Hmmm!
 

"Ian Iveson" wrote:

Scamming is a commitment you may both regret. Quite apart
from not going to heaven, which is actually far more
important than you seem to have realised, you get a
reputation for being a ****. There's no going back.

Our current lives are important, mine certainly is to me. To postulate that you have
any control over any other life than your own current life is an illusion. And we
have so little control of our lives as it is especially when we put a trust in others
who ocasionally are not up for it. To make the most of our lives we ought to make it
worthwhile and when possible help others achieve the same.
I have not heard any words from anyone who supposedly went on to an afterlife about
how their afterlife turned out, and as I take it there enough historical accounts of
people who have tried to become worthy of some specific type of afterlife I have no
intent to follow suit in such matters unless it pleases me to comply with my friends
and family who for some reason or other require my participation in such attempts,
for example to volunteer some of my time to help other people is seen by someone else
as a way to earn a good afterlife and that is of importance to them, but to me it is
a way to help others in this life and that is important to me.
Point of perception, Ian.

If an idea to solve a problem works for some time and then is replaced by something
better then who is to say you cannot make money and earn a living trying to fullfill
a need?

Wether this cabling scheme really works providing better fidelity is a matter of
logic, experience, education and belief. Some apply all of only one to a situation
while others are more liberal and some do apply whatever needed at each ocasion.

But I think you have made this up. You need to think through
the problem of neat terminations if you want to make more
than the minimum wage.

I do not see a problem with someone providing what the buyers want provided the
service and goods are kept within the constraints of applicable laws, to that end the
principle discussed at the very beginning of this thread is a dated invention for
which there may be someone with a legal right to parts of the manufacturers earnings.

Now to claim this or that is better than something else can ultimately be tested to
death and will be in court if challenged on a patent. Wether it is actually true may
be a point of perceptence which if you really want to challenge it would have to be
argued against using some means of proof other than that you believe otherwise.

-Mikkel