Well then legally speaking, writing a contract to eat a child is against the law, thus the contract is void. But giving away code - how can that be illegal? Thus, legally speaking, their are enough differences that your analogy does not hold.
But what makes a contract a contract? Consideration and fairness. If you look up the law, consideration must be existent. A house for a child cannot be called consideration, since the child's interests are not considered. Thus consideration is also a very important point of difference between the analogies. Again, your analogy does not hold.
Interesting question. However, the details differ enough that one has nothing to do with the other. The key factor to consider, is CONSIDERATION and FAIRNESS.
To give out code on the expectation of getting back code comports very well with the concept of fairness. It is thus a good candidate for consideration.
To eat a child for a house does not seem fair, and hence does not seem like a good candidate for consideration on a contract.
There was not much context to go by, but it is wrong because the article claims that out system of economics is ONE, when it is really a MIX of different economic theories, with countries everywhere doing something slightly different.
I don't believe you. All the problems are tangential to the point, which is simply the fact that when one is inebriated, one cannot make the decision not to drive.
If you were a reasonable person, you would understand this, and then agree to have this device installed simply becuase one does not know when one is drunk, and this device allows one to know and enforce the law. Thus cutting down the major source of auto accidents - drunk driving.
Incorrigibles who want to circumvent the device will just have to run the risk of getting caught. That's all.
From the theoretical computer science understanding of code, there is no difference between C and assembly, even if you optimize. The point only I am trying to make is that the process is algorithmic: the compiler runs in finite time and memory and produces assembly or it complains of a syntax error. Or it complains of insufficient memory, then you must find a larger machine with more RAM. But the processes is algorithmic. Building a house is done by human judgement and effort, augmented by machinery, which is not obviously algorithmic, unless you work really hard to explain and reduce ALL decisions to algorithmically clear terms.
I said CAN. That's the whole point. If there exists a one-to-one map, then an pure symbol translation process can perform the compilation. So it is algorithmic.
So you think there's a specification for how many times the piling machine must work, every movement of the truck axles, there's a specification for when it rains and all the vagaries assoicated working with different weather? If the process is algorithmic, why do building schedules run overtime?
It is a qualitatively inaccurate comparison. There can be a one-to-one correspondence between C and machine code. Mapping from C to machine code can be done purely, and reliably by an algorithmic process. Mapping from blueprints to house must be done by human muscle and machinery. It is not algorithmic.
Call it vigilanteism if you want, but when a company can get away with obviously "wrong" activities simply because they haven't broken any existing laws, I for one consider it "justice" that they have a fed-up mob come after them to burn them at the stake.
Basically, he is not calling for the law of the jungle. He is saying that when laws fail, then the mob rules - which is the truth. If anything - this understanding shows WHY we need laws, and also WHY it not good to respect only the law and nothing else.
The USA does not have a "heriditary" head of state. The US president is elected through democratic elections, although there are some who argue that the process is too much vested in special interests, the rich, and is fraught with corruption.
And you can think whatever you want, but the decisions are hardly thoughtful decisions. They are based upon the honing of a skill. For example, English soccer is just the same. And English soccer is full of people who aren't that bright. They aren't stupid dummies, just your average bloke with a good skill.
Re:la times op ed piece from moveon.org
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
There's also no reason the viewers should be obligated to see an ad.
I don't know about you, but I watch the SuperBowl for the ads. I do not watch the NFL game.
So for me, the entertainment value of seeing MoveOn.org's advertising is important. If CBS would play the whitehouse's political advertising, CBS should play MoveOn's ad. Both should pay the money of course.
Call it advertising, exposure, building a name for oneself and the band. Branding, etc. Authors, academics. painters all have to do this if they want to make a living off it anyway, perfectness of the distribution system nonwithstanding. With the internet, this system will be more perfect, more efficient so that's one less barrier to fame. Why should musicians be different?
BS. Ask the average Kazaa downloader why they download music. Because it's there and it's easy! It has nothing to do with some sort of revolutionary movement. It's all about convenience, nothing more.
Yes, it IS about convenience. But just becuase it is convenient, does not make it automatically wrong. It is wrong only in the sense that it is legally wrong. However, morally, one can make very convincing arguments that it is not theft. All the moral posturing comes ONLY from two sources: that it is legally disallowed, and the label of calling THEFT.
In this sense, IT IS A REVOLUTION. The revolution is in the minds of the people who keep equating legally wrong with morally wrong, confused about theft, refusing to see that their minds are tied up in a confused knot.
Grow up and recognize as we who accept the implication of the Turing Machine in all it's glory that it is there is no such barrier to copying. At this level, it is just about the law and who should we give our respect to. The creators and that's all. This conclusion was there all along, it is not a revolution. It is only in the minds of those who refuse to accept this digital reality, and have a lot of relearning to do about the fundaments of property rights.
