe of the imagination,
just waiting to be
"discovered" by the mind of somebody?
Or did I miss a debate about the semiotics of
"discovery" vs. "invention" in
the public discourse somewhere along the way?
It's nice to be humble about achievements and
acknowledge that developments are
built upon other developments and don't occur in
isolation but isn't this
taking it a bit far?
--
Marcin Wichary
Sr. user experience designer, Google
Graphical User Interface gallery >>