Free societies are about freedoms. Upon a tautology your argument is based. I'll give you some credit - at least you did not start your argument from a fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget about that already.
But what makes a contract a contract? Consideration and fairness. If you look up the law, consideration must be existent. A house for a child cannot be called consideration, since the child's interests are not considered. Thus consideration is also a very important point of difference between the analogies. Again, your analogy does not hold.
The key factor to consider, is CONSIDERATION and FAIRNESS.
To give out code on the expectation of getting back code comports very well with the concept of fairness. It is thus a good candidate for consideration.
To eat a child for a house does not seem fair, and hence does not seem like a good candidate for consideration on a contract.
MANY, not ONE.
I do know that the road accidents have a signicant proportion which are caused by DUI.
If you were a reasonable person, you would understand this, and then agree to have this device installed simply becuase one does not know when one is drunk, and this device allows one to know and enforce the law. Thus cutting down the major source of auto accidents - drunk driving.
Incorrigibles who want to circumvent the device will just have to run the risk of getting caught.
That's all.
From the theoretical computer science understanding of code, there is no difference between C and assembly, even if you optimize. The point only I am trying to make is that the process is algorithmic: the compiler runs in finite time and memory and produces assembly or it complains of a syntax error. Or it complains of insufficient memory, then you must find a larger machine with more RAM. But the processes is algorithmic. Building a house is done by human judgement and effort, augmented by machinery, which is not obviously algorithmic, unless you work really hard to explain and reduce ALL decisions to algorithmically clear terms.
So you think there's a specification for how many times the piling machine must work, every movement of the truck axles, there's a specification for when it rains and all the vagaries assoicated working with different weather? If the process is algorithmic, why do building schedules run overtime?
It is a qualitatively inaccurate comparison. There can be a one-to-one correspondence between C and machine code. Mapping from C to machine code can be done purely, and reliably by an algorithmic process. Mapping from blueprints to house must be done by human muscle and machinery. It is not algorithmic.
What rubbish. Wrong.
Basically, he is not calling for the law of the jungle. He is saying that when laws fail, then the mob rules - which is the truth. If anything - this understanding shows WHY we need laws, and also WHY it not good to respect only the law and nothing else.
I've examined MOND before, and that's not it. MOND postulates that gravity is modified at weak _accelerations_, independent of distance.
Add to the fund. Then when their stock tanks, buy them out, bankrupt Darl, and do nasty things to them.
A pity that your point, so important were it to be valid, languishes as the rant of an anonymous coward.
Call me silly, but what's so mission-critical about making a movie? Someone gonna die if LOTR could not be made on time?
The USA does not have a "heriditary" head of state.
The US president is elected through democratic elections, although there are some who argue that the process is too much vested in special interests, the rich, and is fraught with corruption.
that an ice-age is imminent?
I am anxiously awaiting for your great insight into Machine Learning.
And you can think whatever you want, but the decisions are hardly thoughtful decisions. They are based upon the honing of a skill. For example, English soccer is just the same. And English soccer is full of people who aren't that bright. They aren't stupid dummies, just your average bloke with a good skill.
I don't know about you, but I watch the SuperBowl for the ads. I do not watch the NFL game.
So for me, the entertainment value of seeing MoveOn.org's advertising is important. If CBS would play the whitehouse's political advertising, CBS should play MoveOn's ad. Both should pay the money of course.
What Linus means is "even if they were correct in their case, their actions are morally wrong".
Call it advertising, exposure, building a name for oneself and the band. Branding, etc. Authors, academics. painters all have to do this if they want to make a living off it anyway, perfectness of the distribution system nonwithstanding. With the internet, this system will be more perfect, more efficient so that's one less barrier to fame. Why should musicians be different?
Yes, it IS about convenience. But just becuase it is convenient, does not make it automatically wrong. It is wrong only in the sense that it is legally wrong. However, morally, one can make very convincing arguments that it is not theft. All the moral posturing comes ONLY from two sources: that it is legally disallowed, and the label of calling THEFT.
In this sense, IT IS A REVOLUTION. The revolution is in the minds of the people who keep equating legally wrong with morally wrong, confused about theft, refusing to see that their minds are tied up in a confused knot.
Grow up and recognize as we who accept the implication of the Turing Machine in all it's glory that it is there is no such barrier to copying. At this level, it is just about the law and who should we give our respect to. The creators and that's all. This conclusion was there all along, it is not a revolution. It is only in the minds of those who refuse to accept this digital reality, and have a lot of relearning to do about the fundaments of property rights.
Back to the Future.
Free societies are about freedoms. Upon a tautology your argument is based. I'll give you some credit - at least you did not start your argument from a fallacy.